Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, May 28, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

That said, it should be noted that average net square feet per unit comparison between the base project and proposed project is not relevant to the determination of conformance with State Density Bonus Law that the average unit size of the base project is equal to or greater than the average unit size of the proposed project. The net unit size exhibits are strictly to show conformance with the City SRO code SCMC

24.12.1010. Regardless, the base project actually shows a between-unit demising wall thickness of 2 feet, while the proposed project has a wall thickness of 1.5 feet on the net area exhibit. (The applicant has indicated that thicker walls have been contemplated because of the potential for this project to be prefabricated modular construction which requires “double walls”). The base density diagram could show 18- inch walls, which would increase the net square footage of each base unit by 16 to 25 square feet depending on the unit size, easily making the base units larger than the proposed units. In addition, this would have no effect on the FAR for the base project, as the FAR is based on gross square footage, not net. While the above exercise is technically not necessary, it demonstrates why a comparative discrepancy exists between the average net and gross unit sizes in the base and proposed plans, and it shows that the project would conform to the applicable standard, even if net square footages were compared.

26.72 c. Inclusionary Requirements. With a new base density of 33 units, six (20%) of the residential units will be required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing units at the Very Low Income level (50% of the Area Median Income (AMI)). In addition, the applicant intends to convert newly proposed storage spaces into 11 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs, with the project then remaining at 59 units consisting of 48 SROs and 11 ADUs), as discussed below in more detail. Of the 11 ADUs, two will be required to be restricted at the Low Income (LI) level (80% AMI). However, the property owner has volunteered to provide all eight units at the VLI level, consistent with the original proposal heard by the Planning Commission.

2. Storage Spaces to be Converted to ADUs. The floor plans for levels 2 through 5 have been revised to replace three units with storage spaces on each floor. Additionally, the rear setback along the western property line has been reduced from 15 feet to 6 feet,3 inches in the location of the new storage spaces (floors 2-5). Prior to this change, a portion of the building encroached into the setback at this elevation, resulting in a zero setback for approximately 26 feet of the southwestern portion of the building. The proposal would reduce a previously proposed 15-foot setback to 6 feet, 3-inches for approximately 42 feet of the remaining portion of the building. The setback reduction is proposed to be added to the original waiver request for a zero setback, as described above and pursuant to State Density Bonus law, as described in the initial Planning Commission staff report. Cities are generally obligated to grant density bonus waivers, or reductions in development standards, so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers do not result in specific adverse impacts on health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate. Case law has also established that the city is also limited in requiring modifications to the project, as proposed, that would have the effect of reducing project amenities in order to meet development standards. The requested modified waiver can be supported in that compliance with the full 15-foot setback would reduce storage amenity space for future residents, as proposed by the applicant. This modification could also be supported as an incentive/concession in that the reduction in the number of SRO units and their conversion to ADUs results in an identifiable and actual cost reduction to the project in the form of reduced impact fees. To be clear though, the applicant is not proposing them as an incentive/concession but rather through a waiver.

These sections indicate that a local agency is required to ministerially approve these types of conversions with a building permit. Therefore, if the project is approved, at the time of building permit application, the applicants will be proposing to convert the 11 storage

26.73 spaces into 11 ADUs, resulting in a total of 59 units within the development (48 SROs and 11 ADUs). The reasons for this change are explained in the applicant’s letter, attached.

3. Additional Requested Concessions.

As is described in detail in the Planning Commission staff report, the Density Bonus project is requesting three waivers to development standards, including building height, setbacks, and FAR. Following Planning Commission approval, two concessions (also referred to as incentives) are now being requested. Based on the affordability levels the applicants are entitled up to three concessions/incentives. The requested concessions are as follows:
 Future Food Service Use Condition of Approval. The following condition of approval has been a standard condition for commercial projects within the city:

Future Food Service Use. All commercial spaces shall each be constructed to support a future food service use. Plans must include ducting and venting plans for all commercial spaces. All ducting and venting should be designed to be hidden or incorporated into the building design. Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, and grease storage facilities, which shall be located outside of the public right of way.

The purpose of this standard condition has been to allow future flexibility of commercial spaces to accommodate restaurant uses which require special ducting, venting, and grease traps. Having these in place when the building is being constructed avoids issues in the future, when a potential restaurant use may want to move in and either these items cannot be physically incorporated or when they could potentially be accommodated but at significant expense. The applicants are requesting this condition be removed as a concession pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65915(d) and 65915(k)(3), stating that requiring construction of building features that are not necessary for the proposed uses unnecessarily increases costs to the project. This concession would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, is consistent with state law, and thus must be granted.
 Defer Payment of Impact Fees – The applicants are requesting that the City not require the payment of any impact fees until the time of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the development. This concession is requested pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d) and 65915(k)(3). A standard condition of approval for projects in the city is that the impact fees be paid at the time of building permit issuance. As part of this request to defer the payment of the fees, the applicants have stated that the collection of the fees at building permit issuance increases costs to the project because of interest payments on those funds during the course of construction. Therefore, the granting of this concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing costs and thus must be granted.

26.74 4. New Conditions of Approval
Additionally, several additional conditions of approval have been added to the project since the Planning Commission hearing last January. Some were added in response to concerns raised by the adjacent neighborhood and others are voluntary conditions on behalf of the property owner:

67. The amenity/laundry rooms shall include motion-sensor lighting in compliance with the 2022Energy Code. The windows facing the creek shall be equipped with blinds, shades or other window coverings and there shall be signage installed in the amenity/laundry rooms stating that such coverings shall be used during all hours of darkness to limit light trespass to the creek.

68. On the western roof terrace, plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include the use of vegetation, seat walls, or other design elements on the western edge to provide privacy buffering.

69. The curbside loading space within the Laurel Street right-of-way (north end of the driveway) shall be maintained and used for residential and commercial delivery trucks, and rideshare. The owner shall work with delivery services to the greatest extent possible to request loading on Mission for large semi-trucks.

70. As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall pay the remaining balance on the cost of the solar panels of the adjacent property at 1212 Laurel St, not to exceed $10,000. The property owner shall provide evidence of the payment to the City prior to final or temporary occupancy.

71. Fast-food uses, such as a Grab and Go window or food prepared at a deli counter, are not permitted with this permit. The applicant shall obtain approval of an Administrative Use Permit prior to such use, or shall otherwise comply with the code in effect at the time of application.

72. Future building colors shall be consistent with the Mission Street Urban Design Plan, with the exception of the mural.

73. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include the mural as shown on the approved plans, Sheet GP0.07. Significant changes in mural design shall be subject to the following artist selection process:
a. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall work with the City to select a mural artist and design concept for the mural on the Laurel Street elevation as shown on the plans. A panel consisting of one member of the Arts Commission and the Economic Development Director shall work in coordination with the applicant to select the artist and design. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide evidence that a contract has been entered into with the selected artist for the approved design.

26.75 74. Mural shall be complete prior to occupancy, including temporary occupancy.

75. As volunteered by the property owner, plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include an electronic sign and system to display available parking spaces within the garage, if it is technically feasible. Sign shall not be illuminated past close of business.

76. As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall post a cash bond in the amount of $7,500 with the City or Metro, which the City or Metro may use for future bus stop improvements anywhere within the City of Santa Cruz. Any remaining amount of the cash bond not used by City or Metro for bus stop improvements, after 5 years from the date of posting of the bond, shall be returned to Property Owner.

77. An environmental soil management plan must be reviewed and approved by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) prior to any soil excavation or trenching. If contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during the redevelopment, please notify the CCRWQCB for further direction.

Note that Condition No. 77 was added at the request of the County Environmental Health Department following the April 30th City Council meeting and was therefore not included in the agenda report.

See the attached April 30th City Council staff report for: Staff Responses to Appeal Topics; Health in All Policies; CEQA; Applicability of the Housing Accountability Act, SB330, and other state bills; Community Engagement; and a detailed description of the project and compliance with objective standards. The attachments can be accessed at the City Council’s webpage for the April 30th meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission acknowledge that the revisions to the project meet the City and State requirements and recommend that the City Council approve the application based on the findings listed in the Resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.”
ATTACHMENTS:

1. April 30, 2024 City Council Staff Report

2. Resolution

3. Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval

4. Project Plans (Revised post Planning Commission Approval – Rev 6 dated 5-9-24)

5. Workbench Letter Describing Project Plan Revisions dated May 10, 2024

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

PLANNING COMMISSION

ACTION SUMMARY
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2024
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS (809 CENTER STREET, SANTA CRUZ)
Call to Order- Chair Conway called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Roll Call-Commissioners Dann, Gordon, Kennedy, McKelvey, Thompson, Vice-Chair Polhamus and Chair Conway were present.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-Chair Conway opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. The following person(s) spoke: Jill Wynn.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the Minutes of March 7, 2024.

2. Approval of the Minutes of April 18, 2024.

MOTION: Commissioner Dann moved, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, to approve the minutes of March 7, 2024, and April 18, 2024.

ACTION: The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Dann, Gordon, Kennedy, McKelvey, Thompson, Vice Chair Polhamus, and Chair Conway
NOES: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
Consent Public Hearing Agenda

3. 716 Ocean Street Project Number: CP24-0037 Assessor's Parcel Number: 005- 251-11 Special Use Permit and Sign Permit to establish a health club/gym in an existing commercial building located in the MU-VH/FP-O (Mixed Use -

26.77 Visitor High Density/Floodplain Overlay) zone district and within the Ocean Street Area Plan.

MOTION: Commissioner Polhamus moved, seconded by Commissioner Dann to acknowledge the Environmental Determination and approve the Special Use Permit and Sign Permit based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated May 10, 2024.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Dann, Gordon, Kennedy, McKelvey, Thompson, Vice Chair Polhamus, and Chair Conway
NOES: None
DISQUALIFIED: None

4. 2025-2029 Capital Investment Program Consistency with General Plan Polhamus, seconded by Commissioner Dann to make the finding that the 2025- 2029 proposed Capital Investment Program consistent with the 2030 General Plan.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Dann, Gordon, Kennedy, McKelvey, Thompson, Vice Chair Polhamus, and Chair Conway
NOES: None
DISQUALIFIED: None
Information Items

5. 2023 Annual Housing Element and General Plan Progress Reports Informational item only, no action taken.

Public Hearings

6. 1130 and 1132 MISSION ST Project Number: CP23-0103 Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 006-203-24, -25 Review of revised plans submitted following Planning Commission approval on January 18th and subsequent appeal(s) of the development proposal at 1130 Mission Street, as directed by City Council on April 30, 2024, involving a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Adjustment to combine two parcels, Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to construct a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 48 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for density bonus waivers and incentives/concessions as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking. The parcels are both located in the CC/MU-M (Community Commercial/Mixed-Use Medium Density) zone district and the Mission Street Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption 15332, In-Fill Development Projects; Applicant: Elizabeth Bishop, Workbench; Filed: 6/7/2023.

26.78 .

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Dann, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend approval of the 48-unit SRO Density Bonus project, finding that the project meets all City and State requirements, with the following recommended modification and additions to the Conditions of Approval:
 Modify Condition of Approval number 70: As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall pay the remaining balance on the cost of the solar panels $10,000 to the adjacent property at 1212 Laurel St for the cost of the solar panels not to exceed $10,000. The property owner shall provide evidence of the payment to the City prior to final or temporary occupancy.
 A peer review of the biotic report prepared by Biotic Resources Group (dated August 17, 2023) shall be completed by the City’s contract environmental consultant.
 A six-foot tall split-faced concrete block wall shall be constructed along the length of the western property line abutting the adjacent singlefamily home.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Referred to Future Agendas-None.

Adjournment-Chair Conway adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.

26.79 From: Jim Cockrell
To: City Plan
Subject: Appl. CP 23-0103
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:08:00 PM
Dear City Planner,
I’m opposed to the proposed development permit application CP 23-0103 at APN 006-203, 204 and 205 - the Food Bin.

This is at one of the busiest stretches of the already bursting Mission Street. The intersecting Laurel Street already struggles to calm traffic and has existing speed bumps and median curbs, and Laurel is a route to King Street as alternative to busy Mission. King at Mission Middle School and the 5-point intersection is already a bottle neck. The opposite way direction across Mission, Laurel is a busy route to downtown. Any of these three ways from the West Side toward town are often already a stand-still. This proposed development adds 47 families’ cars, and additional commercial traffic to this congested area.

Finally, a 5-story, 3-lot wide development is out of place at the edge of this quiet, charming, very old residential neighborhood. The height will eclipse the cute cottage next door rendering that pretty garden and rooftop solar panels useless even at midsummer.

Have traffic studies quantified the increased traffic from 47 additional vehicles and associated new commercial traffic at this site? How is it proposed to mitigate the increased traffic? Will the property owners to the north be compensated for their loss of sunlight, gardens and solar panels? Please oppose this proposed development.

Jim Cockrell
246 Moore St.
831-246-8872

26.80 From: Sara Bassler
To: City Plan; City Plan
Subject: May 16 Planning Commission Mtg Re 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23-0103 (APN006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission St. Not exempt from parking requirements
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 8:55:48 PM
Attachments: Bus Routes 18 and 19_April 2024.pdf
Bus Routes 40_41_42_April 2024.pdf
Sara Bassler
526 Meder St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
May 14, 2024
City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission via Email
RE: This project is not within one-half mile of qualifying public transit and thus is not exempt from parking requirements: 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23- 0103 (APN 006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission St.

Dear Planning Commission:

I reside within the city of Santa Cruz.

This project does not qualify for a full residential parking exemption because this project is not within a half-mile of public transit as defined by California Government Code section 65863.2.

Government Code section 65863.2 defines public transit: (5) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code which in turn relies on “a major transit stop” as defined in “Public Resource Code Section 21064.3.

As correctly asserted in the Ian and Natasha Guy Appeal and by the Planning Dept, the only possible definition of “major transit stop” which applies to this project is Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c). In reading this

26.81 subsection one must read the code in its entirety: a “’major transit stop’ means a site containing the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (emphasis added)”.

In the planning dept response to the Ian and Natasha Guy Appeal, the planning department argues that:
“Analyzing the transit stops within a half-mile radius of the subject site, it was found that there are four transit stops (1225, 1226, 1624, 1625) with frequency intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, qualifying these stops as Major Transit Stops per the state definition (attached). Therefore, state law prohibits the City from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for the project.” In making this argument, the planning department makes several errors:
regarding code section 65863.2, inserts the term “radius” when this word isn’t in this code section; regarding Code Section 21064.3: substitutes “transit stops” for “bus routes”; drops the word “service” from the phrase “frequency of service interval” and misinterprets this phrase; ignores the requirement that there be two intersecting bus routes “at a site”; ignores the requirement that the bus routes be “major”.

The word “radius” isn’t in code section 65863.2:

In concluding that public transit is within one-half mile of this project, the planning department finds that specific “transit stops” satisfy this requirement because they are “within a half-mile radius” of the subject site. Government Code section 65863.2 states, “(a) A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. (emphasis added)”
This code clearly states that a development project only is exempt from minimum automobile parking requirements, if, and only if it is located within one-half mile of public transit.

This Code does NOT state “within a one-half mile radius” as alleged by the Planning Dept. This detail is important because inserting “radius”, may result in

26.82 measuring this one-half mile by how the crow flies and not how a person walks when the intent of this section is for the public transit to be within one-half mile walking distance not crow flying distance.
“Transit stops” are not synonymous with “bus routes”:

Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c) clearly legally requires the calculation of the “frequency of service interval” for “bus routes” not transit stops.

The legal phrase is “frequency of service interval” not “frequency of interval”:

The Planning Department’s misleading wording of the phrase “frequency of interval” is compounded by its Attachment #6 identified as the “Major Transit Stops Information” for bus stops 1225, 1226, 1624 and 1625. First, the Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c) clearly states “frequency of service intervals”. Second, the correct way to calculate “frequency of service intervals” is to look at a single bus route going in one direction and how frequently it stops at one specific bus stop with the idea being that this reflects the real life situation we all experience when taking the bus: “If I’m going to catch the bus to a specific destination, and I miss this current bus, how long do I have to wait at the bus stop for a bus going in the correct direction to come along and take me to my destination?” If you apply this commonsense definition, then you’ll see that this attachment is nonsense. For example, this document shows a 3 minute difference between the inbound and outbound route 18 bus at stops 1624 and 1625-two buses going in opposite directions on the same route. It also shows a zero time difference between a route 18 bus at stop 1624 and a route 19 bus at a stop 1225-two different bus routes and two different bus stops. The document repeatedly shows the time difference between the inbound and outbound bus stops for routes 18 and 19. All these time differences are irrelevant to the question of the “frequency of service interval” for a specific bus route which is what the code section requires to be calculated.

Code Section 21064.3 requires that there be two intersecting major bus routes at “a site”:

26.83 According to Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c), a “’major transit stop’ means a site containing the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (emphasis added)”.

The bus stops listed by the planning department are not “a site”. They are four different sites:
1225 is at Bay View School, near Bay and Mission.
1226 is near Bay and Mission but across the street from Bay View School 1624 is the at the corner of Mission and Olive
1625 is at the corner of Mission and Trescony.

Therefore to meet the definition of “major transit stop”, one of these sites must be where two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods intersect. None of these four bus stops meet this definition.

Bus stops 1225 and 1226 are inbound and outbound stops only for bus route 19.

Bus stops 1624 and 1625 are inbound and outbound stops for bus routes 18, 40, 41, and 42. However of these 4 bus routes, only route 18 comes close to having a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute times. (Bus schedules and routes attached) Bus routes 18 and 19 may not qualify as “major” bus routes:

The idea of defining a “major transit stop” as the intersection of two major bus routes suggests that the bus routes would go to different places. For someone living at the corner of Mission and Laurel, these two bus routes don’t go to different places. They essentially run between downtown and UCSC. So to characterize them as intersecting major bus routes violates the spirit of these laws which are hoping to reduce reliance on automobiles.

The requirement of residential parking impacts the base density FAR calculation for this project, so the project must be redesigned.

As noted by the Planning Department on page 490 or 29.4, “The prior plan incorrectly included the covered parking area in the FAR calculations, as

26.84 Section 24.22.366 of the Zoning Ordinance only ‘includes covered residential parking.’ Because this is all commercial parking, the area is not included in the above FAR calculation.” Therefore the requirement of residential parking must be taken into account when considering the design of this project and the possible impact on FAR calculation.

Based on the above, this project is required to have residential parking. Even if that parking is reduced per Government code section 65915(p)(2), it is not zero and it must be taken into account along with required commercial parking in designing this project.

For these reasons I ask you to uphold the appeals and deny this project.

Thank you for consideration of my input.

Attachment: Bus routes and schedules for routes 18, 19, 40, 41 and 42 Sincerely,
Sara Bassler
Sent from Mail for Windows

26.85 26.86

26.87 26.88

26.89 26.90

26.91 26.92

26.93 26.94

26.95 26.96

26.97 26.98
From: Pamela San Miguel
To: City Plan
Subject: 1130/1132 Mission Street - Food Bin Development - May 16 meeting Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:33:31 AM
Attachments: Laurel Creek.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission,
I’m writing to express my serious concerns about the environmental impact of the 1130 Mission Street project, both during construction and long term. I am afraid that if I do not speak up now, it will be too late, given what has transpired thus far.

I tried to speak to the owner of the Food Bin about his plan to protect Laurel Creek during construction. He flippantly told me the creek was “dead.” His lack of concern and obvious lack of knowledge has me deeply worried.

Also, there is the biotic report, conducted by Kathleen Lyons of the Biotic Resources Group, which is superficial at best. It completely lacks details, noting only “non-native landscaping” and discounting the creek’s value due to its size.

I have lived next door to the Food Bin/Herb Room, on the opposite side of Laurel Creek, for 20 years. I guarantee you that the creek is NOT dead!
Laurel Creek is lined with native horsetails—ancient land plants considered “living fossils.” The creek is a thriving waterway that supports a myriad of native animal species, including a courting/nesting red-tailed hawk pair, whose territory encompasses 1130 & 1132 Mission Street. Red-tailed hawks are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The pair’s territory extends from the redwood trees behind the old Emily’s Bakery on the opposite side of Mission Street/Highway 1 to the redwood trees behind the Willowbrook apartments (1112–1122 Mission Street) that border the creek. The hawks hunt along the creek (see attached photo) and are vital in controlling the local rodent populations, both native voles and urban rats.

In addition to the hawks, other species that rely on the creek include raccoon, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote, mallard duck, and multiple flying bird species, such as Stellar’s and scrub jays, hummingbirds, and cedar waxwings, among others. The creek also supports crayfish, and insect species such as dragonflies and damselflies. There are countless other bird and insect species that I cannot identify.

Not only is Laurel Creek a source of both food and habitat, but it also serves the critical role of a passageway under busy Highway 1 for all native wildlife, protecting them as well as us humans from life-threatening accidents.

Mallard ducklings would be especially vulnerable, without the creek to provide them safe passage. The Food Bin/Herb Room property borders the entrance to the creek tunnel under the highway.

Clearly, an in-depth study of the environmental impact of the project is warranted. Has the proper California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) paperwork been completed? Will the project be conducted with the utmost care and regard for the creek and the native species that depend on it? Further, I propose that the setback guidelines of 15 feet be enforced in order to preserve the health and safety of the local native wildlife. Revised plans that reflect the 15-foot setback should be submitted.

I’ve attached photos of Laurel Creek:
1) top left shows horsetails on one side and the Food Bin’s plastic tarp on the other; 2) top right shows lovely Laurel Creek upstream of the Food Bin; 3) bottom left shows an animal path leading to the creek; 4) bottom right shows one of the red-tailed hawks in a tree leaning over the creek, with the leafy tree leaning over from the other side of the creek on Food Bin property.

26.99 We have a wonderful, wild ecosystem that’s struggling to survive in an encroaching urban environment. Please, let’s do everything we can to preserve it!
Thank you for your prompt attention to this impactful and time-sensitive matter.

Kind regards,
Pamela San Miguel

26.100
1 2
3 4

26.101
April 29, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: 1130 Mission St. Apartments – Support
Dear Santa Cruz City Council:

Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) endorses the 1130 Mission St.

Apartments project proposed by Workbench. Founded in 2015, MBEP consists of public, private and civic entities located throughout Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties with a mission to improve the economic health and quality of life in the Monterey Bay region. Our Housing For All initiative consists of a broad coalition of community members, local employers, and organizations to advocate for and catalyze an increase in housing of all types and income levels in the region.
1130 Mission St. Apartments feature 48 Single Room Occupancy units and space to accommodate 11 future one bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units. The site will also include a 2,627 ground floor commercial space to retain the current tenant, Food Bin local organic market. Six of the SRO units and two ADU’s will be restricted at the VLI level (50% AMI) meeting the overall requirement for 20% affordability. The project utilizes several state laws that are critical for increasing infill housing and are aligned with MBEP’s White Paper including State Density Bonus, SB 330 and AB 2097. The site will be ideal for students, seniors, and others who will have access to many nearby services.

Workbench has demonstrated how innovative design and a commitment to inclusivity can create vibrant, diverse communities in a major commercial corridor in Westside Santa Cruz. I urge you to support this transformative project by accepting staff recommendation to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission approval and allowing 1130 Mission Street Apartments to move forward as expeditiously as possible.

Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806

26.102
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 4/26/2024
AGENDA OF: 4/30/2024
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23-0103 (APN 006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130 Mission Street Involving Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to Demolish Two Commercial Buildings, Boundary Adjustment to Combine Two Parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to Construct a FiveStory Mixed-Use Building Consisting of 2,627 Square Feet of Ground Floor Commercial Space and 48 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Units Above. The Project Also Includes a Request for Density Bonus Including Waivers to Exceed Building Height, Setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), As Well As Proposes to Utilize AB2097 to Reduce On-Site Parking. The Parcels Are Both Located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) Zone District and the Mission Street Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. Owner: Douglas Wallace. (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal(s) thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s acknowledgment of the environmental determination (Categorical Exemption Section 15332, Class 32) and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit; Boundary Adjustment; Density Bonus request, including waivers to exceed height and FAR and reduce setback requirements; and Design, Special Use, Watercourse Development Permits, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit, based on the findings listed in the draft Resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.” BACKGROUND: This project involves a proposal to construct a five-story, mixed-use project consisting of ground level parking and commercial space and 48 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units. The subject parcels total 12,502 square feet and are currently zoned MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density). However, the previous CC (Community Commercial) zoning applies to this project as that was the zoning in place at the time preapplication pursuant to Senate Bill 330 was deemed complete in January of 2023 (discussed further below). The purpose of the CC (Community Commercial) zone district is to provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and service uses for residents of the City of Santa Cruz (City) and the region which promote the policies of the General Plan and to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities including limited industrial uses, if they are compatible and nuisance free. SRO developments of sixteen or more units and mixed residential

26.103
and commercial developments with ten or more multiple dwellings above commercial are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit. The project also requires approval of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish the existing commercial structures on the site, a Boundary Adjustment to combine the two subject parcels, a Watercourse Development Permit for development within the creek setbacks, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove two heritage trees.

At the January 18, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, thirty members of the public spoke, both in support and in opposition to the project. Speakers opposing the project expressed concerns including but not limited to:
 No dedicated location for commercial deliveries,
 Height and massing of the structure too large for the neighborhood,  Parking concerns,
 Privacy issues, and
 Shading of an adjacent home.

Speakers in support of the project expressed the following:
 City is in need of sustainable, affordable housing;
 Project is in a great, central location within walking and biking distance of amenities, jobs, and transit, walkable neighborhood;
 No need for parking, only adds expense to the project;  Project maintains a long-time local market (Food Bin) on site;  Project provides much needed student housing near University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC); and
 Great project for elderly retirees and students alike.

The Planning Commission listened to the public testimony and discussed some of the issues raised by the speakers. The Commissioners each commented on the project, expressing the following:
 Support for high density projects along the major corridors;  Appreciation that Food Bin market can remain on site;  Project is consistent with the General Plan, and density along the corridors is a longstanding strategy for sustainably accommodating the City’s growth;  The project meets fundamental value of saving surrounding open green spaces by locating density along corridors in existing neighborhoods;
 Proposed five story structure is quite large, but meets Density Bonus law;  City is in desperate need of housing;
 Mission Street corridor can be dangerous, and the project will improve pedestrian safety.

The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Conway, Dawson, McKelvey, Polhamus, Kennedy in support; Maxwell opposed) to approve the project. As part of the motion, several revisions were made to the conditions of approval, including the following:

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

26.104
provided to verify this, and planning department staff shall observe the final lighting at night before Certificate of Occupancy is granted.

41. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, rooftop and ground-mounted equipment, 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. Sound control shall be considered when designing this screening.

The following conditions of approval were added as part of the motion:

66. The developer shall work with the Metro to implement existing bus pass programs for the project tenants.

On January 29, 2024, two separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision were received:
one from Ian and Natasha Guy and the second from Laurel and Cleveland Area Neighbors via their appointed representative, Laura Livingston. The appeal letters are attached to this report and discussed below.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission staff report provides an in-depth analysis of the proposed project and is attached to this report. The applicants submitted revised plans subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, and the changes contained in those plans are analyzed in more detail in this section. The state laws that govern the project are discussed next. Finally, this section addresses the appeal letters. The appeal letters each discuss their reasons for the grounds of the appeal. This section summarizes the issues raised, followed by responses from staff for each item.

Plan Revisions Following Planning Commission
The plans reviewed by the Planning Commission included a request for 59 SRO units above 2,627 square feet of commercial space. Following the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Planning Department (attached) proposing 48 SRO units with 2,627 square feet of commercial space. A letter from the applicants explaining the proposed changes is also attached to this report. The revisions to the plans include the following:

1. Base Density Diagram. The applicant has revised Sheet GP0.05 which demonstrates the base density calculations for the project. The base density calculation is necessary in order to determine the allowed Density Bonus calculations, which are based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). In areas where there is no density range, or in the case of a project that proposes SRO units such as this, Section 24.16.255(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to submit base density plans, or plans showing a project that fully conforms to objective standards (i.e. height, setbacks, open space, etc.), in order to determine the number of units that could be constructed on the site, thus establishing the base density.

Following the Planning Commission hearing it was brought to staff’s attention that the base density diagram was inaccurate, because it did not show the correct rear yard setbacks and did not meet the allowed FAR (1.75). While the CC Zoning requires a 15-foot rear yard

26.105
setback as was depicted on the original base plan, the Mission Street Urban Design Overlay District Community Commercial (CC) sub-district calls for increased setbacks per Zoning Code Section 24.12.4340(1)©(8) which reads, “Parcels adjacent to a residential district shall maintain a rear setback of 25 feet for first and second stories, and a 35 foot setback for a third story.” The revised plan now accurately depicts the correct setbacks with a 1.72 FAR which falls within the allowed 1.75 FAR.

The updated plans also include a new page that provides details on how the proposed project meets the requirement of average unit area, since Section 24.16.255(6) specifies that the average unit area of the proposed project cannot exceed the average unit area in the base density calculation. The latest plans show that the base project and density bonus project comply with this provision, with the average base density unit size being 280.3 net square feet and the average project unit size being 273.1 net square feet. Through the course of the revisions, the number of base density units was reduced from 40 (in the Planning Commission plan set) to 33 units, and the FAR was recalculated using the gross lot area instead of the net area which deducted the riparian setback area, as was presented in the Planning Commission staff report. Recent state laws (SB330) require that the city uses the General Plan density for the FAR calculation, which is based on gross acreage.

The corrected FAR calculation follows:

Gross Lot Area 12,501 square feet
Allowed FAR 1.75 1.75 x 12,501 sq. ft = 21,877 square feet Proposed Base Density Area Level 1: 5,295 square feet
Level 2: 8,939 square feet
Level 3: 7,310 square feet
Total = 21,544 square feet
Proposed Base Density FAR 21,544/12,501 = 1.72 FAR
As is demonstrated in the table, the base density FAR calculation results in an FAR of 1.72, thus not exceeding the maximum 1.75 FAR of the base zoning. The prior plan incorrectly included the covered parking area in the FAR calculations, as Section 24.22.366 of the Zoning Ordinance only “includes covered residential parking.” Because this is all commercial parking, the area is not included in the above FAR calculation.

As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission approved plans showed 40 base units allowing for a 50% density bonus (20 units) for a total of 60 units in accordance with Density Bonus law. The revised set shows 33 base units allowing for a 50% density bonus (17 units) for a maximum of 50 units. The revised project is now proposing 48 units, falling within the permitted 50 units allowed per Density Bonus law.

The revised unit count results in changes to the affordability requirement however, the property owner has volunteered to provide eight Very Low Income (VLI) inclusionary units consistent with the original project. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section

24.16.020(5)(b), “SRO Developments. In a rental residential development comprised of SRO units, twenty percent of the single-room occupancy units shall be made available for

26.106
rent to very low-income households at an affordable rent.” Additionally, the development of 11 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) is subject to a separate inclusionary requirement for conversion ADUs under Zoning Code Section 24.16.020(8) which requires 20 percent of the ADUs to be restricted at the Low Income (LI) level.

With a new base density of 33 units, six (20%) of the residential units will be required to be deed-restricted as affordable housing units at the VLI level (50% AMI) and two ADU’s will be required to be restricted at the LI level (80% AMI). However, as mentioned above, the property owner has volunteered to provide all eight units at the VLI level, consistent with the original proposal heard by the Planning Commission.

2. Storage Spaces to be Converted to ADUs. The floor plans for levels 2 through 5 have been revised to replace three units with separate storage spaces on each floor. Additionally, the rear setback along the western property line has been reduced from 15’ to 6’-3” in the location of the new storage spaces (floors 2-5). Prior to this change, a portion of the building encroached into the setback at this elevation, resulting in a zero setback for approximately 26’ of the south western portion of the building. The proposal would reduce a previously proposed 15’ setback to 6’3” for approximately 42’ of the remaining portion of the building. The reduction is proposed to be added to the original waiver request for a zero setback as described above and pursuant to State Density Bonus law. As further described in response #g to the Appeal Letter From Laurel and Cleveland Area Neighbors and the State Laws Applicable to the Project sections below, cities are generally obligated to grant density bonus waivers, or reductions in development standards, so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers do not result in specific adverse impacts on health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate. Case law has also established that the city is also limited in requiring modifications to the project, as proposed, that would have the effect of reducing project amenities in order to meet development standards. The requested modified waiver can be supported in that compliance with the full 15’ setback would reduce storage amenity space for future residents, as proposed by the applicant. This modification could also be supported as an incentive/concession in that the reduction in the number of units results in an identifiable and actual cost reduction to the project in the form of reduced impact fees.

The applicant indicates that the intent of the added storage spaces is to take advantage of recent state ADU laws (Govt Code Section 66323(a)(3)) which allows the conversions of “the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.” The following is the full code section:
66323.
(a) Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322, inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(3) (A) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.

26.107
(B) A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.
(*In this case, that means that 25 percent of 48 units allows for up to 12 ADUs, where 11 are anticipated.)
Further, the Zoning Ordinance’s definition of a Conversion ADU is as follows:
“Conversion accessory dwelling unit” shall mean any accessory dwelling unit created primarily by the conversion of any permitted, entitled, or legal nonconforming structure, or portion of such a structure. On property developed with multifamily structures only areas that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, shall be eligible to become conversion accessory dwelling units. Consistent with zoning standards, conversion accessory dwelling units shall be permitted to expand the existing footprint of the structure by up to one hundred fifty square feet, and the existing height by up to two feet, and must be in conformance with all requirements of Section 24.16.142 (emphasis added).

As is mentioned in the code section, a local agency is required to ministerially approve these types of conversions with a building permit. Therefore, if the project is approved, at the time of building permit application, the applicants will be proposing to convert the 11 storage spaces into 11 ADUs, resulting in a total of 59 units within the development (48 SROs/11 ADUs). As is explained in the applicant’s letter there are three reasons for this change:

1. The revised base density diagram resulted in only 33 units of base density. The density bonus allows for 17 bonus units, for a total of 50 units. To reach the originallyproposed 59 units, the project would either have to use a second density bonus created by AB1287 or use Government Code § 66323(a)(3) to create conversion ADUs.

2. SCMC 24.12.1010 limits the net area of an SRO unit to 400 square feet, and the average unit size to no more than 345 square feet. The Conversion ADUs do not have the same size limitations as the SRO units.

3. ADUs that are under 750 square feet are exempt from impact fees, reducing the cost of the project, which helps the project provide the proposed very low income (VLI) units.

3. Additional Requested Concessions.

As is described in detail in the Planning Commission staff report, the Density Bonus project is requesting three waivers to development standards, including building height, setbacks, and FAR. Following Planning Commission approval, two concessions (also referred to as incentives) are now being requested:
 Future Food Service Use Condition of Approval. The following condition of approval has been a standard condition for commercial projects within the city:

26.108
Future Food Service Use. All commercial spaces shall each be constructed to support a future food service use. Plans must include ducting and venting plans for all commercial spaces. All ducting and venting should be designed to be hidden or incorporated into the building design. Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, and grease storage facilities, which shall be located outside of the public right of way.

The purpose of this standard condition has been to allow future flexibility of commercial spaces to accommodate restaurant uses which require special ducting, venting, and grease traps. Having these in place when the building is being constructed avoids issues in the future, when a potential restaurant use may want to move in and either these items cannot be physically incorporated or when they could potentially be accommodated but at significant expense. The applicants are requesting this condition be removed as a concession pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65915(d) and 65915(K)(3), stating that requiring construction of building features that are not necessary for the proposed uses unnecessarily increases costs to the project. This concession would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, is consistent with state law, and thus must be granted.
 Defer Payment of Impact Fees – The applicants are requesting that the City not require the payment of any impact fees until the time of issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the development. This concession is requested pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d) and 65915(k)(3). A standard condition of approval for projects in the city is that the impact fees be paid at the time of building permit issuance. As part of this request to defer the payment of the fees, the applicants have stated that the collection of the fees at building permit issuance increases costs to the project because of interest payments on those funds during the course of construction. Therefore, the granting of this concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing costs.

Staff is in the process of analyzing this request per state law, in coordination with the applicant and the City Attorney, including for consistency with Government Code Section 65915(l) and will provide additional information and a recommendation on this requested incentive at the Council hearing.

Additionally, several additional conditions of approval have been added to the project (attached) and are indicated in a strikeout/underline format. Some conditions were added in response to concerns raised by the adjacent neighborhood and others are voluntary conditions on behalf of the property owner. These conditions are more specifically addressed in the response to appeal points below.

State Laws Applicable to Project:

The following California Government Code Sections are applicable to the project.  65863.2 (Minimum Parking Requirements, AB2097): Minimum parking requirements can increase the cost of housing and limit the number of residential units. Therefore, local jurisdictions shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential,

26.109
commercial, or other development projects if the project is located within one-half mile of qualifying public transit.
 65915 (Density Bonus Law): To address California’s need for affordable housing, the State enacted the Density Bonus law (Government Code §§ 65915 – 65918) in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units by offering a combination of benefits to developers. For projects housing projects consisting of five or more units that include the requisite number of affordable housing units, and upon the request of an applicant, cities are required to (i) allow more market rate units to be built than otherwise allowed by the applicable zoning designation), (ii) provide “incentives or concessions” such as reduced development standards that result in actual and identifiable cost savings for the project, (iii) provide “waivers or modifications” of development standards that would physically preclude the project from being constructed, and (iv) allow reduced parking requirements.

Cities have very limited discretion when reviewing density bonus applications. Cities are generally obligated to grant a density bonus and incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions in development standards to the developer so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers or concessions/incentives meet certain standards. Projects that include a specified amount of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus, even if the density bonus would allow a project to exceed the maximum density under the City’s zoning code or general plan.

Projects providing a higher number of affordable units or units at deeper levels of affordability are entitled to increased density of up to 100-percent in the total number of units that are allowed, depending on specified percentages and levels of affordability. The additional units help offset the increased costs associated with the increased number of or more deeply affordable units. The density bonus units themselves are not required to be affordable, and pursuant to Section 24.16.250(2) of the Zoning Code (and the State Density Bonus laws that said Zoning Code section mirrors), “density bonus units shall not be included in the “total units” when determining the number of affordable units required to qualify a housing development for a density bonus.” Thus, by law, the percentages of affordable units that qualify a project for the density bonus are based on the base project only and not the base project plus the density bonus units.  65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act, SB330): The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development, and it limits the ability of local governments to restrict the development of new housing. The Act applies to housing applications submitted to local agencies that meet the following criteria.  Meets a city's "objective general plan and zoning standards." Objective development standards are those which involve no personal or subjective judgement. They are independently and uniformly verifiable.
 The development would not cause a "significant, adverse impact" to public health and  safety; and

26.110
 The development meets the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act.

If an application meets these criteria, the City must approve the application and provide necessary permits within 60 days from the determination by the lead agency that the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption. If the city denies an application that meets the City’s objective standards, it must make a written finding that the project creates a “significant, adverse impact” to public health and safety and provide substantial evidence to support said finding. The HAA also, among other things, eliminates the ability of jurisdictions from proposing modifications to a project that would reduce the number of units to be developed or passing new rules that would retroactively make the project non-compliant.  65905.5 (Five Hearing Rule): A local government may not hold more than five hearings to consider a proposed housing development project if the project complies with all applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards.

Appeal Letter from Ian & Natasha Guy:

1. Parking Requirements. The appellants assert that the development is not eligible for the parking requirement exemption detailed in AB2097 as it is not one-half mile from a “major mass transit stop” as defined in the state code.

Government Code Section 65863.2, enacted by State Assembly Bill AB 2097 on January 1, 2023, prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most development projects located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop, as is applicable to the subject site. A major transit stop as defined by Government Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 means a site containing any of the following:
(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Analyzing the transit stops within a half-mile radius of the subject site, it was found that there are four transit stops (1225, 1226, 1624, 1625) with frequency intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, qualifying these stops as Major Transit Stops per the state definition (attached). Therefore, state law prohibits the City from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for the project.

2. State Parking Exception. The appellant asserts that the City Planning Committee has the option to challenge the state parking exception pursuant to AB 2097. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2(b):
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, or city and county may impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a project that is located within one-half mile of public transit if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on any of the following:

26.111
(1) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 for low- and very low income households. (2) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities identified in the analysis required pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(3) Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project.
(c) For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development project satisfies any of the following:
(1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. (2) The development contains fewer than 20 housing units. (3) The development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance eliminates the potential to make findings that would allow the City to require parking primarily because exceptions within the language of the law itself mean that its exemptions have limited applicability within the City of Santa Cruz. Per section 65863.2(c)(1) above, the circumstances in which the City cannot use the exceptions include a housing development that complies with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements by providing 20% of the project’s units as affordable. If density bonus were used, as is the case for most large projects in the City, then the density bonus automatically qualifies a project for parking reductions under state law (65915(p)(2). Thus, the City would not be able to seek to impose minimum parking requirements under subsection “b” above for any density bonus project. These exclusions apply to all housing developments within the City limits, and the subject project falls under such exceptions. Therefore, there are no applicable instances where an exception to AB2097 for parking could be used for this project.

3. Solar Access. The appellant asserts that the loss of solar access to sunshine by the immediate neighbor is in violation of:

1. The 5th Amendment Taking Law which states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (U.S. Const. amend. V.) The project involves construction of a mixed-use project on a private property for private use. It does not involve the taking of private property for public use. Therefore, there is no violation of the 5th Amendment.

2. The California Solar Shade Act (Public Resources Code §25980-25986) which prohibits neighbors from blocking 10% of solar collectors at any given time between 10am and 2pm (Public Resources Code §25982.)
The Solar Shade Act only addresses shading from trees or shrubs. (Public Resources Code §25982.) The law prohibits a property owner from allowing trees or shrubs to shade an existing solar collector installed on a neighboring property.

The project involves construction of a building and not the installation of trees or shrubs.

Therefore, the Solar Shade Act does not apply in this instance.

3. Violation of Santa Cruz County Ordinance 5439, Chapter 12.28.

26.112
The subject property is located within the City of Santa Cruz jurisdiction. Therefore, the Santa Cruz County Ordinance does not apply to the project.

Appeal Letter From Laurel and Cleveland Area Neighbors

1. Violations. The appellants assert that “several findings made by the Planning Commission (findings 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19) to justify this development were erroneous or otherwise flawed.”
a. “Base building FAR calculations possibly exceeded 24.10.750” Staff Response: Section 24.10.750 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the site development standards for the C-C zone district which do not include an FAR requirement; however, the parcel’s General Plan designation (Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD)) includes an FAR range of 0.75- 1.75 and is based on the gross lot area. The staff report to the Planning Commission erroneously used the net lot area, which is referenced by the appellants in their letter. The gross lot area is 12,501 square total floor area and the development is 21,683, resulting in an FAR of 1.73 for the base project; therefore, the base project FAR falls within the range specified in the General Plan.
b. “Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11: The proposed project does not include any improvements to traffic flow and safety; it will greatly impact the current residential parking in our streets because there are no clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; and traffic safety will be negatively impacted by increased truck traffic, traffic backing up as cars jockey for parking, and the lack of parking areas for Food Bin customers and new residents to use, other than the Laurel Street neighborhood. Additionally, the traffic study woefully underestimates the number of cars and trips that will be taken by employees and customers of the grocery store and residents and their visitors.”
Staff Response: The project site is a corner lot with frontage on Mission Street and an exterior side yard on Laurel Street, west of Mission. Mission Street (Highway 1) is classified as a State Highway. Laurel Street east of Mission Street is classified as an “arterial” and west of Mission, is classified as a “collector.” This policy seeks to improve traffic flow and safety on arterial streets by reducing points of access and removing onstreet parking. The project site does not take access from or have frontage on an arterial, therefore this policy does not apply to the project.

The City of Santa Cruz has adopted Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. These guidelines state that additional study must be completed if a project will generate 50 or greater peak hour trips. A Trip Generation Study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on August 26, 2023 which concluded that the project would generate an increase of 19 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips, which is less than 50 PM peak hour trips and thus does not require the preparation of a full traffic study for the project.

The project is consistent with several other applicable General Plan policies related to mobility as noted below:

26.113
 M1.1 Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.

The project includes a mix of residential and commercial uses and is located within walking distance of various other commercial businesses and services, recreational facilities, open spaces, and public transit. The project takes access from Laurel Street but does not facilitate the need for vehicular movement through the residential area to the northwest. Vehicular trips to and from the site will be minimal as concluded by the Trip Generation Memo prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., and will be concentrated on Mission Street/Hwy 1. Further the applicant has indicated that the owner will be prioritizing tenancy to those who do not own vehicles.  M1.5 Reduce the need for parking and promote parking efficiency.

State law prohibits the city from requiring on-site parking for the proposed development, however, the development design with minimal on-site parking also discourages tenant car ownership and encourages the use of alternative transportation.
 M3.2 Ensure road safety for all users
The project includes various improvements to the public right of way to facilitate road safety, including driveway access from Laurel, a designated loading space on Laurel Street, building setbacks to provide clear visibility from the driveway and at the corner of Mission and Laurel Streets, and a bulb-out at the corner. The applicant has further volunteered to research the feasibility of providing signage that would indicate parking space availability within the garage and is voluntarily posting a $7,500 cash bond with the City or Metro (to be determined in coordination with Metro) to use towards bus stop improvements within the City.
 M3.3 Discourage, reduce, and slow through-traffic and trucks on neighborhood streets.

The project site is adjacent to Mission Street which is a State Highway that provides a direct connection from the project site to Highway 17, as well as the east, west, and downtown areas of the city, and the coast. Additionally, traffic to and from the project site will be minimal, as noted above. Mission Street is therefore anticipated to handle the majority of traffic to and from the project site.
 M4.1 Enable and encourage walking in Santa Cruz.

The project enables and encourages walking through the improvement and widening of adjacent sidewalks; the installation of street trees for shade, beauty, and street buffering; ground-level commercial uses with large windows and welcoming design; public bike parking; a central location; and minimal on-site parking to encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation.

Traffic flow and safety along Laurel Street and Mission Street was evaluated early in the project review process. A Trip Generation Study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on August 26, 2023 which concluded that the project would generate an increase of 19 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips, which is less than 50 PM peak hour trips and thus does not require the preparation of a full traffic study for the project. Staff have requested that the applicant update the Hexagon report and staff’s initial

26.114
analysis indicates that the trip increase is not substantial and will not trigger the threshold for additional study under the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. c. “Community Design CD3.3: Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.

The development is not compatible with the immediately adjacent properties (all of which are residential) nor the neighborhood. The immediately adjacent residential buildings are dwarfed by this building and no other buildings on this section of Mission Street exceed three stories.”
Staff Response: The project includes the assembly (i.e. merger) of two parcels and the construction of a mixed-use development with frontage along a State Highway, driveway access via a side street, a ground floor commercial use that will serve pedestrians and surrounding neighborhoods, public right-of-way improvements that will enhance the sidewalk, and the establishment of multiple residences with minimal on-site parking to encourage alternative forms of transportation in a location that is central to commercial goods and services, recreational areas, schools, and open space. The development is located along a major transit corridor, and while adjacent to an established neighborhood, the development is utilizing State Density Bonus law to vary from the height limit in the zone district. As indicated above, the City has limited discretion on projects where the requisite number of affordable units have been provided and the incentives, concessions and waiver requirements have been met, as is the case here. This is a typical Density Bonus request in that the base density of a site is determined by the number of units that can fit with the given site standards, including the maximum height allowance. Where the base density project proposes a development that is fully built out, any request for additional density bonus units is likely to require a height increase to accommodate those units; otherwise the height limitation would preclude the construction of those units. Consistent with other recent developments along Mission Street and elsewhere in the City, it is expected that future development along Mission Street in Mixed-Use and Commercial Zone districts will also utilize Density Bonus state law to achieve additional market rate units and result in similar variations to the zone district site standards. Furthermore, as described above, the HAA has limited the ability of cities to reduce the number of units in a project based on subjective standards, such as neighborhood compatibility, with the state targeting this exact appeal contention in their legislative amendments. Prior to those state law changes, use of subjective compatibility standards had reduced and prevented housing production statewide.

The development will consist of a variety of materials and textures, and earth tones to achieve compatibility with other existing and future buildings along Mission Street and the variety of architectural styles in nearby neighborhoods. Conditions of approval are included that require the development to utilize fritted glass on the west-facing elevation within 40 feet above grade, consistent with the bird safe policy, which will help to minimize potential privacy impacts. Additionally, the property owner has volunteered to pay the remaining balance, up to $10,000, on the solar panels on the west adjacent property which will be shaded by the proposed development. However, there is no state law or objective standard that requires such a payment or the consideration of building shading on solar panels.

26.115
d. City Zoning Ordinance Section 24.08.050. [Letter cites Criteria 1-3] “This project does not conform to several requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan as outlined throughout this appeal, especially related to height, setbacks, and traffic.

No conditions have been imposed that will eliminate negative impacts to surrounding residential uses. This project brings a lot of negative consequences upon the neighborhood, without doing anything to improve the neighborhood. The developer should be subject to additional conditions to spread the impact of the new building to all parties.”
Staff Response: The referenced code section contains the findings for approval of a Special Use Permit. Staff were able to make all findings in support of the development, as shown in the attached draft Resolution. The applicant is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law and has submitted the required justification to request waivers from building height and setbacks, which the City is obligated to approve as more fully addressed above. The staff response under number 1.b above describes the public improvements associated with the project to address traffic flow and enhance the pedestrian experience and surrounding area.

Conditions of approval #1, #4, #6, #7, #9, #10, and #11 require the project to be constructed according to the approved plans and in conformance with the requirements of all City departments, which ensures that the public improvements such as widened sidewalks, street trees, and loading zones are constructed as part of the project. Condition of approval #75 requires that the applicant follow through on the voluntary action to research the feasibility of signage that indicates parking availability within the garage. Conditions of approval #37, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, and #67 require protection of the creek. Conditions of approval #15, #16, #53, #60, and #67 require standards for lighting/illumination.

Conditions of approval #5, #48, and #57 require compliance with the noise ordinance.

Conditions of approval #38 and #68 require window and landscape features to enhance privacy to properties to the west. Condition of approval #57 requires the contact information for a property manager to be made public through the SRO management plan. e. City Zoning Ordinance Section 24.08.430: Land Use Permits and Findings. (Summarized) Criteria 2: The projects size, height, operation, and characteristics will adversely affect and degrade adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The proposed development and existing conditions of approval fail to mitigate these impacts.
 Loss of sunlight and privacy
 Increase of commercial use
 Safety Hazards from delivery trucks and garbage trucks  Noise from garbage trucks and building equipment
 Garage provides insufficient parking for non-EV and accessible cars  Shading of adjacent solar equipment
 Height is not compatible with surrounding buildings
 Surrounding uses are residential, not commercial
 Privacy impacts
Staff Response: The referenced code section contains the findings for approval of a Design Permit. Staff were able to make all findings in support of the development, as shown in the attached draft Resolution. Conditions of approval #5, #38, #48, #57 and #68 address privacy and noise concerns. Further, conditions of approval #13 and #69 provide requirements to maintain a loading space on Laurel Street and to maintain a parking space

26.116
within the garage for loading and rideshare. Condition of approval #70 enforces the voluntary agreement by the property owner to pay the balance of the neighbor’s solar panels to address shading impacts. While the existing parcel does have residential uses on two sides, the parcels to the north and south are zoned for mixed uses and are located in the Mission Street Area Plan that encourages ground level, pedestrian oriented commercial uses. As such, it is expected that future development of these sites will convert the residential uses along Mission Street to mixed use or commercial use. Lastly, the project has been found to comply with all relevant objective development standards. As no significant, adverse impacts to public health and safety have been found to occur, the City is precluded from denying or reducing the density of the project under the HAA.

Additionally, as further described in section g below, in the Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected an argument by opponents of a 204-unit housing development project that relied on several policies that were subjective in nature, stating that new development should “sensitively and adequately transition to adjacent lower height buildings,” “complement” the natural environment, and include design features that “enhance” views. The court found that under the HAA, “an agency may deny approval of a housing development project on the basis that it is inconsistent with development standards only if those standards are ‘objective,’” further stating that “a standard is subjective, rather than objective, if it cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgement.” (Rutan & Tucker LLP) Because this project was locked into the standards in place prior to the adoption of the city’s objective standards, there are a limited number of objective standards in place to address compatibility with adjacent buildings, privacy impacts, and shading, and the project cannot be conditioned to comply with subjective standards. Even when additional objective standards apply to future development proposals, those projects can utilize density bonus laws to deviate from them, as is the case for the subject project with its deviations from the City’s prior objective standards.
f. California Environmental Quality Act – (Summarized)
The Trip Generation Study is greatly flawed: trip generation is substantially low because it was conducted in August when UCSC is not in session; and the report utilized driveway counts however, visitors to the Food Bin more frequently park on Laurel Street.

Staff Response: With the adoption of SB 743, trip generation and associated level of service are no longer an Environmental Impact under CEQA.

Outside of CEQA considerations and to comply with City Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, a Trip Generation Study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on August 26, 2023 which concluded that the project would generate an increase of 19 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips, which is less than 50 PM peak hour trips and thus does not require the preparation of a full traffic study for the project. This study was conducted using standard methods of count collection and traffic engineering principles and best practices.

Section 24.08.2220: Need to consider shading impacts to birds and other wildlife.

CEQA: Unclear how the project meets the following CEQA criteria, “The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.”

26.117
Staff Response: The referenced code section provides the procedural requirements for a Watercourse Development Permit, as the project is located adjacent to Laurel Creek, Reach

4. The Watercourse and Wetland factors of Laurel Creek were evaluated in the City Creeks and Wetlands Plan and this reach was assigned a total ranking of 7/15 due to the modified channel and low probability for expansion, enhancement and restoration due to adjacent residential and commercial constraints. The reach is further classified as a ‘B’ category, as it is located in an urban area with limited riparian habitat, limited areas to expand, and issues of water quality and flow conveyance. There is an existing commercial building on the site that encroaches into the riparian area and development setback at the ground level that will be demolished as a part of the project and the area restored pursuant to the recommendations of the biotic report. While a portion of the proposed mixed-use development also proposes to encroach into the setback and riparian areas, there will be no ground disturbance in those locations with the exception of restoration. That being said, the project requires a Watercourse Development Permit to allow for cantilevered portions to overhang the riparian and setback areas. The applicant has requested the use of a Density Bonus waiver to reduce creek setback requirements, thus eliminating the need for a Watercourse Variance. However, in order to ensure protection of the creek, the commensurate required evaluation was completed.

The applicant submitted a biotic report which recommends the use of shade tolerant plantings, and conditions of approval require compliance with the report’s recommendations. The biotic report recommends the following measures related to lighting impacts: Standards 7-9, Prohibit lighting within riparian corridor and limit lighting in development setback area to low-level walkway, motion detection security, or entry lighting and direct lighting to be hooded and directed downward, away from the watercourse.

In response, staff included Condition of Approval #15 which requires all exterior building lighting to be downward-facing and shielded and to not produce off-site glare. The Planning Commission further added the requirement for a photometric plan and for staff to observe the lighting at night to confirm compliance prior to building permit final. In recent meetings, neighbors have also raised concerns about ambient lighting impacts on the creek from the building windows, specifically the amenity/laundry rooms on floors 2-4 which include large windows facing the creek.

Staff are recommending a new Condition of Approval #67, which requires the project to include motion sensor lighting within the amenity/laundry rooms consistent with the requirements of the 2022 Energy Code and to install blinds, shades, or other windows coverings on the west facing windows within these rooms with signage to indicate that windows shall be covered during hours of darkness.

The biotic report found no special plant species, or special status wildlife or habitat on the project site. The project is consistent with this section of code as it is implemented in conjunction with Density Bonus state law. The project remains eligible for a CEQA Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 (Infill Development) in that it meets the applicable standards of the exemption. For example, as a previously-developed urban infill site, the subject lot holds no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, with none known to exist on the site. A biologist has evaluated the proposed project, and a

26.118
standard condition of approval requires compliance with the report’s recommendations.

There is also no possibility of cumulative impact, or impacts to scenic highways, and the project is not located on a hazardous waste site or a site with historical resources. Therefore, none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply.

2. Density Bonus Waivers. (Summarized) The appellant requests that the City Council deny the requested waivers for height, FAR, and Setbacks. The project can meet its density bonus requirement (60 units) by adding one more floor for a total of 3 residential floors and 60 total units. Section 65589(j)(1) only applies if the project cannot be completed at the lower density. Per this interpretation, it is argued that the requirement to find a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety is only required when the city’s conditions cause the project to be developed at a lower density. Reducing the project from 5 floors to 4 floors would not trigger this requirement as the number of units/density would not change. Additionally, since the base building was shown to support 20 units per floor without setbacks, it is argued that the waivers for setbacks are also capable of being disapproved without impact to project viability. The appellants further content that the Base Density calculations did not meet the MXMD FAR limit of 1.75 and that setback waivers were not used when designing the base building and are not required for the project to be built at the state required density.

Staff Response: The argument provided by the appellants is related to provisions included in State Density Bonus law, which allows for development standards to be waived (i.e. “waivers”) that would physically preclude the project from being constructed at the density allowed. The City Attorney’s Office provided an opinion in response to a similar claim for a project on Seabright Avenue in 2020. In that instance, the developer requested a waiver to open space requirements in order to provide larger residential units. The City Attorney’s opinion was provided to the Planning Commission, as follows: “Section 65915(e)(1) does not authorize a city to require the developer to redesign the project so that the need to modify a development standard is eliminated thereby allowing the city to fully apply that development standard to the project. The court of appeal in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329 made it clear that it is the density bonus project as proposed by the developer which determines the need for a development standard waiver/reduction. In Wollmer a density bonus project opponent argued that the city wrongfully allowed a series of development standard modifications when it could have required the developer to redesign the project to eliminate the need for development standard modifications. On this point the court, at pages 1346-1347 of its decision, stated:

Second, nothing in the statute requires the applicant to strip the project of amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards.

Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period ... The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be a reason that the waiver is needed. Wollmer's argument goes nowhere. Had the City failed to grant the waiver and variances, such action would have had the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development meeting the criteria of the density bonus law. If the project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower income households would not be built and the purpose of the density bonus law to encourage such development would not be achieved. The trial court properly

26.119
interpreted the statute, and the City proceeded in the manner required by law in granting the waivers." (emphasis added)
With respect to the Seabright project, the size of the units and the number of bedrooms they offer are certainly amenities that the developer took into account in designing the proposed housing development. Accordingly, in our opinion, a court, applying the Wollmer rationale, would in all likelihood conclude that the applicant here is entitled to the requested modifications and cannot be compelled by the City to reduce project square footage or bedroom count so as to increase project open space to City standards.”
The Wollmer decision was further held in the Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) case, in which case the Fourth Appellate District determined that density bonus projects are exempt by state law from standards such as setbacks, and that a local agency is “...obligated to waive those standards if they conflicted with the Project’s design...”. The court, citing the Wollmer case, rejected the opponents argument that the project could have complied with standards if it eliminated amenities, such as a project courtyard, claiming that “a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Rutan & Tucker LLP)
As applied to this project, the City cannot condition the applicant to redesign the project in order to meet the height or setback requirements, as it would require a reduction of amenity space, unit size, or similar features that are protected as part of the project as proposed.

The FAR and average unit size was not shown on the base plans submitted for review by the Planning Commission. Since that time, the applicant has made revisions to the plans and the FAR of the base project has been recalculated and found to be within the required General Plan density range as more fully described above.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332, related to infill development. The Class 32 categorical exemption applies to a proposed project fulfilling the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

26.120
project would not result in any significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as supported by the submitted information; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposal qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, infill exemption.

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

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The mixed-use project supports the pillar of equity by providing affordable rental units on a site in an area that is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas. The development of residences in this central location encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: This project involves a proposal to construct a fivestory, mixed-use project consisting of ground level parking and commercial space, and 48 SingleRoom Occupancy (SRO) units. The development will implement the City’s vision for the “Westside Zone” area as expressed by the General Plan and the Mission Street Urban Design Plan by providing, after considering the future ADUs, eight much needed affordable units and 51 market rate residential units. Additionally, the applicant is voluntarily providing the two ADUs at the very low-income level instead of the required low-income level. As very low-income units are the most challenging to produce, every very low-income unit is an important addition to the City’s affordable housing stock. As conditioned, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and provides a development that is consistent with the vision for the Mission Street corridor.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal(s), thus upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Boundary Adjustment, Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Density Bonus Request to exceed height, setbacks, and FAR for the proposed project based on the findings listed in the Resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.” The recommended conditions from the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the draft conditions.

FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant and appellants have paid fees to compensate for costs associated with staff time processing this application and subsequent appeals. The project will contribute to increased property tax and sales tax revenue to the City, and the project developer

26.121
will be required to pay City impact fees. The additional revenue generated by the project will help offset the costs of providing municipal services demanded by the project, though many residential uses typically have net negative fiscal effects over time.

Prepared By:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval

3. Project Plans (Approved by Planning Commission)

4. Project Plans (Revised post Planning Commission Approval)

5. Workbench Letter Describing Project Plan Revisions dated April 25, 2024)

6. Major Transit Stops Information

7. Appeal Letter from Ian & Natasha Guy, received January 29, 2024

8. Appeal Letter from Laurel and Cleveland Area Neighbors, received January 29, 2024

9. January 18, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

10. January 18, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes

11. Planning Commission Meeting Public Correspondence

26.122

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 12, 2024
AGENDA OF: January 18, 2024
ITEM NO: CP23-0103 1130/1132 Mission Street
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Boundary Adjustment,
Density Bonus request to exceed height, setbacks, and FAR, and Design, Special Use, Watercourse Development, and
Heritage Tree Removal Permits based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Attachment

1. PROJECT DATA:

Property Owner: Douglas Wallace APN: 006-203-24, -25
Representatives: Workbench
Application Type: Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Adjustment to combine two parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to
construct a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 59 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for density bonus including waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and FAR, as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking. The parcels are both located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density)
zone district and the Mission Street Overlay Zone.

Zoning: CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density)
Project Consistency: Consistent with approval of permits and pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and Senate Bill 330 (SB330)
General Plan: Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the General Plan designation and Mission Street Urban Design Plan with approval of permits and pursuant to State Density Bonus Law

26.123

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 2 of 33 ends

Land Use - existing: Retail market (Food Bin)
- proposed: Mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space and 59 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units.
- in area: Commercial retail, Restaurants, Office, Single- and Multi-family residential
Lot Area: .287 acres (12,502 square feet, combined
Coastal Review: No Coastal Permit Required
Environmental
Determination: Categorical Exemption, 15332, In-Fill Development Projects Planning Staff: Ryan Bane, Senior Planner

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
This project involves a proposal to construct a five-story, mixed-use project consisting of ground level parking and commercial space, and 59 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units. The subject parcels total 12,502 square feet and are currently zoned MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density).

However, the previous CC (Community Commercial) zoning applies to this project as that was the zoning at the time preapplication pursuant to Senate Bill 330 for the project was deemed complete in January of 2023 (discussed further below). The purpose of the CC (Community Commercial) zone district is to provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and service uses for residents of the city and the region which promote the policies of the General Plan; to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities including limited industrial uses, if they are compatible and nuisance free.

SRO developments of sixteen or more units and mixed residential and commercial developments with ten or more multiple dwellings above commercial are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit. The project also requires approval of a Nonresidential Demolition Permit to demolish the existing commercial structures on the site, a Boundary Adjustment to combine the two subject parcels, and a Watercourse Development Permit for development within the creek setbacks.

26.124

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 3 of 33 ends

Preapplication Pursuant to Senate Bill 330 (SB330). A Preapplication for the proposed project was submitted on January 11, 2023, and was deemed complete. As a result, the proposed project became subject to those ordinances and policies in effect at the time of Preapplication completeness, and the formal application which is the subject of review of this Planning Commission public hearing is not subject to either rezoning (i.e., MU-M development standards) or conformance to recently adopted City Objective Standards effectuated per Ordinance 2022-18 adopted by the City Council on January 12, 2023.

ANALYSIS
Project Site and Surroundings. The .287 acres (12,502 square feet) project site consists of two parcels located on the northwest corner of Mission and Laurel Street. Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses directly to the west and across the creek to the north.

The flat site is mostly paved with commercial buildings constructed in 1966 that are proposed for demolition. The site was originally developed as a service station, but that use was short lived and has operated mainly as a grocery store for many years. There are seven trees located on the site, two of which qualify as heritage due to their size.

26.125

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 4 of 33 ends

Archaeological Report. The property is located within a sensitive archaeological area. A cultural resource evaluation was conducted in February of 2023 by Albion Environmental, Inc. which included a review of a previous cultural resources report from 2017, and updated records search, and an analysis of the soils and geology in the project area. The revised search of records conducted at the NWIC indicated one new study conducted within a 100-foot radius of the Project Area and one new resource within 1/4-mile of the project area. No cultural resources are recorded within the project area, and the geology of the project area indicates a low potential for buried cultural resources. This, in concert with the negative findings from the 2017 survey and test pit excavations indicate a low potential for surface or subsurface archaeological deposits.

Albion recommends no further action regarding cultural resources for the proposed project, and a condition of approval that if precolonial or historic deposits or features are discovered at any time during construction, activities in the area should cease and a qualified archaeologist should inspect the discovery and prepare a recommendation for a further course of action.

Geotechnical Reports. A geotechnical investigation (Attachment 3) was prepared by Rock Solid Engineering Inc. in October of 2022 to evaluate the subsurface soil and geologic conditions on the site and to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction. The report concludes that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint the property will be suitable for the proposed development as proposed provided the recommendations provided in the report are included in the design and construction. A condition of approval has been included that requires the geotechnical report be submitted as part of the building permit application, and that the geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the building design.

Consistency with General Plan, Mission Street Urban Design Plan, and Zoning. The subject parcel has a Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) General Plan designation. This designation applies to sites along the Ocean Street and the Mission Street corridor between Swift and Laurel Street. Typical commercial uses are similar to those in the Community Commercial (CM) designation, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground floor. For reference, the CM designation calls for “businesses that serve the general needs of the community, including retail, service, and office establishments. Typical uses in these areas include restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores, general merchandise, medical and legal offices, and auto parts stores, as well as mixed-use projects that include these commercial uses on the ground floor.”
The Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project is 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 3.86 for the proposed development. With the proposed FAR exceeding the allowed FAR, a waiver to FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request.

The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:

26.126

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 5 of 33 ends

 Land Use Development Policy LU3.3.1 - Discourage strip commercial development in favor of clustered commercial and mixed-use development along transit corridors.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Community Design CD3.3 – Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.
 Community Design CD4.1.1 – Support compact mixed-use development Downtown, along primary transportation corridors, and in employment centers.  Community Design CD4.1.1 – Where possible, site buildings at the street frontage and place parking areas away from street corners and to the rear of buildings.
 Community Design CD4.1.3 – On major corridors, encourage mixed-use development, especially projects with priority for commercial uses that can provide services to the adjacent community.
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11 - Improve traffic flow and safety and reduce impacts on arterial streets by limiting driveways, mid-block access points, and intersections; removing on-street parking; clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; providing access from side streets; and other similar measures.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

26.127

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 6 of 33 ends

Mission Street Urban Design Plan. The project site is located within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan (MSUDP) which encourages developments such as this. The community’s vision is to re-establish Mission Street as a vibrant commercial corridor that recognizes and carefully balances its functions as both a State Highway and local-serving commercial street. As noted in the MSUDP, the corridor should maintain a predominantly commercial mixed-use character.

Residential uses should be restricted to multi-family residential units, and to residential above ground floor retail or office. The remaining single-family residential uses should be allowed to eventually phase out. The intent is to create a corridor that is safe, attractive, economically and socially vibrant, which in turn will improve the quality of life for Westside residents.

The project site is within the “Westside Zone” area of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The Westside Zone, which extends from Laural Street to Swift Street, includes predominantly retail and service type uses with scattered residential, office and institutional uses. The project meets the objectives of the Westside Zone by establishment of a development that provides retail and services for both residents and visitors and employing streetscape improvements such as street trees, lighting, and street furnishings to visually unify this section of the corridor and enhance the pedestrian environment. The project also meets the following areawide land use and redevelopment strategy plan policies:
 Policy 4a – Encourage a mix of higher density residential and office uses along Mission Street that will complement and support the retail base and contribute to the creation of a neighborhood with around-the-clock vitality.
 Policy 4b – Establish the Mission Street corridor as an attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district.
 Policy 4c – Encourage “mixed-use” development and “local-serving” commercial uses as a means of reducing automobile use within the planning area. Development of complementary uses (retail and office, retail and housing, office and housing) in proximity to each other allows residents, employees, and visitors to walk and/or bicycle when undertaking many of the typical daily trips, whether it is going to lunch, running errands, or going out for the evening.
 Policy 5c – Encourage redevelopment and infill development along Mission Street that will improve the corridor’s economic vitality, enhance the definition and character of the corridor, and create better pedestrian scale and orientation.

Pursuant to the MSUDP, the primary façade of the building is oriented to Mission Street with the primary entrance visible and directly accessible from Mission Street, the second story maintains the same build-to line as the ground floor, and a minimum of 60% of the Mission Street frontage is occupied by the building at the build-to line. The placement of the building will enhance pedestrian use with 10-foot to 12-foot sidewalks along Mission Street and 9-foot to 11-foot sidewalks along Laurel Street, including street trees and landscaping. The entrance to the commercial space and residential lobby are visible and directly accessible from Mission Street, further supporting a pedestrian-oriented design. The parking garage is located on the ground floor and accessed from Laurel Street, behind the commercial space and screened from Mission Street. Mission Street is a major corridor connecting the west side to downtown Santa Cruz which is approximately .75 miles from the project site. Transit bus stops are located

26.128

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 7 of 33 ends

approximately 130 feet from the project site along Mission Street to provide transit service for the project. A drug store, restaurants, and medical facility are located within walking distance from the project site.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit
The commercial buildings on the site are proposed for demolition. Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the purpose of this permit is to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished. A historic report (Attachment 4) was prepared by historian Joseph Van Den Berg of Garavaglia Architecture which evaluates the existing buildings and the history of the site. Based on records, the existing buildings were constructed in 1966, with subsequent additions and modifications occurring in 1974 and 1975. The report finds that the subject property does not display a level of historical significance or integrity that would qualify it for listing as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The site is not associated with any important historic events or patterns of history, is not associated with any historic people, the architecture is not notable and contains almost no character-defining features. Thus, the structure is not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

Boundary Adjustment
A Boundary Line Adjustment is proposed to merge the two existing parcels. The merger includes combining a 5,314 square foot parcel (APN 006-203-24), and a 7,187 square foot parcel (APN 006-203-25). The resulting parcel will be approximately .287-acres, well over the minimum 8,000 square feet required in the CC zone district for mixed-use projects.

Design Permit
Site Layout. The site is generally flat with approximately 130 feet of frontage along Mission Street, and 110 feet along Laurel Street. The parcel abuts Laurel Creek which is a Category B watercourse that is channelized with a mixture of natural and concrete elements. The proposed mixed-use project consists of four stories of residential units above ground level retail and parking with a footprint that covers the majority of the site area. Vehicular access to the garage is provided via a driveway accessed off of Laurel Street. The first floor consists of 2,627 square feet of retail space at the corner of Mission Street and Laurel Street. Additionally, a residential lobby with a mail room is accessed from Mission Street. Trash enclosure access and utility rooms front Laurel Street. The trash room layout and interface with the street has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.

Residential uses will be located on levels 2 through 5, with the second floor also including a podium terrace open space with seating and landscaping as well as an interior amenity room with laundry facilities and storage lockers. The proposed 59 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are broken down into thirty 288 square foot studios and twenty-nine 287 square foot studio units.

26.129

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 8 of 33 ends

CC (Community Commercial) Zone District Regulations. The purpose of the Community Commercial district is to “provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and service uses for residents of the city and the region which promote the policies of the General Plan; to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities including limited industrial uses, if they are compatible and nuisance free”.

Pursuant to 24.10.730.2(q), “Mixed residential and commercial/office developments with ten or more multiple dwellings or condominiums, either above commercial uses or units on the same lot”, and 24.10.730.2(w), “Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing sixteen units or more” are allowed subject to approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit, both of which are included as part of this application.

The maximum allowed height of buildings in the CC zoning district is three stories and 40 feet.

However, California State Density Bonus Law and the City’s corresponding Density Bonus Ordinance provide tools to incentivize affordable housing and/or deeper levels of affordability.

One incentive is that applicants can utilize a waiver or modification to development standards if those standards would “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project. For the subject project, the applicants are proposing a waiver to the district height standard to allow for two additional stories, with the highest point of the building proposed at approximately 61 feet.

There are roof structures that extend above the 61-foot height, including stairway and elevator housing, however these types of features are permitted to exceed height standards under Section

24.12.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.

With the exception of height, the CC zone district requirements are all being met. The table below summarizes the project’s compliance with the CC district requirements in addition to the Mission Street Urban Design Overlay District standards:

CC/MSUDO DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY
Provision CC Required MSUOD Required Proposed Complies? Building
Height
3 stories and
40 feet
3 stories and 40 feet 5 stories and 61 feet
(Allowed per Density Bonus
Law)
Yes
Front Setback
(Mission Street)
0’ 0’ 6’-3” to 9’-2” Yes
Exterior Side
Setback (Laurel
Street)
0’ 0’ 3’-6” to 7’ Yes
Interior Side
Setback
(Creek)
15’ 15’ 1
st floor – 15’
2 nd to 5th floors - 3’-6”
Measurements from Laurel
Creek Centerline
(Allowed per Density Bonus
Law)
Yes
Rear Setback
(West Property
Line)
5’ 25’ – 1st & 2nd floors
35’ – 3rd floor
1 st floor - 5’-5”
2 nd to 4th floors – 2”
5 th floor – 1’-10”
(Allowed per Density Bonus
Law)
Yes

26.130

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 9 of 33 ends

Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties.

Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view.

Materials. The proposed building has a contemporary design, incorporating a variety of exterior finish materials including textured concrete (board formed/textured), metal panels, fiber cement panel or stucco, patterned metal fence/gates/screens/sunshades, and a glazed aluminum windows.

To ensure that the final building design is well-articulated with the proposed material palette, a condition of approval requires the plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans.

Single-Room Occupancy Requirements. Part 11 of Zoning Code Chapter 12 regulates SingleRoom Occupancy Housing projects. The proposed table demonstrates how the development meets these standards:

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
SRO Unit Range 150 to 400 square feet 287 to 288 square feet Yes SRO Average Unit Size No greater than 345
square feet
288 square feet Yes
SROs greater than 220
square feet required to
have:

Kitchen and Full
Bathroom
All SROs have a
Kitchen and Full
Bathroom
Yes
Closet All SROs have a Yes

26.131

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 10 of 33 ends

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
closet
Common Facilities: 10 square feet of
common usable open
space per unit (Min. 200
square feet of common
outdoor open space
and 200 square feet of
common indoor open
space)
59 x 10 = 590 sq. ft.
1,692 square feet of
common usable
outdoor open space
991 square feet of
common usable indoor
open space
Yes
Laundry facilities
1 washer/dryer for
every 20 units
Minimum of 2
washer/dryers required
2 washers/dryers
required
6 washers/dryers
provided (floors 2-4
amenity rooms)
Yes
1 storage space per unit
59 storage units 60 storage spaces
Yes
Management Plan Must contain
management
policies/maintenance
plans/rental
procedures/tenant
rules/security
procedures
Draft Management
Plan submitted
(Attachment 5)
Submittal of Final
Management Plan
required as a condition
of approval
Yes
Manager’s Unit Provide 24 -hour on-site
management, including
designated dwelling unit
for manager
One manager unit
provided
Yes
Parking and Access. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site will be provided via Laurel Street.

Pedestrian access to the commercial space is at the intersection, with access to the above residences available from the parking area and the public right-of-way along Mission Street.

Long-term resident bicycle storage is located on each residential floor (floor 2-5). Short-term bicycle parking would be accommodated in areas along Laurel Street near the retail space as well as an area along Mission Street near the entrance to the residential lobby. Public Works, Police, and Fire Department staff have reviewed the application and have expressed no significant concerns about ingress, egress, or circulation associated with the proposed project design.

State Assembly Bill (AB 2097), effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most development projects located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop, as applicable to the subject site. Although AB2097 would exempt the project from provision of any vehicular parking, the applicant has elected to supply twelve auto parking spaces at ground level.

26.132

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 11 of 33 ends

As noted above, the application is also locked in under SB330 and is not subject to the recently adopted bike/auto parking ordinance revisions.

Standard Required Proposed
Vehicle Parking
Number of spaces 0 (Required as per AB2097) 12
Number of accessible parking
spaces
2 (Required as per AB2097) 2
EV charging stations 1 6
Residential Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking: Class 1 1 space per unit (59 total) 80 Bicycle parking: Class 2 1 space per 4 units (15 total) 29 Commercial Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking: Class 1 1 Space 2
Bicycle parking: Class 2 3 Spaces 3
Trip Generation Analysis. A trip generation memorandum (Attachment 6), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. and dated August 26, 2023, provides information regarding the expected number of vehicular trips generated by the proposed project. The memo reports that, after accounting for the trips generated by the existing uses, the development is estimated to generate a net increase of 19 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 29 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the data provided, the number of net new peak-hour trips falls below the threshold prompting the requirement for preparation of a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) as required by the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Requirements for Development.

A Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) will be applied during the Building Permit phase associated with increased vehicular travel volumes projected to be induced by the project, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under which local agencies are not precluded from applying traffic impact fee mitigation programs.

Off-Site Improvements. Review of the proposed project by City staff has determined the requirement for completion of various off-site improvements in conjunction with the proposed project. Improvements to the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site include:
 Sidewalk expansion including construction of a new 10-foot to 12-foot wide sidewalk along the entire frontage of Mission Street and a 9-foot to 11-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Laurel Street, with a substantial bulb out at the corner to accommodate two ADA compliant ramps;
 All new utilities will be undergrounded;
 Installation of three new decorative light standards featuring Light-Emitting Diode (LED) luminaires, two on Mission Street and one on Laurel Street; and  Installation of nine street trees including irrigation, with six along Mission Street and three along Laurel Street.

26.133

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 12 of 33 ends

Trees/Landscaping. An arborist report (Attachment 7) was prepared by Davey Resource Group in August of 2023 and revised in October of 2023. Seven trees located on or near the site were assessed, with two qualifying as heritage trees requiring a permit for removal. One of the heritage trees, a Black Walnut located adjacent to the site in the riparian area, is proposed to be retained with tree protection measures provided and included as conditions of approval. All other trees on site, including one heritage Evergreen Ash, are proposed to be removed due to the extent of the proposed construction.

With the majority of the site to be covered by the proposed structure, landscaping is limited to the sidewalk areas, the area along the creek, and the open spaces on the second-floor terrace, fifth floor, and rooftop butterfly garden. The project’s proposed tree and planting plan includes a total of 6 new trees:
 Nine 24-inch box Armstrong Gold Maple (street trees)
 Seven 10-15 gallon Dogwoods (2nd level open space terrace)  Five 10-gallon Variergated Box Elder Maples (5th level open space) Other new landscape plants proposed throughout the project would include shrubs, grasses and perennials. Other outdoor amenities include standing height work desks with charging ports, dining tables, lounge chairs, and outdoor seating, and a rooftop garden.

Special Use Permit
SRO developments of sixteen or more units and mixed residential and commercial developments with ten or more multiple dwellings above commercial are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit in the CC zone district. The purpose of consideration of the Special Use Permit is to ensure the proper integration of essential or desirable uses in certain locations or zoning districts. The project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan and Mission Street Urban Design Plan in that it will provide important affordable rental housing and maximizes the development potential of an underutilized infill site. With the purpose of the Community Commercial district being “provide locations throughout the community for a variety of commercial and service uses for residents of the city and the region which promote the policies of the General Plan; to encourage a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial and residential activities including limited industrial uses, if they are compatible and nuisance free”, the proposed mixed-use project provides much needed housing, as well as neighborhood commercial, and therefore meets the purpose of the district.

Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties.

Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view. Taking all of these into consideration, the proposed uses incorporated into the project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the development does not constitute a nuisance or would be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

26.134

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 13 of 33 ends

Watercourse Development Permit
The property abuts a section of Laurel Creek Reach 4, a perennial watercourse. Pursuant to the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, Laurel Creek Reach 4 is a Category B watercourse, with a 10-foot riparian corridor, a 15-foot development setback, and a 40-foot management area. A portion of the proposed mixed-use development (a cantilevered section above the first floor) would be located within these setback areas and therefore requires a Watercourse Development Permit.

Category “B” includes watercourses and/or watercourse reaches that are located in urban areas and that function primarily as a drainage system. This category includes watercourses with limited riparian habitat that is generally confined by adjacent land uses with limited area to expand. Issues of water quality and flow conveyance are the focus for this category. The goals of this category include improving habitat by removal of invasive, non-native plant species and improving water quality and flow with implementation of proper erosion control and best management practices, and planting of appropriate species.

A biotic review (Attachment 8) was prepared by Biotic Resources Group in August of 2023 with the focus of the assessment being to identify watercourse setbacks and sensitive biotic resources with the project area and evaluate the proposed project relative to the resources. The report was tasked to:
 Characterize the watercourse and plant community;
 Identify sensitive biotic resources, including plant and wildlife species of concern, within the area proposed for development; and
 Evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on sensitive biotic resources and recommend measures to avoid or reduce such impacts.

The stretch of Laurel Creek adjacent to the site is an open channel, with a mixture of natural and concrete-lined side slopes and is comprised of non-native landscaping and non-native forbs and vines. The value of the riparian corridor to native wildlife is moderated due to its small size and the lack of native riparian vegetation that would provide cover and forage for native wildlife.

However, it provides value due to the year-round presence of surface water and the structure of the woody vegetation likely provides perching, roosting, and nesting sites for several bird species. Common wildlife species adapted to urban land uses are expected to inhabit the creek and the adjacent landscaping. Approximately 68 square feet of the building will overhang the riparian corridor (16 feet above grade); however, this feature will not impact any existing riparian woodland vegetation. No special status plant species have been recorded for this property, and no special status species were observed and the potential presence of is considered very low due to the lack of suitable substrates/habitats and developed condition of the site. The majority of the proposed development will occur within areas supporting existing structures, parking areas, and non-native landscaping. The removal of this vegetation is not considered a significant impact to local or regional botanical resources. Recommended measures to protect the creek have been included as conditions of approval, which include:

26.135

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 14 of 33 ends

 Implement riparian restoration /enhancement actions within the riparian corridor. Within this zone, remove invasive, non-native plant species. Implement maintenance of the corridor, including continued removal of invasive, non-native plant species and maintenance of installed plantings for a minimum of 5 years, providing yearly progress reports to the City.
 Utilize locally native plant species within the riparian corridor. Obtain plants from a local native plant nursery. Do not use invasive, non-native plant species for landscaping.  Prohibit lighting within riparian corridor and limit lighting in development setback area to low-level walkway, motion detection security, or entry lighting. Direct lighting to be hooded and directed downward, away from the watercourse.  Prohibit mowing or removal of riparian vegetation.
 Schedule vegetation removal to occur between September 1 and March 1 of any given year(s) to avoid the bird nesting season.
 Implement standard erosion control BMP’s and riparian habitat protection measures during the project construction period to minimize impacts to the creek.  Within the 15-foot wide development setback area, revise the plantings in the bioremediation area of the proposed Landscape Plan to exclude plant species that are not locally native and/or inappropriate for the region.

With the structure cantilevering into the 10-foot riparian corridor setback and the 15-foot development setback areas, the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan would require the issuance of a Watercourse Variance. However, with the project including a Density Bonus, a waiver to the creek setback is being requested in place of the Watercourse Variance. Similar to the requirements of a Watercourse Variance, the biotic report evaluated the potential impacts of the project on the creek. Appropriate conditions of approval are included to improve the habitat of the creek by removing invasive, non-native plant species, improving water quality and flow with implementation of proper erosion control and best management practices, and planting of appropriate species.

Density Bonus
To address California’s need for affordable housing, the State enacted the density bonus law (Government Code §§ 65915 – 65918) in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units by offering a combination of benefits to developers. For projects that include the requisite number of affordable housing units, and upon the request of an applicant, cities are required to (i) allow more market rate units to be built than otherwise allowed by the applicable zoning designation); (ii) provide “incentives or concessions,” such as reduced development standards, that result in actual and identifiable cost savings for the project; (iii) provide “waivers or modifications” of development standards that would physically preclude the project from being constructed; and (iv) allow reduced parking requirements.

26.136

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 15 of 33 ends

standards. Projects that include a specified amount of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus, even if the density bonus would allow a project to exceed the maximum density under the City’s general plan and zoning code.

The amount of the density bonus is based on the number of affordable units at each income level that are included in a project. To determine whether a project qualifies for a density bonus, the percentage of affordable units is based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). In areas where there is no density range, or in the case with a project that proposes SROs, Section 24.16.255(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to submit base plans, or plans showing a project that fully conforms to objective standards, in order to determine the number of units that could be constructed on the site, thus establishing the base density. The applicant has provided plans for a base project that meets all of the CC zone district development standards, including height, setbacks, open space, etc., and the determined base density is 40 units.

Market-rate projects providing certain percentages of affordable units or units at deeper levels of affordability are entitled to an increase in density up to 50% of the total number of units that are allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance, depending on specified percentages and levels of affordability. The additional units help offset the increased costs associated with the increased number of or more deeply affordable units. The density bonus units themselves are not required to be affordable and, pursuant to Section 24.16.250(2) of the Zoning Code (as well as the State Density Bonus and California case law), “density bonus units shall not be included in the “total units” when determining the number of affordable units required to qualify a housing development for a density bonus.” Thus, by law, the percentages of affordable units that qualify a project for the density bonus are based on the base project only and not the base project plus the density bonus units. According to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), if 15% of the total conforming base density is designated very low-income, development projects then qualify for a 50% density bonus, or for this particular project, up to 60 total units.

Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 24.16.020(5)(b), “SRO Developments. In a rental residential development comprised of SRO units, twenty percent of the single-room occupancy units shall be made available for rent to very low-income households at an affordable rent.” With a base density of 40 units, 8 (20%) of the residential units will be required to be provided as affordable housing units at the very-low income level (50% AMI).

In addition to allowing more market rate units to offset the cost of providing affordable units, the law also provides a variety of tools that applicants can utilize to make projects physically or more economically feasible, including incentives/concessions that allow for modification of development standards if those standards would result in “actual and identifiable cost reductions” to the project, and waivers that allow for modifications of development standards if the standards “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project. The project applicant is entitled to four concessions, while the applicant can request as many waivers from development standards as needed if the development standard would preclude the density bonus project from being built at the allowed density. The applicant has requested three waivers of development standards, all of which are required to be waived if they preclude project development. The city must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact

26.137

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 16 of 33 ends

on health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated, or adversely impact real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. There is no evidence that the following waivers requested should not be granted as required by state law:

Waiver 1 - Height: The project proposes to exceed the maximum height of three stories and 40 feet as required in the CC zone district, proposing a five-story building at approximately 61 feet in height.

Complying with the 40-foot standard would require the building to reduce the number of floors and eliminate 29 residential units. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

Waiver 2 - FAR: The project proposes to exceed Floor Area Ratio. The Community Commercial designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .25 to 1.75 FAR. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project is 43,237 square feet and the net lot size is 12,502 square feet with a FAR for the proposed development of 3.46. Complying with the FAR required in the CC designation would reduce the volume of the building and result in a loss of units and amenities. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

Waiver 3 – Setbacks: The project proposes a reduction to setback requirements to the west (rear setback) and the north (creek setback). Complying with the setbacks required in the CC zone district and Mission Street Urban Design Plan would require the building to be increasingly stepped back as the height increases. These increased building setbacks would reduce the volume of the building and eliminate a substantial number of residential units. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and the City’s zoning ordinance, the applicant is required to provide justification for any requested waivers, and the City must approve the requests unless it can make findings of “specific, adverse impact” to public health or safety or similar detrimental effect to the physical environment based on “substantial evidence”, as promulgated in California Government Code Section 65915(e)). No evidence of such public health or safety impact appears evident based on information available to staff.

With regard to the proposed project, failure to grant the waivers requested would physically preclude construction of the project accommodating the number of residential units allowed under Density Bonus Law. As presented, the project would not induce any specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and includes no characteristics constituting grounds for reduction in residential density or project denial pursuant to the provisions of SB330. No evidence has been revealed which would suggest that the requested waivers should not be granted as required by State law, and, therefore, staff recommend that the Planning Commission grant all requested waivers.

Affordable Housing
The City’s Municipal Code, Section 24.16.020, requires that residential developments creating five or more new residential dwelling units provide 20% of the base dwelling units as inclusionary (affordable) units, which shall be made available for lease to low-income

26.138

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 17 of 33 ends

households at an affordable rent. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 24.16.020(5)(b), “SRO Developments. In a rental residential development comprised of SRO units, twenty percent of the single-room occupancy units shall be made available for rent to very-low income households at an affordable rent.” With a base density of 40 units, 8 (20%) of the residential units will be required to be provided as affordable housing units at the very-low income level of 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) in perpetuity. The plans provide 20% of the number of base density units as affordable units, fulfilling the affordable housing requirement per Density Bonus State Law, as described above.

Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development, and it limits the ability of local governments to restrict the development of new housing. The Act applies to housing applications submitted to local agencies that meet the following criteria.
 Meets a city's "objective general plan and zoning standards"  The development would not cause a "significant, adverse impact" to public health and safety; and
 The development meets the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act.

The mixed-use SRO development is consistent with all zoning and development standards and the project will not result in significant, adverse impacts to public health and safety.

Regarding the Potential for ADUs
Like all multi-family property in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed, as a ministerial action. Up to 25% of the total number of units (for this project, a total of fourteen) can potentially be created by converting non-livable space, and up to two New Construction ADUs can also potentially be built – either attached to or detached from the proposed structure. ADUs are not counted towards density on a project.

26.139

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 18 of 33 ends

Health in all Policies (HiAP)
HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars:
equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The mixed-use project supports the pillar of equity by providing affordable rental units on a site in an area that is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas. The development of residences in this central location encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Consistent with the City’s Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects, the applicants held an online webinar for the community to learn about the project, ask questions, and give input.

The community outreach webinar was held on April 18, 2023, and was noticed with signage on the property, notices mailed to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the project site and advertised on the City’s website. Email notifications were also sent to those who had signed up for such alerts. Approximately 100 members of the public attended the meeting, with questions and discussion items involving height, parking, traffic, shading, trash pick-up, and pedestrian friendly improvements. While the previously mentioned issues were part of the discussion, there were comments supporting the project, specifically in regard to the addition of high-density housing along the Mission Street corridor, and the provision of affordable income units. In addition to the webinar, a project webpage was created and posted to the City of Santa Cruz website that provided a link to the recorded webinar and allowed members of the public to submit comments to the project planner.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332, related to infill development.

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

26.140

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 19 of 33 ends

The proposed project complies with all of the foregoing criteria and demonstrates eligibility for implementation of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as afforded by CEQA. The application exhibits consistency with General Plan and zoning designations, policies, and regulations, with a project site comprising 12,502 square feet (.287 acres) in size, below the maximum threshold of five (5) acres, located within city limits and surrounded by existing residential and commercial urban uses. As a previously-developed urban infill site, the subject lot holds no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, with none known to exist on the site; development of the project would not result in any significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as supported by the submitted information; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposal qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, infill exemption.

SUMMARY
This project involves a proposal to construct a five-story, mixed-use project consisting of ground level parking and commercial space, and 59 Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units. The development will implement the City’s vision for the “Westside Zone” area as expressed by the General Plan and the Mission Street Urban Design Plan by providing 8 much needed affordable units and 51 market rate residential units. Additionally, with a request for a Density Bonus, the project will maximize density while providing 20% of the units at the very low-income level, which will be a significant addition to the city’s affordable housing stock. As conditioned, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and provides a development that is consistent with the vision for the Mission Street corridor.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Boundary Adjustment, Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Density Bonus Request to exceed height, setbacks, and FAR for the proposed project based on the Findings below and the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1.

26.141

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 20 of 33 ends

FINDINGS
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230

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

A historic report (DPR 523 Form) was prepared by historian Joseph Van Den Berg of Garavaglia Architecture which evaluates the existing buildings and the history of the site.

Based on records, the existing buildings were constructed in 1966, with subsequent additions and modifications occurring in 1974 and 1975. The report finds that the subject property does not display a level of historical significance or integrity that would qualify it for listing as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The site is not associated with any important historic events or patterns of history, is not associated with any historic people, the architecture is not notable and contains almost not characterdefining features. Thus, the structure is not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

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

The proposed mixed-use project is being approved concurrently with the approval to demolish the subject structure.

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

Not applicable as the property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.

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

It has been determined that the property does not qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

26.142

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 21 of 33 ends

Boundary Line Adjustment Section, 23.12.030.1(b)

5. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, zoning and building ordinances.

The proposal to merge parcels 006-203-24 and -25 into one 12,502 square foot parcel is consistent with the General Plan and Community Commercial zone district standards which require a minimum 8,000 square foot parcel size for mixed-use projects.

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

The proposed Boundary Adjustment will not result in the creation of any additional parcels or building sites, but rather the two parcels will be combined to result in one parcel.

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.

The subject parcel has a Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) General Plan designation.

This designation applies to sites along the Ocean Street and the Mission Street corridor between Swift and Laurel Street. Typical commercial uses are similar to those in the Community Commercial (CM) designation, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground floor. For reference, the CM designation calls for “businesses that serve the general needs of the community, including retail, service, and office establishments.

Typical uses in these areas include restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores, general merchandise, medical and legal offices, and auto parts stores, as well as mixed-use projects that include these commercial uses on the ground floor.” The Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project is 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 3.86 for the proposed development. With the proposed FAR exceeding the allowed FAR, a waiver to FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request.

26.143

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 22 of 33 ends

 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Community Design CD3.3 – Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.
 Community Design CD4.1.1 – Support compact mixed-use development Downtown, along primary transportation corridors, and in employment centers.  Community Design CD4.1.1 – Where possible, site buildings at the street frontage and place parking areas away from street corners and to the rear of buildings.
 Community Design CD4.1.3 – On major corridors, encourage mixed-use development, especially projects with priority for commercial uses that can provide services to the adjacent community.
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11 - Improve traffic flow and safety and reduce impacts on arterial streets by limiting driveways, mid-block access points, and intersections; removing on-street parking; clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; providing access from side streets; and other similar measures.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

26.144

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 23 of 33 ends

corridor should maintain a predominantly commercial mixed-use character. Residential uses should be restricted to multi-family residential units, and to residential above ground floor retail or office. The remaining single-family residential uses should be allowed to eventually phase out. The intent is to create a corridor that is safe, attractive, economically and socially vibrant, which in turn will improve the quality of life for Westside residents.

The project site is within the “Westside Zone” area of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The Westside Zone, which extends from Laural Street to Swift Street includes predominantly retail and service type uses with scattered residential, office and institutional uses. The project meets the objectives of the Westside Zone by establishment of a development that provides retail and services for both residents and visitors and employing streetscape improvements such as street trees, lighting, and street furnishings to visually unify this section of the corridor and enhance the pedestrian environment. The project also meets the following areawide land use and redevelopment strategy plan policies:
 Policy 4a – Encourage a mix of higher density residential and office uses along Mission Street that will complement and support the retail base and contribute to the creation of a neighborhood with around-the-clock vitality.
 Policy 4b – Establish the Mission Street corridor as an attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district.
 Policy 4c – Encourage “mixed-use” development and “local-serving” commercial uses as a means of reducing automobile use within the planning area. Development of complementary uses (retail and office, retail and housing, office and housing) in proximity to each other allows residents, employees, and visitors to walk and/or bicycle when undertaking many of the typical daily trips, whether it is going to lunch, running errands, or going out for the evening.
 Policy 5c – Encourage redevelopment and infill development along Mission Street that will improve the corridor’s economic vitality, enhance the definition and character of the corridor, and create better pedestrian scale and orientation.

8. For nonresidential 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 contains both nonresidential and residential components. Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses to the west and across the creek to the north. The commercial retail use will abut Mission Street maintaining a substantial distance from the neighboring residences and will not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties. For the residential portions of the development the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district as well as the Mission Street Urban Design Overlay District, taking into consideration the waivers requested as part of the

26.145

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 24 of 33 ends

Density Bonus request.

9. For nonresidential 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.

Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses to the west and across the creek to the north. The commercial retail use will abut Mission Street maintaining a substantial distance from the neighboring residences, and fronting Mission Street will be compatible as well as add to the Mission Street commercial streetscape.

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 proposed building has a contemporary design, incorporating a variety of exterior finish materials including textured concrete (board formed/textured), metal panels, fiber cement panel or stucco, patterned metal fence/gates/screens/sunshades, and a glazed aluminum windows. This stretch of Mission Street has a wide variety of building types and appearances, none of which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

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 Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 3.86 for the proposed development. A waiver to exceed FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request, as complying with the designated FAR would reduce the volume of the building and would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. .

With the exception of height and setbacks, the siting and design standards are consistent with the zone district standards. The proposed building has been designed in a contemporary style with rooftop equipment incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view.

26.146

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 25 of 33 ends

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.

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 flat site is mostly paved with two commercial buildings constructed in the 1960s that are proposed for demolition. There are seven trees located on the site, two of which qualify as heritage due to their size. No special status plant species have been recorded for this property, and no special status species were observed and the potential presence of is considered very low due to the lack of suitable substrates/habitats and developed condition of the site. The majority of the proposed development will occur within areas supporting existing structures, parking areas, and non-native landscaping. The removal of this vegetation is not considered a significant impact to local or regional botanical resources. Recommended measures to protect the creek have been included as conditions of approval, including removal of invasive species, using locally native plant species for the new landscaping, and scheduling of vegetation removal to avoid the bird nesting season. The site will remain flat, with minimal alteration to the existing land forms.

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 site is not located adjacent to the coastline or within any scenic view area.

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.

The applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for the new building. The structure will be required to meet all applicable regulations of the California Building Code pertaining to noise, vibration, and other factors affecting indoor and exterior environmental quality.

Conditions of approval require that the applicant submit a project-level noise assessment for review and approval prior to building permit issuance and require compliance with the reports’ recommendations to ensure compliance with the noise policies in the General Plan.

26.147

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 26 of 33 ends

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

The proposed building will be designed to meet the City’s Green Building Program requirements. New planted trees and landscaping will reduce the heat island effect.

Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

17. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
The subject parcel has a Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) General Plan designation.

The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.3.1 - Discourage strip commercial development in favor of clustered commercial and mixed-use development along transit corridors.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.

26.148

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 27 of 33 ends

 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Community Design CD3.3 – Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.
 Community Design CD4.1.1 – Support compact mixed-use development Downtown, along primary transportation corridors, and in employment centers.  Community Design CD4.1.1 – Where possible, site buildings at the street frontage and place parking areas away from street corners and to the rear of buildings.
 Community Design CD4.1.3 – On major corridors, encourage mixed-use development, especially projects with priority for commercial uses that can provide services to the adjacent community.
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11 - Improve traffic flow and safety and reduce impacts on arterial streets by limiting driveways, mid-block access points, and intersections; removing on-street parking; clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; providing access from side streets; and other similar measures.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

The project site is located within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan (MSUDP) which encourages developments such as this. The community’s vision is to re-establish Mission Street as a vibrant commercial corridor that recognizes and carefully balances its functions as both a State Highway and local-serving commercial street. As noted in the MSUDP, the corridor should maintain a predominantly commercial mixed-use character. Residential uses should be restricted to multi-family residential units, and to residential above ground floor retail or office. The remaining single-family residential uses should be allowed to eventually phase out. The intent is to create a corridor that is safe, attractive, economically and socially vibrant, which in turn will improve the quality of life for Westside residents.

The project site is within the “Westside Zone” area of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The Westside Zone, which extends from Laural Street to Swift Street includes predominantly

26.149

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 28 of 33 ends

retail and service type uses with scattered residential, office and institutional uses. The project meets the objectives of the Westside Zone by establishment of a development that provides retail and services for both residents and visitors and employing streetscape improvements such as street trees, lighting, and street furnishings to visually unify this section of the corridor and enhance the pedestrian environment. The project also meets the following areawide land use and redevelopment strategy plan policies:
 Policy 4a – Encourage a mix of higher density residential and office uses along Mission Street that will complement and support the retail base and contribute to the creation of a neighborhood with around-the-clock vitality.
 Policy 4b – Establish the Mission Street corridor as an attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district.
 Policy 4c – Encourage “mixed-use” development and “local-serving” commercia uses as a means of reducing automobile use within the planning area. Development of complementary uses (retail and office, retail and housing, office and housing) in proximity to each other allows residents, employees, and visitors to walk and/or bicycle when undertaking many of the typical daily trips, whether it is going to lunch, running errands, or going out for the evening.
 Policy 5c – Encourage redevelopment and infill development along Mission Street that will improve the corridor’s economic vitality, enhance the definition and character of the corridor, and create better pedestrian scale and orientation.

The property is not located within the Coastal Zone Overlay.

18. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the commercial and residential activities do not negatively impact surrounding uses.

19. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
The project meets all district development standards, and the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatment. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view. Taking all of these into consideration, the proposed uses incorporated into the project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the development does not constitute a nuisance or would be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

20. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage

26.150

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 29 of 33 ends

unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

Not applicable.

Watercourse Development Permit, Section 24.08.2190

21. The development and the project as a whole is consistent with the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan.

The project as a whole is consistent with the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan with the approval of the Density Bonus waiver to the required creeks setbacks and incorporation of the recommendations in the biotic report as conditions of approval. The stretch of Laurel Creek adjacent to the site is an open channel, with a mixture of natural and concrete-lined side slopes and is comprised of non-native landscaping and non-native forbs and vines. The value of the riparian corridor to native wildlife is moderated due to its small size and the lack of native riparian vegetation that would provide cover and forage for native wildlife. However, it provides value due to the year-round presence of surface water and the structure of the woody vegetation likely provides perching, roosting, and nesting sites for several bird species. Common wildlife species adapted to urban land uses are expected to inhabit the creek and the adjacent landscaping. Approximately 68 square feet of the building will overhang the riparian corridor (16 feet above grade); however, this feature will not impact any existing riparian woodland vegetation. No special status plant species have been recorded for this property, and no special status species were observed and the potential presence of is considered very low due to the lack of suitable substrates/habitats and developed condition of the site. The majority of the proposed development will occur within areas supporting existing structures, parking areas, and non-native landscaping. The removal of this vegetation is not considered a significant impact to local or regional botanical resources.

22. That the development is permitted per Section 24.08.2150 or that the zoning administrator has determined that the project is in substantial conformance with the listed permitted uses.

26.151

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 30 of 33 ends

23. That the development complies with the applicable watercourse development standards stated in Section 24.08.2180.

A biotic review was prepared by Biotic Resources Group in August of 2023 with the focus of the assessment being to identify watercourse setbacks and sensitive biotic resources within the project area and evaluate the proposed project relative to the resources. The report recommends measures consistent with the applicable watercourse development standards stated in Section 24.08.2180 which have been included as conditions of approval.

24. That the project has met the requirements of all other reviewing agencies including but not limited to state and federal government requirements.

The limit of the development is outside of state and federal government jurisdiction and therefore is not required to meet state and federal requirements.

Density Bonus, Section 24.16.270

25. 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.

According to AB 2345 Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), if 15% of the total conforming base density is designated very low-income, development projects then qualify for a 50% density bonus. Therefore, the housing development is eligible for a density bonus and the requested waivers. All financing mechanisms for implementation and monitoring costs will be provided by the applicants.

26. 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.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for incentives/concessions.

27. 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.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for dedication of land.

26.152

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 31 of 33 ends

28. 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.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a child care center.

29. 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.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a condominium conversion.

30. If the incentive or concession includes mixed-use buildings or developments, the nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and the proposed nonresidential uses are compatible with the housing development and with existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for incentives/concessions.

31. If a waiver or modification is requested, the applicant has shown that the development standards for which the waiver or modification is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Part 3.

The applicant has requested three waivers of development standards, all of which are required to be waived if they preclude project development. The applicant is requesting waivers to height, setbacks, and FAR. The city must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact on health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated, or adversely impact real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. With regard to the proposed project, failure to grant the waivers requested would physically preclude construction of the project accommodating the number of residential units allowed under Density Bonus Law. As presented, the project would not induce any specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and includes no characteristics constituting grounds for reduction in residential density or project denial pursuant to the provisions of SB330. No evidence has been revealed which would suggest that the requested waivers should not be granted as required by State law.

32. 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.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a commercial development bonus.

33. 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

26.153

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 32 of 33 ends

requirements of the certified Santa Cruz local coastal program, with the exception of density.

Not applicable as the site is not located in the coastal zone.

With Respect to the California Environmental Quality Act

34. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332, related to infill development. The Class 32 categorical exemption applies to a proposed project fulfilling the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

26.154

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of January 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street – Project No. CP23-0103

Page 33 of 33 ends

Submitted by:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Project Plans

3. Geotechnical Report dated October 18, 2022, prepared by Rock Solid Engineering Inc.

4. Historic Report (DPR 523 Form) dated July 25, 2023, prepared by Joesph Van Den Berg of Garavaglia Architecture

5. Draft SRO Management Plan dated October 31, 2023

6. Trip Generation Study dated August 26, 2023, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

7. Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan dated October 2023, prepared by Davey Resource Group

8. Biotic Report dated August 17, 2023, prepared by Biotic Resources Group

9. Public Correspondence

10. Public Hearing Notice Radius Map

26.155

MEMORANDUM
To: Ryan Bane, Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department From: Matt Ricketts, Senior Biologist, Dudek
Subject: Peer Review of Biotic Resources Group Biotic Review Report for 1130 and 1132 Mission Street Proposed Mixed Use Development Project
Date: May 23, 2024
This memorandum contains comments on the August 17, 2023 letter report prepared by Biotic Resources Group1 to assess biotic resources at 1130 and 1132 Mission Street in Santa Cruz (site). At the City’s May 16, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the commission recommended that the report be peer reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant as a condition of approval for the proposed mixed use development of the site (project). This memo is intended to satisfy the condition of approval. In addition, it addresses public concerns on the report’s conclusions regarding project impacts to biotic resources associated with Laurel Creek and the City’s finding that the project qualifies for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332 in-fill development exemption.2 Our comments focus on the technical quality of the report based on Mr. Ricketts’ 23 years of experience preparing or peer-reviewing similar reports for private and public development projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

Biotic Resource Report Peer Review
The report is well-written and consistent with industry standards for biotic resource assessments of small privatelyowned commercial parcels. The list of sources consulted for the database review is comprehensive and consistent with the ones we consult for similar projects, although it would’ve helped to see the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory query results attached to the report to verify which special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for occurrence. The description of onsite vegetation and Laurel Creek on page 3 demonstrates the author’s technical competence in plant identification and the description of regulated and sensitive habitats on pages 7–8 similarly demonstrates their familiarity with local, state, and federal protections for aquatic resources and sensitive habitats. Based on the provided photos and site description, we concur with their conclusions that no permits are needed if the project stays outside the riparian corridor.

We also concur with their conclusion on pages 6–7 that “[t]he value of the riparian corridor to native wildlife is moderated due to its small size and…lack of native riparian vegetation…” while still providing “perching, roosting, and nesting sites for several bird species” and habitat for “common wildlife species adapted to urban land uses.” In our experience, similar riparian corridors in dense urban environments indeed provide habitat for locally common 1 Biotic Resources Group. 2023. 1130 and 1132 Mission Street (APN 006-203-24 and 25), Proposed Mixed Use Development Project:

Biotic Review. Prepared for Omar Hanson, Santa Cruz, CA. August 17, 2023. 2 Vassil, V. 2024. “Food Bin Redevelopment Appeal.” Email from V. Vassil (Cleveland Avenue resident) to City of Santa Cruz. May 17, 2024.

26.156

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1130-1132 MISSION STREET BIOTIC RESOURCE REPORT PEER REVIEW 9711.0001 2
MAY 2024
and urban-adapted wildlife but have limited long-term value for special-status wildlife species that require the more complex vegetation structure and hydrology associated with native riparian communities. That said, the report’s analysis would benefit by providing a list or summary of which species of native birds and other wildlife were observed or could be expected to use the corridor. Based on the provided site photos and our review of aerial imagery, we don’t think the lack of a wildlife species list is a fatal flaw in the analysis, but its inclusion would provide information parallel to the discussion of plants in the second paragraph of page 3.

The impact analysis and recommended mitigation measures on pages 9–11 are sound. We concur that the removal of existing structures, parking areas, and nonnative landscaping would not be considered a significant impact on local or regional botanical resources. Impact BIO-1 correctly identifies the encroachment of the new building into the Laurel Creek riparian corridor as a direct impact because it would conflict with the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, a local policy. The author clearly outlines the rationale for this statement in the text, Table 1, and Figures 7a and 7b. The recommendation to either revise the plans or provide compensatory mitigation in the form of on-site riparian restoration or enhancement in Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 is commensurate with the level of impact. Impact BIO-2 addresses indirect impacts on the riparian corridor from development within the 40-foot-wide watercourse management area and the associated measures provide helpful site-specific guidance on minimizing such impacts through native plantings. MM BIO-4 prescribes preconstruction surveys for nesting birds (including raptors) and the survey parameters (e.g., timing, designated buffer zones) are consistent with similar measures we have written for small projects in or near the City. Our only critique of this section is that the relationship between the significance criteria and the identified impacts is unclear. We assume that Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-2 address significance criteria b (“have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat…”) and e (“conflict with any local policies or ordinances…”) but this is based on our professional experience and may not be evident to the reader. Similarly, a brief discussion of why the project would not have a significant impact on the resources addressed by the other significance criteria would provide more support for the report’s conclusion that none would occur.

In summary, while the report would benefit from additional information on its methodology (i.e., CNDDB and CNPS database query results) and rationale for its significance findings, we concur with its overall conclusion that the project would not have a significant impact on biotic resources with implementation of the recommended MMs. The author clearly has a good understanding of local biotic resources and the local, state, and federal regulations that protect them, and knows how to write practical but effective MMs.

Comments on Biotic Resource Concerns
In his May 17, 2024 email to the City, Cleveland Avenue resident Vasiliki Vassil (commenter) raises several concerns over the report or the project’s potential impacts on biotic resources. Each of these concerns is paraphrased below in italics and followed by our comments.

Timing of the biotic resources survey (June 29, 2023) missed the April-to-May blooming period of most specialstatus plant species and it is also too late for a second survey to detect any such species.

We understand the commenter’s concern over the author’s claim that the survey was conducted “within the blooming period of most species (…April–May),” which contradicts the earlier reporting on page 1 that it was conducted on June 29. This is why it would behoove the author to have attached the results of the CNDDB and CNPS queries to show which special-status plants were evaluated, along with their blooming periods. A table listing

26.157

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1130-1132 MISSION STREET BIOTIC RESOURCE REPORT PEER REVIEW 9711.0001 3
MAY 2024
the species with the author’s analysis of each species’ potential to occur (likely none or unlikely for all) would also provide this information.

That said, it is clear from the report’s photos, site description, and available aerial imagery that the site is highly disturbed and does not support any natural substrates likely to support any special-status plants. Native vegetation is absent from both the site and adjacent Laurel Creek riparian corridor and given that the project would not remove any of the riparian vegetation, we do not think additional rare plant surveys are necessary to demonstrate absence.

The report did not evaluate whether replacement native riparian plantings along Laurel Creek would survive in the “year-round deep shade cast by the tall, overhanging building.” Most riparian trees and shrubs, including those mentioned in MM BIO-2, are shade-tolerant, and therefore would not be affected by the shade cast by the new building. Riparian restoration plans are typically prepared by a restoration ecologist that would take site-specific factors such as shading and sun exposure into account when designing the planting plan. Our staff have successfully designed and permitted many small riparian restoration projects for urban sites like this without adverse effects from adjacent building design.

It cannot be stated conclusively that the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species because the timing of the June 29, 2023 survey missed the blooming period for native species and is also not the best time of year to assess nesting birds, aquatic reptiles or amphibians.

Given the small size and developed condition of the site, a single site visit is adequate for professional biologists to assess habitat for special-status species and evaluate the potential for their occurrence. While targeted surveys for individual species should indeed be repeated and conducted at the times of year when they are most likely to be present, such surveys are not warranted for this site because of the poor habitat conditions for native species.

Professional biologists are trained to assess habitat (i.e., the resources and conditions present in an area that produce occupancy…by a given organism3) for multiple species when conducting site visits and consider factors such as species’ distribution, habitat needs, and seasonality in their determination for a given species to occur.

Raptors (e.g., a pair of red-shouldered hawks) are known to breed and feed in the Laurel Creek riparian zone adjacent to the site. Raptors are protected by California law, and by the [f]ederal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed building will encroach into the Laurel Creek riparian habitat used by these raptors and likely result in the illegal incidental take and should be evaluated.

The report acknowledges the habitat value of the Laurel Creek riparian corridor for native birds and common wildlife on page 6 and that raptor and bird nests are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) on pages 8–9. In addition, MM BIO-4 provides for the protection of any active nests found during preconstruction surveys, which would avoid take under both statutes. We do not share the commenter’s concerns that the project would result in incidental take of bird or raptor nests if this measure is implemented.

Southwestern pond turtles have been reported from Neary Lagoon and Westlake Pond and could therefore occur in the Laurel Creek corridor. The report did not demonstrate that the site has no habitat value for this and other endangered, rare, or threatened species.
3 Hall, L.S., P.R. Krausman, and M.L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173–182.

26.158

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1130-1132 MISSION STREET BIOTIC RESOURCE REPORT PEER REVIEW 9711.0001 4
MAY 2024
As previously mentioned, the report would indeed benefit from additional information on the species that were evaluated and why they are not expected to occur. Most biotic resource reports attach copies of species database query results and/or species “potential to occur” tables. Within this context, we understand the commenter’s opinion that the report “did not demonstrate that the site has no habitat value for [special-status wildlife species].” That said, we agree with the report’s overall conclusion that special-status wildlife species are not expected to occur on site “due to lack of suitable habitat.” Southwestern pond turtles indeed require uplands for nesting but would not be expected to occur on the project site because it is entirely paved and lacks soft soils required for nesting and overwintering. It is also over 2,000 feet from potentially occupied aquatic habitat at Neary Lagoon and Westlake Pond and does not provide aquatic habitat itself due to the lack of basking sites. We are aware of no other specialstatus species that might be expected to occur on the project site or adjacent riparian corridor. The project would also not involve any direct impacts to the creek channel or associated vegetation.

26.159
1 Bonnie Bush
From: Donna Mekis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 130-1132 Mission Street Public Hearing on April 30, 2024 Re: 1130-1132 Mission Street
Project No.:CP23-0103
APN: 006-203-24,-25
Dear City Council,
I am hoping to make the meeting on April 30, but will need to be late.

At the Planning Commission meeting regarding this project, it was made clear that this building is being designed for tenants without cars. Thus, very few parking places have been planned for the 47 single room occupancy units. If this project is approved, I would like to recommend:
1) That tenants in this building not be granted city parking permits for Laurel and Cleveland Street areas. 2) That the requirement for parking permits on these streets be extended to year around, and 24 hours a day (currently permits are not required in the summer months or after 6 pm.

By making these changes to the parking regulations, and by truly committing to this project being for tenants without cars (which could be managed with the above recommendations), this building could be successful in not causing overdue burden on nearby neighbors.

These streets are currently ¾ filled with cars most days. Adding another 47-100 cars will be extremely difficult for current residents of Laurel and Cleveland Streets.

Thanks so much for your consideration,
Donna Mekis
1325 Laurel Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 334-8631

26.160

26.161

26.162
From: eduardo izquierdo
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food bin development
Date: Friday, April 19, 2024 7:32:47 PM
Dear city council members, I am a home owner and reside at 326 Van Ness Ave since 1976 .I have concerns about the proposed building to be constructed at the present site of the Food Bin.

A 5 story building seems excessive and out scale with all the surrounding buildings and a neighborhood which is mostly single story family homes.The design of the structure is for 59 units and grocery/health supplement store…..that is going to be a major increase in the local population. Is the thinking that this increase in residents will just be absorbed? What is the plan to deal with the increased traffic.A commercial building with over 100 residents? What is the plan for deliveries to the store and online deliveries to residents and customers shopping with little designed parking?? The residents will also have friends and family visiting.Why does this have to be so big i.e 5 stories when the general plan states no more than 3? Why is the developer getting a variance to allow building closer to the watershed?
Putting up buildings is sexy…I get it you feel that something is getting done..and there is a need for housing..however, successful development requires not so visible considered planning…takes longer but you’ll end up with a more integrated and happier community.

Eduardo Izquierdo
326 Van Ness Ave

26.163
From: Robin Lerios
To: Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Project on Missions St.

Date: Saturday, April 20, 2024 9:19:40 AM
Thank you for your service to our community and for allowing me this avenue to voice my opinion.

My family has been in SC for five generations now and I feel the weight of that should pertain as some of you are much newer to this community, (albeit that you are dedicated). We are small business owners and property owners in this city.

Andrew served the County as a Correction Officer and Supervisor for over 30 years.

This project is too large and invasive for the neighborhood! It sets a precedent that I fear going forth.

There needs to be more setbacks from creek and residential properties as it will affect both in a highly negative fashion.

It will be a ridiculous jump from business to residential depreciating the resale value of newer by homes.

With all the new housing going up down town why is this looked at as necessary, unless, of course, it will ACTUALLY be affordable for those in need in our community now. The housing downtown is way over priced for the majority of the people in SC that need it.

Also, please explain the rationale to build more retail space when so many FOR LEASE signs are around our city? I cannot fathom this logic.

Thank you again,
Robin Lerios, Andrew Lerios, Adrian Valentine, & Sophia Lerios

26.164
From: Fred Keeley
To: Robin Lerios; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Re: Food Bin Project on Missions St.

Date: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:48:53 PM
Robin,
Thank you so much for your email regarding the Food Bin property development project.

Thank you also for Andrew's public service.

Much of what you have to say, I agree with. If we were in 2017 or before, the City would have an entire tool box from which to select to address many of your concerns.

Beginning in 2017, the legislature, including our representatives, voted for more than 100 individual bills to "tear down the barriers to development" throughout California. This has left cities and counties with virtually no tools to address the issues you have raised.

An example of just one of the bills: When a developer proposes a project of 30 or MORE units, local governments are prohibited from requiring ANY on-site parking. In other words, our legislators and the governor have privatized the amount of on-site parking a project will install.

When this matter arrives at the City Council, I will use the very few remaining tools to address your issues, but it is important for everyone to know how limited those tools are.

Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: Robin Lerios <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 9:19 AM
To: Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]> Subject: Food Bin Project on Missions St.

Thank you for your service to our community and for allowing me this avenue to voice my opinion.

Andrew served the County as a Correction Officer and Supervisor for over 30 years.

This project is too large and invasive for the neighborhood! It sets a precedent that I fear going forth.

There needs to be more setbacks from creek and residential properties as it will affect both in a highly negative fashion.

It will be a ridiculous jump from business to residential depreciating the resale value of newer by

26.165
homes.

Also, please explain the rationale to build more retail space when so many FOR LEASE signs are around our city? I cannot fathom this logic.

Thank you again,
Robin Lerios, Andrew Lerios, Adrian Valentine, & Sophia Lerios

26.166
From: Fred Keeley
To: eduardo izquierdo; City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Re: Food bin development
Date: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:57:44 PM
Eduardo,
Thank you for your email regarding the proposed Food Bin project.

Context is important here. If we were considering this proposal prior to 2017, the City would have an entire tool box full of tools to directly address your concerns. Starting in 2017, our legislators and the governor passed more than 100 bills to "tear down barriers to development". For example, one such bill now forbids local government from requiring ANY on-site parking for projects of 30 units or MORE. In other words, the State of California has privatized how much parking will be built.

When this matter arrives at the City Council, I am interested in using the few remaining tools we have to address your issues. Please be both aware of this, and work together to do what we can to help the neighborhood out under these new laws.

Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: eduardo izquierdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 7:32 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Shebreh KalantariJohnson <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>
Subject: Food bin development
Dear city council members, I am a home owner and reside at 326 Van Ness Ave since 1976 .I have concerns about the proposed building to be constructed at the present site of the Food Bin.

A 5 story building seems excessive and out scale with all the surrounding buildings and a neighborhood which is mostly single story family homes.The design of the structure is for 59 units and grocery/health supplement store…..that is going to be a major increase in the local population. Is the thinking that this increase in residents will just be absorbed? What is the plan to deal with the increased traffic.A commercial building with over 100 residents?What is the plan for deliveries to the store and online deliveries to residents and customers shopping with little designed parking?? The residents will also have friends and family visiting.Why does this have to be so big i.e 5 stories when the general plan states no more than 3? Why is the developer getting a variance to allow building closer to the watershed?
Putting up buildings is sexy…I get it you feel that something is getting done..and there is a need for housing..however, successful development requires not so visible considered planning…takes longer but you’ll end up with a more integrated and happier community.

26.167
Eduardo Izquierdo
326 Van Ness Ave

26.168
From: Joe De Meo
To: City Council
Subject: Food bin
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:29:49 AM
Hello city council,
Once again the I am hearing pushback from the Nimbys about the food bin project. What better place to build residential with commercial on first floor then on a main Street. such as Mission st.

Of course the nearby neighbor's would like to block this. I remember many years ago when my parents were looking for a house they purposely kept away from a main street knowing that some day it would be developed. Usually homes do sell for a bit less near a major st knowing this can happen. It's like buying a house near a airport then complaining about the noise.

Regards Joe

26.169
From: Terri
To: City Council
Subject: Mission st build
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:15:41 PM
I am against the high rise and lack of parking in the proposed building. Retail in place of parking is going to create more mission st chaos. Rethink the plans.

Terri
Sent from my iPhone

26.170
From: Joanne Hutson
To: City Council
Subject: 1130 & 1132 MISSION - Neighbor Concerns
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:24:50 PM
Dear City Council,
On behalf of our third generation west side family, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed development project at 1130 & 1132 Mission Street. We believe this development poses significant challenges and risks that must be carefully considered.

Please see our concerns listed below:

Neighborhood Context: This building does not maintain the character, integrity and safety of our neighborhoods, or the Mission Street corridor design standards. What happened to our City's design standards? Please reference the Mission Street Urban Design Plan - Development Standards and Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/10080/635418232770030000 Safety - The increased traffic will impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Based on the current plan, there is only one entry and exit to parking for the entire complex and retail space. The entry/exit sends traffic directly into adjacent neighborhoods.

Tenant and Retail Parking - With 59 units, where will friends, relatives, and tenants park? Also, where will retail shoppers park? How will this development accommodate or enforce the additional vehicular impacts? Are tenants not allowed to own a vehicle? Trash Bins - As per plan dated, 3/11/2024, trash bins are shown blocking the vehicular entry/exit(?). This will impact anyone that needs to enter the parking structure, or turn right onto Laurel Street from Mission. Riparian Setback - What are the required setbacks for the riparian corridor relative to the proposed increased building height? Water - Water in our City is a finite resource. How is the water usage being managed for this development? In the past, during drought years development was limited. California inevitably will face future droughts and we have not built new reservoirs to support the growth. As a community, we need to strike a balance between the longtime residents and current and future generations who want to preserve quaint and safe neighborhoods. We trust that you will listen to the west side residents and hear our concerns.

Sincerely,
Joanne Hutson and Zach Wormhoudt
Jennifer Muhly-Hutson and John Hutson
Jeff and Andrea Hutson

26.171
From: Kevin Karplus
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin project
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 2:42:03 PM
The development of car-free housing on Mission Street with easy walking access to a grocery store seems like an excellent direction for increasing housing in Santa Cruz.

Don't let the NIMBYs talk you into blocking housing on the Westside! Kevin [email protected]://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus Professor Emeritus, UC, Santa Cruz
Author of Applied Analog Electronics
Affiliations for identification only.

26.172
From: Ellen Solway
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Opposition to the Food Bin project
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:05:56 PM
Hello,
I strongly object to the Food Bin project. There will be no parking available. The people who live there will have friends, family, caregivers, and delivery people coming with vehicles. It is unreasonable and irresponsible to allow the building of a project like this in a small town that is already severely congested.

Sincerely, Ellen Solway

26.173
From: Sue
To: City Council
Subject: Oppose Food Bin development
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 9:10:27 PM
Please reconsider approving the food bin development. I have lived in Santa Cruz my whole life and am very concerned that you have tentatively approved this development, despite there being NO Parking! My father has lived in the food bin neighborhood since the 70’s and I am very familiar with the neighborhood.

Please re-consider opposing this project! I don’t understand how this could even pass, considering that it is HUGE and there is NO PARKING! Mission Street is already congested and that area of food bin is already hard to pull into and out of while shopping! Please keep Santa Cruz the small town it once was, without HUGE buildings everywhere you turn! Thank you.

Sincerely,
Susanne J Smith
130 Stockton Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Sent from Mail for Windows

26.174
From: Lisa Simon
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Mission St. Proposed High Rise
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:17:57 PM
To city council Members,
This proposed development clearly skirted some rules on number of residents and provides few low-income apartments. Also of concern is the impact on the Laurel Street waterway and thus on Nearly Lagoon. Has this been adequately studies? I think not.

Please reconsider the existed plan and thoughtfully design another more low-impact housing structure in its place.

Let’s continue to move our city ahead with careful thought to the citizens, roadways, and waters involved.

Thank you.

Lisa Simon Scotts Valley Arts Commissioner

26.175
From: Patty Walters
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development Input
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 9:05:57 AM
Dear City Council:

No. No. No.

Please, No.

The proposed Food Bin project is MASSIVE!
WAY too tall and large for that space, both visually and practically.

Parking? Where?
You know it’s not feasible to say people will not have cars.

Traffic?
You try and get on and off the Westside during commute times. Let’s not add MORE cars. (And boy do I know that people use King Street as an option, because I do, too!) Privacy? City character?
It’s not ideal that there is only one lot of space between the residential corridor and the traffic corridor, and let’s not ignore and compound the issues by building 50’ above the neighborhood. When we design the NEXT city, we can do it better; let’s not destroy the feeling of our city now because we didn’t plan back then.

Please, please do not approve this project.

Thank you,
Patty
************
Patty Walters
1711 King Street
Santa Cruz, CA
phone: 831-458-1305
www.waltersconsulting.com
There are exactly as many special occasions in life as we choose to celebrate.~Robert Brault

26.176
From: Fred Keeley
To: Lisa Simon; City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: RE: Mission St. Proposed High Rise
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 11:13:17 AM
Ms. Simon,
Thank you for your email. The State of California has taken away many of the tools we have used in the past to address the kinds of issues you are raising. The degree to which the City has jurisdiction, I am interested in using those authorities to address the issues you raise.

Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Simon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:18 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]> Subject: Mission St. Proposed High Rise
To city council Members,
This proposed development clearly skirted some rules on number of residents and provides few low-income apartments. Also of concern is the impact on the Laurel Street waterway and thus on Nearly Lagoon. Has this been adequately studies? I think not.

Please reconsider the existed plan and thoughtfully design another more low-impact housing structure in its place.

Let’s continue to move our city ahead with careful thought to the citizens, roadways, and waters involved.

Thank you.

Lisa Simon Scotts Valley Arts Commissioner

26.177
From: eduardo izquierdo
To: Fred Keeley
Cc: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins Subject: Re: Food bin development
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 12:51:41 PM
Thank you Mr.Keeley for quickly responding and letting me know of the state’s mandate to cities regarding parking requirements.

In regard to the Food Bin project: Does the state also require that any new commercial construction has to be 5 stories or more? Is that a mandate?
Also, what is the driving force to exempt set back requirements to the neighbors property and the watershed i.e Laurel creek? How did we get there?
thank you for your consideration of these inquiries. Eduardo Izquierdo On Apr 20, 2024, at 1:57 PM, Fred Keeley <[email protected]> wrote:

Eduardo,
Thank you for your email regarding the proposed Food Bin project.

Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: eduardo izquierdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 7:32 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <SKalantari[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>
Subject: Food bin development
Dear city council members, I am a home owner and reside at 326 Van Ness Ave since 1976 .I have concerns about the proposed building to be constructed at the present site of the Food Bin.

A 5 story building seems excessive and out scale with all the surrounding buildings and a neighborhood which is mostly single story family homes.The design of the structure is for 59 units and grocery/health supplement store…..that is going to be a major increase in the local population. Is the thinking that this increase in residents will just be absorbed? What is the plan to deal with the increased traffic.A commercial building with over 100 residents?What is the plan for deliveries to the store and online deliveries to residents and customers shopping with little designed parking?? The residents will also have friends and family visiting.Why does this have to be so big i.e 5 stories when the general plan states no more than 3? Why is the developer getting a variance to allow building closer to the watershed?
Putting up buildings is sexy…I get it you feel that something is getting done..and there is a need for housing..however, successful development requires not so visible considered planning…takes longer but you’ll end up with a more integrated and happier community.

Eduardo Izquierdo
326 Van Ness Ave

26.178
From: Erik B
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin/Gargantua Mall
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 3:41:29 PM
Greetings Council Members I hope this note finds you well.

I moved to Santa Cruz westside in 1983 and ended up buying my home on the 1300 block of Laurel in 1996, I now feel like I know the neighborhood fairly well. I watched as PAMF came to the corner across from the food bin and wondered why so big? Then when their new building went up and down Mission, I thought it's way too close to the street to be that tall.

Now watching the shadows of the new mega buildings cover our downtown it's clear to see that we'll not have a "Garden Mall" ever again:-(
Enough about the past and downtown though, if we have to have tall buildings, let's keep them together. I'm writing to implore you to stop the madness of the 5 story Food Bin. It is clear that the Planning Commision approved the plans without really understanding the ramifications.

We simply do not have room on this street for 118 (or 130 after they convert the storage rooms) more residents, especially since there is no parking planned for the residents or their guests. The Bin's staff and deliveries already take up parking that we have to pay for. Where will the fleet of delivery trucks that will be needed, if the residents actually play by the rule that they are not to have cars.

Ha Ha- who gets to enforce that?
This is already one of the most dangerous intersections on Mission, putting all those folks on the sidewalk crossing Laurel or Mission to the bus stops will not be safe.

The idea that we as homeowners must maintain setbacks seems reasonable, the Idea that developers do not have to is ludicrous.

Santa Cruz should not allow this kind of money grabbing! If they really want, let them build it without all the exemptions.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Erik Borrowman

26.179
From: Doug Martine
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Project
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 2:45:03 PM
Attachments: SKM_C450i24042311460.pdf
Greeting Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
As the neighbor on 2 sides of Work Bench’s Food Bin project, we fear that the
Dramatic loss of sunlight along our homes and the Laurel Creek may lead to toxic mold exposure. The constant nighttime lighting is unhealthy for us and to the local wildlife. The loss of privacy and security is really scary to my family,
Especially to my grandchildren, who live next to me.

Again, I implore you to please visit the project site so you can visualize the devastating effects a massive building at this location would have on our neighborhood. I ask for just 5 minutes of your time to see this in person and NOT rely on Work Bench’s inaccurate images. Their shade diagrams are way off.

Please come, as WE will be stuck with this building forever.

Thank you,
Doug Martine and family
1212 Laurel Street
831-588-1855 or 588-8055
( I have also attached a letter I sent to the Mayor and Council last week)
Doug Martine
Santa Cruz Memorial- Oakwood Memorial- Garden of Memories 1927 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-426-1601 Office, 831-426-8489 Fax
Please be advised that my working days are Monday, Tuesday and

26.180
Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. If your email requires a timely response please email my colleague, Michelle Krassow, at [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Visit our website: www.scmemorial.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

26.181

26.182

26.183
From: CATHERINE MOONEY
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development
Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 6:08:56 PM
I'm writing to express my strong objection to this project. This is wrong for multiple reasons including the destruction of the neighborhood with the monstrous building as well as the ridiculous notion that residents would give up their vehicles and instead use public transportation or bike or walk. The reality is that they will clog up the streets in the neighborhood which already has a lack of parking. They will also add to the traffic problems on Mission St and the surrounding streets, and which is already a terrible mess. And filling that small space with that huge multi-unit building is an unacceptable. Nothing larger than a single story building should be allowed there. Just because it's zoned commercial is not a good reason to put this horrible and hideous multi-story building in that small space.

I don't understand what is wrong with all of you and I am opposed to all of the horrible buildings/developments you are either considering are have already approved for the Downtown, Westside, and Midtown areas. Please stop.

Catherine Mooney

26.184
From: Nancy Connelly
To: City Council
Cc: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; [email protected]; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder; Scott Newsome
Subject: Changes to the 1130 Mission Street project
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 12:40:40 AM
Dear council members,
I'm writing today because I committed to myself to write to you regarding this project. With that said, I'm hoping but unsure what good it's going to do. And if I'm really being honest, I don't think it will do any good. Yet, I refuse to be complacent despite believing some of you have become so.

I am NOT in favor of the current 1130 Mission Street project (and know no local residents who are). I ask that you to listen to the community (aka your constituents), consider the numerous negative issues, rethink the current proposal and put the breaks on the current proposal. Changes are needed for a positive outcome with this project.

The developers and owners have not only falsely portrayed the scenario/project (if only SC city had the goal of being car-free and that our streets were "super cycle-safe" and where all 30-something professionals have no vehicles!), they have drafted a plan with errors, and refused to acquiesce to any of the reasonable requests made by the community.

We, the neighbors, are requesting modifications. We are not asking to put a stop to it, but we do want our concerns to be acknowledged and their plans rectified. It may be all about $$$ for them, but we live in the neighborhood, many of us for decades and we will be the ones who will have to live with the ramifications of their lack of consideration and refusal to acknowledge the issues we have outlined.

Some of the issues are height, traffic, pedestrian/cyclist safety, parking, environment, wildlife, light, noise, privacy, architectural misalignment, commercial-related logistics and the impact on the neighborhood.

And yeah... butterflies on the roof is plain ole "we're so green" bullshit. Sorry, but just calling it what it is.

I have lived in this town for 35 years and have watched some of you come and go. I've also become cynical over the years watching too many elected politicians fail to walk the talk, actively listen, think long-term, slow down, and act accordingly.

If you truly believe in the integral fabric of Santa Cruz, have a desire to retain our uniqueness, and visualize growth in proportion to infrastructure AND can see beyond the veil of this and other proposed housing projects "solving all of our housing needs"... you will slow down and acknowledge the short sightedness of, not only this, but several of the other major housing projects currently being proposed.

I understand there is a shortage of housing in this county. Mainly, a shortage of AFFORDABLE and student housing. The 1130 Mission Street project, as proposed will cram 115+ plus people (students) into a 5-story building (on a block with only single-story family homes) with no resident nor commercial parking, no safe bike lanes, no traffic control, no concern for the environs of the creek, etc... Thus, create far more negative issues than offer positive solutions for the west side and Laurel Street neighborhood while offering what?... six affordable housing units? Seriously, how many "young professionals" (per Workbench) do you know in SC (not NYC, Amsterdam or Geneva) that have no vehicle and are willing to live in a 287 sq ft prefab apartment on a thoroughfare and no direct public transport over the hill?) Let me guess... none. So, it's basically it will be a dorm for UC students (who will only be able to afford to live there by squeezing in four to a unit, despite regulations that won't be enforced offered at a bargain basement price of ~$2500/month) AND no relationship nor regard to their neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood for up to six+ decades.

And parking? Double the commercial space but reduce the parking by 50%. Will all the customers also not have cars?

26.185
Don't get me going on pedestrian and cyclist safety. SC is already ranked as one of the most unsafe CA cities for cyclists... but no, the planning department won't consider traffic reconfiguration.

So I ask you.... take a minute, reflect on the role you serve, and choose to advocate for your constituents who got you your job and who pay your salary. You are the privileged few who have a choice in this matter. We, those that may have to live with this proposed high rise down the street, have NO say. This action lies in your hands and contrary to all the hoopla, your hands are not tied by those in Sacramento.

Consider the requests of the neighbors and community on this issue.

Demand some, if not all of our reasonable requests before rubber stamping this project.

Thank you,
Nancy Connelly

26.186
From: Fred Keeley
To: CATHERINE MOONEY; City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Re: Food Bin Development
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:36:10 AM
Ms. Mooney,
In answer to your question, "What is wrong with all of you?", here is the answer: The State of California, the legislature and the governor.

Since 2017, they have enacted more than 100 laws to "tear down the barriers to development". All cities and counties in California have had large segments of their land-use powers taken away by the state.

What remaining authority we have, I believe that we should use to address the concerns of local residents.

Again, thank you for your letter.

Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: CATHERINE MOONEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 6:08 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]> Subject: Food Bin Development
I'm writing to express my strong objection to this project. This is wrong for multiple reasons including the destruction of the neighborhood with the monstrous building as well as the ridiculous notion that residents would give up their vehicles and instead use public transportation or bike or walk. The reality is that they will clog up the streets in the neighborhood which already has a lack of parking. They will also add to the traffic problems on Mission St and the surrounding streets, and which is already a terrible mess. And filling that small space with that huge multi-unit building is an unacceptable. Nothing larger than a single story building should be allowed there. Just because it's zoned commercial is not a good reason to put this horrible and hideous multi-story building in that small space.

Catherine Mooney

26.187
From: Corrina Dilloughery
To: City Council
Subject: 1130 & 1132 Mission St Development Opposition
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 1:38:39 PM
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
As a resident, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development at 1130 & 1132 Mission Street. I urge you to reject this development and consider following Huntington Beach's example by launching a lawsuit against the state. They contended that housing construction mandates are excessively onerous and neglect local conditions. Our town has shifted from no growth to rapid growth, threatening a fundamental transformation of Santa Cruz. Even though their lawsuit was unsuccessful, it took a stance that we should adopt to preserve Santa Cruz's charm—the very reason we chose to live here.

This high-density housing project, located outside of downtown, will disrupt our neighborhood's character and place a strain on the existing infrastructure. Many voters opposed Measure M citing concerns about dense housing altering our neighborhoods. They preferred to limit buildings exceeding three stories to the downtown area to prevent changes to the characteristics and infrastructure of our neighborhoods.

Key Concerns:

Inappropriate Scale: The Mission Street Urban Design Plan recommends a maximum of three stories. A five-story building in this location wil cast a shadow over the entire neighborhood and would dominate the skyline.

Traffic and Safety Issues: The single entry and exit point proposed for this large complex could increase traffic, thereby impacting safety and accessibility for residents.

It is unrealistic to expect all tenants and workers to rely on bicycles.

Environmental Concerns: Increased density will put a strain on our local resources, particularly water, which is a crucial issue in our drought-prone area.

Preservation of Community Character: Mission Street is not an appropriate location for dense urban development. A five-story building would be more suitable for downtown, where the infrastructure and job opportunities can better support such development. However, buildings of 12+ stories are still not appropriate and I’ll write more letters about those!
Sincerely,
Corrina Dilloughery

26.188
From: Carol Colin
To: City Council
Subject: Development on Mission
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:31:34 AM
To all and the City Planner;
My name is Carol Colin and I am a senior and a voter.

There is already too much traffic on Mission. Please stop proposing these huge developments where there is no parking and too much traffic.

The Food Bin is one of our oldest Health Food Stores. Lament.

I know we are in desperate need of housing but do you have to destroy our beloved town to put in these high rises? No one wants these..it's just that most people are too involved with their own problems to keep an eye on city government and all your destructive proposals. I am totally against this proposal and for the appeal. Think about how this is going to effect traffic and our outlook.

Please THINK!!!
Carol Colin

26.189
From: Tim willoughby
To: City Council
Subject: April 30th meeting Agenda item #28. 1130 Mission Date: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:05:09 AM

26.190

26.191
From: Judi Grunstra
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 29 April 30 2024 meeting
Date: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:04:18 PM
Dear Mayor and Council:

Please uphold the appeal, based on the many specific issues raised by the Laurel and Cleveland area neighbors. Lowering the number of stories to 4 would likely make this project more tolerable.

One of their suggestions, making Laurel a one-way street (towards Mission St) or a "bike boulevard" needs further investigation, as part of a careful study of overall Mission Street roadways, as more and more projects are proposed and/or approved.

Individual streets already have been granted "no entry" status, including Trescony (near McDonald's), several streets near CVS, and the street where the PAMF facility is. How many more neighborhoods will want to block through-traffic and how many is it feasible to approve?
Before Mission St. traffic gets even worse (if possible), a workable traffic circulation plan for the entire corridor should be undertaken. It won't please everyone.

Please use any and all tools to support the neighbors' appeal. Ultimately, UCSC has to build more dorms and housing and curtail their growth.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

26.192
From: Gabe McHugh
To: City Council
Cc: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder; Fred Keeley; Brittany Whitehill; Rina Zhou; [email protected] Subject: Food Bin & Other Development Projects
Date: Saturday, April 27, 2024 8:59:52 AM
Hello Members of the Santa Cruz City Council & City Planners, I am writing to express my overall frustration with the recently proposed and approved development projects within Santa Cruz. I want to preface my letter by saying I am not rabidly anti-development and I respect the right of people to develop projects in the City of Santa Cruz. My frustration is that these recent projects do not fit into existing neighborhoods, no consideration is given to immediate neighbors, no consideration is given to traffic, and the aesthetic and architecture leaves much to be desired. These projects seem to be designed with one goal in mind: Make as much money as possible for the developers without the consideration of all those affected by these developments.

Negatives of Development: More Traffic, Ugly Aesthetic, Neighborhoods jammed with parked cars, less Privacy, less light, Further strain on critical infrastructure (Dominican hospital, roads, sewer, water)...

Pros of Development: Money for developers, increased tax base for the city I think there are win-win projects that the city can approve and pursue that are designed to minimize the negative effects on the neighborhood surrounding the development. Literally everyone living adjacent to the Food Bin Project does not want a project of this size near them.

These projects have been sold with the false promise that they will more broadly reduce rents across Santa Cruz. As a student of economics for 4 years I can tell you that is patently false and real estate markets do not behave like markets for bottled water or sneakers. There will be little to no impact on broader housing prices or rents within Santa Cruz as a result of this construction. You could carpet Pogonip and Wilder with houses and apartment complexes and it would have little to no impact on rents or housing prices.

I hope you have the clarity to put the interests of the citizens of Santa Cruz before those of special interests.

Thank you,
Gabe McHugh

26.193
From: Ben Gregg
To: City Council
Cc: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; [email protected]; Fred Keeley
Subject: 1130 Mission Street/Food Bin Project
Date: Saturday, April 27, 2024 11:05:42 AM
The 1130 Mission Street/Food Bin Project as proposed, is not compatible with the neighborhood. A two story building would fit reasonably well into the neighborhood. A three story building would be a bit large and would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. A four story building would be undoubtedly out of place and have a clear negative impact on the close neighbors and the surrounding area. A five story building should not even be considered for this residential neighborhood. While the site zoning may be commercial, it borders residential properties on two sides. Five stories will cast a large shadow on this area, in many ways.

Not only is the height of the proposed building a major issue, there is a transportation problem also. The project is proposed as alternative transportation project. Tenants are expected to not own automobiles, but to ride bicycles or use public transportation. That said, we should make every reasonable effort to assure that happens. This would include, but not be limited to, deed restrictions and or HOA regulations.

The 59 units are planned to be single occupancy, unless that is rigorously enforced we should expect occupancy of closer to two residents per unit. Parking and other amenities should be based on expected occupancy, not planned occupancy.

All bicycle parking should be secure, enclosed and at ground level. Some secure parking should be available for motorcycles and scooters. A Bcycle, or other Pay-to-Ride bicycle docking station should be on site.

The bus stops on both sides of Mission Street should be upgraded to provide real shelter. The outbound shelter should accommodate at least 10 people at any given time, this is already a well used stop. The inbound stop shelter should accommodate at least 5 passengers.

The city will most likely allow the building of this monolith in the quest for more and more housing, but this is and always will be a monument to extremely poor planning and a complete disregard for existing neighborhoods.

26.194
From: Deborah Gale
To: City Council
Subject: Food bin 5 story apartment
Date: Saturday, April 27, 2024 6:44:42 PM
Hello,
I’m concerned about the 47 unit apartment building that is approved for Mission and Laurel. The size of the building on such a small lot is alarming. There is not much parking on Laurel or Rigg. All the units seem like they are designed for one person and considering how close it is to the university and bus stop, I’m assuming most of the people that live there will be students. I care about the Food bin and its owner Doug but I just think the lot is too small for such a huge building.

Thank you,
Deborah Gale

26.195
From: Pam Poandl
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development-Hearing April 30
Date: Sunday, April 28, 2024 2:44:30 PM
To Santa Cruz City Council:

I am opposed to the Food Bin development planned on Mission St. I live a few blocks away. My reasons are as follows.

1. Traffic and Safety. Mission St already gets backed up daily, forcing traffic to speed through the neighborhood streets where children play. It will also increase traffic on King Street which only has a shared bike lane, and on Escalona Dr, which does not have a bike lane or sidewalks.

2. Parking. There is not enough parking planned. The neighborhood permitted parking does not include evening hours. This project will use the neighborhood parking. Many existing neighbors do not have off street parking and need to park on the street. Due to the high cost of living many properties have multiple families with more cars than parking spots. I am in favor of a car free society, however it is unrealistic to assume that tenants and visitors will not drive.

3. Five stories is too high. It will block sunlight. It does not fit in with existing neighborhood design. It will set a precedent for more future development along Mission Street. We need a model for future developments while ensuring adequate infrastructure for new and existing neighbors.

Please do not allow this development. Thank you for your service.

Pam Poandl

26.196
From: Charlie Vaske
To: City Council
Subject: Strong support for 59 units on Food Bin Lot
Date: Sunday, April 28, 2024 5:48:27 PM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the design proposed for housing in the site of the current Food Bin, as it is currently proposed.

The proposed housing, which enables affordable low-car lifestyle, is exactly the form of housing that Santa Cruz most desperately lacks. That this form of housing is being proposed without the city negotiating fewer parking sites is a great boon for our community.

I have seen a flyer circulated by some that makes vague allegations of code violations, but also asks for concessions that are more owed to neighbors. For example, requesting more parking spots, under the supposition that the neighbors own the public street, and not the entire community. Any such concessions will be a taking from the public good that housing provides to us all. If the council caves to any such demands from the neighbors, the council must demand matching contributions from the neighbors to the city's affordable housing fund, to compensate the public for what these wealthy home owners are demanding from the rest of the city.

Kind regards,
-Charles Vaske

26.197
From: Bonnie Bush
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Food Bin project
Date: Sunday, April 28, 2024 8:32:03 PM
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara Weigel <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2024 at 3:10:22 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Food Bin project
hi City Council people…i live on the Westside and sometimes shop at The Food Bin.
- The talk is that the owners are not doing this to improve this community, but to enhance their financial retirement, which is fine if it wasn’t going to destroy the surrounding community. Good luck getting any longtime local people to ever shop there again.
-This a bad proposal and will ruin that neighborhood and will cause accidents and congestion on Mission St.
-Mission St. is a very busy car-centric corner = lots of speeding cars plus lots of bike riders = accidents and deaths.
-Proposing that none of the apartments have parking is ridiculous. -The occupants of this building will have cars and will park all over the neighborhood which is becoming more congested already.
-Have you considered the High School is close by, this could be a traffic nightmare for them.
-At this point we are not a fully bike-oriented town, and until that time, every new building should have at least one parking space.
-The amount of lower income housing compared to high cost rentals is only geared towards students who parents are wealthy.
-This is a horrible plan which my guess will backfire in very negative ways.

26.198
-Please do not pass this housing proposal.

Thanks for reading this, Barbara Weigel

26.199
From: Mikaela Osten
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development-Hearing April 30
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:41:16 AM
Dear City Council members,
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Food Bin apartment building that is being built in my neighborhood. As a renter and someone who has had a hard time finding affordable housing in Santa Cruz, I am very interested in opportunities for the community to have more options that support sustainable development and provide housing for those who are most impacted by increasing rent and home prices.

The current scope of the project in my neighborhood is an important precedent that is being set for development in Santa Cruz and along Mission Street corridor. The information I have received and has been made publicly available concerns me. As someone who cares deeply about the environment and works in the conservation space, I am concerned that waivers have been provided without assessments on how a development of this size and scope will affect the area, particularly the creek that runs parallel to the site.

Additionally, as you are well aware, the parking issues that are presently challenging the neighborhood are only going to be exacerbated by increased housing. At the first hearing for the Planning Commission, the developers noted that car owners are not a protected class and they will be prioritizing/contracting to only those without vehicles. While this is an important mitigation strategy, I’m concerned by the current lack of enforcement and resources for parking and how compliance for these “Single Room Occupancy,” non-car owning rentals, and visitors/guests standards will be enforced by the owners of the building once completed.

I acknowledge and appreciate the challenges faced by the City with regard to California state laws and the growing need for housing, including affordable options, in our beloved city. I ask the City work together with the neighborhood and impacted stakeholders to ensure that the developers are following rules and regulations while reducing the negative impacts that the building will have on the immediate neighbors, the environment, and the broader community affected by the development. Setting a positive precedent for sustainable development on the Mission Street corridor and in Santa Cruz will improve our ability to work together as a community to address our most pressing needs as the city continues to evolve and grow.

Thank you so much and I wish you a wonderful week ahead! Sincerely,
Mikaela
—
Mikaela Osten

26.200
From: Ann Simonton
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 10:49:00 AM
Dear City Council
There are many that live in close proximity to The Food Bin and Herb Room who do not want a 5 story building with 59 unites of 278 square feet of living space. These micro-units should be lived in by each council member for one month --before you decide to approve such housing.

The creek alongside the building needs clear mitigation of harm and ruin by the creation and use of this building, and close monitoring of it over time.

How can you allow a setback of a mere 2 inches? That is absurd even with a firewall local residents must have 5 feet — if both have fire walls maybe they allow 3 feet after applying for a variance. Imagine a huge building with side setbacks of 2 inches build by your house.

We are asking for you to take more time to research, to look into a shorter 3 story building, to make sure public transport is set up in advance of this project.

Remember many CA. cities are not pushing through such hasty housing projects. They are planning along with the communities that live in the area, rather than running roughshod and permanently altering the look and feel of neighborhoods with buildings like Food bin Housing Complex.

Please don't ignore the health of the creek flowing alongside this building.

Please apply much more careful consideration of this project before approving it.

It is very disheartening that many on this council proudly and openly rush to obey every whim of city management, when actually the council is tasked with hiring City Management and overseeing their actions. Remember your flow chart.

Thank you for your service for Santa Cruz.

Ann Simonton

26.201
From: Sharon McClain
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Appeal
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 12:07:15 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am a renter on the 1200 block of Laurel and have met with many of you. First off, I want to thank you for the time you have spent looking at this project: working on COAs, meeting with us neighbors, etc. Your efforts to this point have been noticed and appreciated!
I have rented in Santa Cruz since college and as one of the many people who was 5 years too late to get into the housing market, I will be a renter for a long time.I know first-hand how much we need additional housing in Santa Cruz…But what is happening at 1120/1130 Mission Street isn’t about housing but about developer and property owner’s profit margins and greed (sticking as many people as possible into .28 acre lot) at the expense of the existing community and it is a disgrace to the pro housing movement and to Santa Cruz.

You have been presented with information outlining inaccurate FAR calculations, setbacks, and more on the first and second plans!How is this acceptable?Why is our little neighborhood group tasked with crosschecking Workbench's work? What else is in these plans that we didn’t find? Why didn’t the planning department catch these errors and send it back to Workbench from the beginning? The fact that the planning department now acknowledges these “errors” while also telling you the appeal should be denied is completely mind boggling!Did the planning department even review the calculation on the plan submitted at the end of last week? This development will have a tremendous impact on an entire community (and future developments) and the appeal process is being approached like a game of whack a mole by the developers and planning department.

At this point Workbench thinks they can do whatever they want in Santa Cruz. I am asking you to push back on this and simply require them to follow the rules. It’s clear that no one can mandate compassion or generosity from them, but we can and should require owners/architects/developers to follow the Santa Cruz City codes and regulations that do exist.

I do not think that most of you believe this is a transparent or ethical project. We have given you a legal way out. Please vote yes on the appeal and make them go back and do this correctly!
Sincerely,
Sharon McClain
1200 block Laurel st.

26.202
From: Philip Boutelle
To: City Council
Subject: Food Bin Development: Letter of Support
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 12:22:01 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please support the staff recommendation to deny the appeal of the Food Bin development, and move this project forward.

This is a great location to build housing without parking; it's on a high quality transit line, and is extremely walkable and bikeable. With all of the concern about on-street parking impacts, maybe it's time to increase the cost of neighborhood parking permits, which are only $30/year right now. Increasing these annual costs would reduce demand, and open up street parking for our current and new neighbors. Plus, the City could use the revenue to improve things in that neighborhood. I suggest that you ask Public Works Transportation Staff to look at this option (in parallel to denying the appeal).

I also appreciate the removal of the Future Food Service Use from the Conditions of Approval (that's a big expense for a space that isn't planned to be a restaurant), and that the developer will pay the neighbor $10k so they can pay off their solar system costs.

I'm in the neighborhood 3 blocks away, and a lifelong Food Bin customer. I support the owner Doug and his effort to improve our neighborhood.

Thank you,
-Phil Boutelle

26.203
From: Lori MacPherson
To: City Council
Subject: The Food Bin lot multiple story project on a very small lot Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:09:59 PM
4/29/24
To whom it may concern:

As a resident of Santa Cruz County who resided on the west side for 6.5 years I find the use of a .28 acre lot for a behemoth size building unconscionable. First, what consideration was given to the folks who live in that neighborhood with homes that will be engulfed by a building 5 stories high without adequate parking? Second, what about setbacks? What about the privacy of the homes that have backyards that will be looked into by residents living in the five story building overlooking their neighborhood. I have also been told that the building should not be more than 3 stories for the size of lot. I think a fourplex is about all that lot could handle with parking for guests and visitors. I think the more over whelming issue is the incongruent nature of putting a building that size leading into a neighborhood of long-established singlefamily dwellings. That is what has been established and that is how it should stay. If you wish to turn the town of Santa Cruz into a development of large tall buildings then do it down town where you are slowly taking out the view shed of the sky meaning light and continue this type of development. You are saying your mandated by the state where is the push back? Can we handle the water issues that come with all this development? What about traffic? I say go and sit in back yards of the homes and properties that you are about to change forever as well as their property value and ask would I want this in my back yard? I know you would not. This project has to be stopped in its tracks and completely rethought. It is environmentally unsound.

Lori Moran

26.204
From: Rachel M
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 4/30 City Council Agenda: Food Bin Development Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:18:05 PM
Attachments: Letter-FoodBin-rMoriconi-April2024.pdf
Attached please find my letter with suggestions regarding the proposed Food Bin development on Mission Street. I support mixed-use development, but am opposed to the height and lack of setbacks proposed. I greatly appreciate all the time you have put into understanding the issues and working to make Santa Cruz a livable community that respects community-based planning.

CC: Santa Cruz County's State Leaders- The Density Bonus and other state housing laws create too many loopholes for greedy developers. Please work to immediately modify state law to support sensible development that does not ignore decent reasonable setbacks from immediately adjacent residents and heights and environmental protections that would unnecessarily change the character of our communities.
-Rachel Moriconi, Laurel Street Resident

26.205
April 29, 2024
City Council
809 Center St
Santa Cruz, CA, 95060
Via email
RE: Mission St/Food Bin Project (April 30 City Council Agenda Item #29) Dear Council Members:

Thank you for your service to the community and for diving into the details on the Food Bin project with residents and staff! Unfortunately, the Food Bin project has demonstrated how complex, confusing, and often contradictory state and local laws can be and that developers know how to manipulate the system, with complete disregard for what is reasonable to expect from community members.

As you know and most of us recognize, there is a jobs-to-housing imbalance in Santa Cruz County and throughout the SF and Monterey Bay Area. Those of us in the City are fortunate to live in what I consider practically paradise – moderate climate, no mosquitoes, ocean, mountains, parks, and an amazingly engaged and smart community. It is no wonder that so many people want to live, work, study, and play here. As someone who has lived within biking or walking distance of downtown Santa Cruz for over 30 years, including 11 years on Mission Street, I recognize that it is a great area to live and it is possible to live here without a car-if you can also find a job here that covers the rent or mortgage. It makes sense and is necessary to build more housing in the area.

That said…. I urge you to:

1. Approve the neighborhood appeal of the Planning Commission’s flawed decision. You cannot uphold the Planning Commission’s actions on a design that was flawed is no longer proposed. As admitted in the 4/30/24 staff report, the Planning Commission erroneously approved a project that did not meet state or local requirements and the appeal should be upheld.
a. The Planning Commission approved plans showed 40 base units. The revised set shows 33 base units. This is more than a 20% change (33-40/33=21.2%).

b. There continue to be numerous inconsistencies throughout the plans, staff report, and letter from the developer WorkBench– making it challenging to quickly confirm they are meeting state and local laws. I would be shocked if there are not more errors, given the WorkBench’s track record.
c. I also encourage you to reimburse the Laurel St/Cleveland area appellant for the appeal fee (at a minimum) and their expenditures on attorneys and land use consultants, which resulted in identification of flaws that WorkBench should never have tried to sneak through and that should have been caught by the Planning Department and Planning Commission.

26.206

2. Yes to some housing! Authorize a 3-4 story mixed-use building that meets city setback, height, and affordable unit objective standards. Do not approve an ever-changing proposal that the developer and Planning Department have put forth that has not been verified to meet state and local laws and weasels around laws and regulations. The constantly modified plans (at least four times since first submitted), demonstrate that it is feasible to build a mix-use development at this location, that includes commercial parking spaces, housing, and an improved health food store with reasonable setbacks on the 2nd and 3rd floors from the immediate neighbor, environmentally important setbacks from Laurel Creek (a critical source of fresh water for Neary Lagoon and habitat for numerous species), and is more in line with the community’s Mission Street plan. a. Storage to ADU trick: Prohibit fake/placeholder “storage” units from being built and later converted to ADUs, which the developer and Planning Department are overtly proposing as a way to get around Density Bonus limits, 20% affordable unit goals, as well as Mission Street and other City plans. The storage unit to ADU conversion play is clearly just a slap in the face of the City and neighbors who found WorkBench’s deceptive errors.
b. At a minimum, I urge you restrict this development to 48 units maximum (not 59), based on the Base and Density Bonus. Since the ADUs are not part of this application, direct staff to work with the developer to consider ways in which SROs could be provided on 3 or 4 stories with reasonable setbacks from the immediate neighbor and creek.
i. Reduce the size of the storage areas.
ii. Make all the SRO units the size of the smallest proposed units iii. Conform the usable open space to the City requirements (not more) iv. Reduce the height and provide reasonable setbacks from the immediate neighbor.
c. If the developer truly believes in providing affordable housing, they should confirm that no units will be rented for more than what is considered affordable by AB1550 or be very transparent with the public and City Council of current AB1550 definitions. For 2023, “Low Income” was defined as people making $92,950 or less (about $45/hour) in Santa Cruz County! Even for a 2-person household it was over $105,000 according to HCD.ca.gov.

If the developer pushes back, require the developer to provide documentation for why a mixed-use development is not feasible in a three-story building that meets city required setbacks from the creek and immediate neighbors.

3. See State Law Modifications: Work with the League of Cities, Senator Laird, Assemblymember Pellerin, and other groups to demand that the California Legislature modify density bonus law so that developers are still required to meet reasonable setbacks from riparian corridors, adjacent residential properties, and other criteria that have been established in city codes and plans, especially if a city is on track to meet RHNA goals.

26.207
a. Density Bonus law should not allow waivers a zero setback. At most it should allow half of what is in City ordinances for properties touching residential areas.

4. No Mural: Do not allow a mural to be painted on the building walls facing the neighborhood-especially the wall facing west/King Street-unless the design is agreed to by the immediate neighbors on Laurel Street.

5. Safety:
a. Set SRO-Maximum Occupancy at 1.25 residents per unit on average: Restrict occupancy to more than 1.25 residents per unit. 48 SROs on 12,502 SF translates into about 165 units per acre. This also translates to a significant evacuation and health and safety concerns when there is an emergency.
b. Require regular inspections to confirm habitability and safety of units.

Cramming a lot of people with a lot of “things” into a small space poses safety hazards- overpacked outlets, hording, bed bugs explosion, and more. c. With almost no setback from the immediate neighbor, how can this even be built or maintained, let alone provide emergency access for firefighters?

6. Car-free living: Please add the following conditions to promote car-free living and shopping.
a. Bus Passes: Rather than stating “the developer shall work with the Metro to implement existing bus pass programs for the project tenants,” the condition should be revised to state: “The developer shall provide METRO bus passes for the project tenants and employees of the commercial space.” b. Parking: Restrict parking in the neighborhood to permit-parking only 24 hours a day.
i. Immediately implement so that the Food Bin and Herb Room can demonstrate the feasibility of providing almost no on-site parking for customers or staff does not negatively impact the business or neighborhood.
ii. Immediately convert one parking space on the existing commercial property to bCycle docking station to support customers using bicycles to get their groceries.
c. Parking: Codify that neighborhood parking permits will not be issued to employees or residents of housing development.
d. Bikeshare: Require the developer to provide shared bikes for residents and/or bikeshare program subsidies to employees and tenants.
i. Dedicate one parking spot for bCycle docking in the new development.

26.208
e. Pedestrian Safety: Navigating the cars entering and existing the Food Bin - especially when they illegally back into Laurel is currently dangerous. Adding more pedestrians and cars is going to make it worse. I have not experienced Mission Street as dangerous as a pedestrian and question that the development is making it safer.
f. Add bike lanes and traffic calming on Laurel Street. There are no bicycle facilities providing access this property, which is expected to house people who do not own cars. Biking on Mission Street and on Laurel Street between California and Mission Street is scary and there have been too many fatal and severe injury crashes involving bikes and caras
i. Work with Caltrans to add bicycle lanes on Mission Street. ii. Add bicycle lanes on Laurel Street
g. Traffic Calming: Prohibit access to the property for cars and trucks traveling east on Laurel Street (only allow access for cars and trucks coming through Mission Street)
i. Turn Laurel Street into a bike boulevard west of Mission Street (ideally west of California)

7. Laurel Creek:
a. Deny the Watercourse Development Permit for development within the creek setbacks. This is not a dead area, but rather an important habitat and water source. b. Deny Heritage Tree Removal Permit. Trees are regularly visited and home to numerous birds and other species. Also, tree canopy is critical as residents face extreme heat and other consequences of climate change.

8. Commercial Use: Most neighbors love the Food Bin and shop there multiple times a week. I am concerned that there is nothing that would require it to remain a neighborhood health food store. Is there anything that would prohibit it from being converted to a chain fast food or liquor store or some other undesirable or unhealthy use? My neighbors and I have spent hundreds of hours trying to understand state law, city rules, and the loopholes that developers are taking advantage of in order to shove developments that completely ignore community character down our throats. I urge you to not approve a development that is not in character with the neighborhood and ignores what it means to be a good neighbor.

I urge you to approve the appeal and reject the moving target of a development proposed for the Food Bin.

Sincerely,
Rachel Moriconi
Laurel Street Resident
Cc: Senator Laird, Assemblymembers Rivas, Addis, and Pellerin

26.209
High Quality Transit Routes- TOD-Housing Density Bonuses-CEQA Exemptions SF: Did CA’s new housing reforms go too
far?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openfor
um/article/california-housing-reform18498941.php
In California, statewide housing reforms
brush against local resistance https://www.brookings.edu/articles/incalifornia-statewide-housing-reforms-brush-against-local-resistance/ Colorado: In a push for more housing density near transit lines, highway dollars have become a political football:
https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/23/housing-density-near-transit-oriented-areas-highway-dollars/

26.210
From: Barbara Novelli
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development-Hearing April 30
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:22:48 PM
To City Council Members,
I live on Laurent Street just off of Mission and I am very concerned about the proposed development on the site of the Food Bin. I have reviewed the plan as it has been presented and it is unacceptable to have such a tall and blocky building there on the corner! It completely destroys the feeling of the neighborhood, which includes so many older houses that have been lovingly restored and cared for over the years. The fact that the massive building eliminates space for parking is also unacceptable. And I am very deeply concerned about the effect on the riparian corridor of Laurel Creek. This creek has survived many changes along Mission Street and is still a thriving habitat with a rich history. I have spent many years enjoying this creek as it winds down the hill. Sadly we have already lost access to the creek when Emily’s Bakery closed; the deck that allowed public enjoyment of the creek is now gone, and with the new occupant there is no guarantee of a return. To have a huge building hang over the creek is outrageous! The creek needs protection from this and any future development. I will be at the hearing on April 30 and hope for some transparency and reasonableness to prevail.

Barbara Novelli
112 Laurent Street

26.211
From: Barbara Novelli
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Automated Reply - City Council of Santa Cruz Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:33:16 PM
Here is a great video on Laurel Creek! Protect it as developments progress on Mission Street! https://www.google.com/search?
q=video+on+the+history+of+laurel+creek+santa+cruz+ca&oq=video+on+the+history+of+laurel+creek+santa+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgCECEYoAEyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCTE1NjcyajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6aece605,vid:z3eJJt-AXUQ,st:0 Barbara Novelli
112 Laurent
On Monday, April 29, 2024 at 01:22:48 PM PDT, City Council <[email protected]> wrote:
************************************************************************* On behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for contacting the City of Santa Cruz.

This e-mail account is for general comments. I, along with my fellow Councilmembers, have received your correspondence. We value citizen input and review all of the correspondence that is sent to us. However, depending on the nature of your e-mail, you may or may not receive an additional response. If your e-mail requests additional follow-up or information, we will forward your request to the appropriate City department, and they will respond more fully in the future. Whether or not your e-mail requires a response, please know that your input is very important and we appreciate you taking the time to let us know your thoughts.

If you have an immediate need, please follow the links below or call 831-420-5030 during normal business hours.

Again, thank you for your engagement with the City of Santa Cruz! Best regards,
Fred Keeley
Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
Web links
Department Contact Information
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments I Want to Report an Issue or Request Service
https://cosc-crsp.mendixcloud.com/p/Home
Contact Phone Numbers
City Clerk Division – 420-5030
Economic Development – 420-5150
Finance Department – 420-5050
Fire Department – 420-5280
Graffiti Hotline – 420-5303
Human Resources – 420-5040
Library – 427-7706
Parks and Recreation Department – 420-5270
Planning and Community Development Department – 420-5100 Police Department – 420-5800
Police Auditor – (323) 821-0586
Public Works Department – 420-5160
Special Events – 420-5270
Utilities (Customer Service) – 420-5220
Water Department – 420-5200

26.212
From: James Lloyd
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: Bonnie Bush; [email protected]; Lee Butler; Matt Huffaker Subject: CalHDF public comment re 1130/1132 Mission Street for 30Apr2024 Council meeting Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 2:29:27 PM
Attachments: Santa Cruz CC Appeal - 1130-2 Mission Street - HAA & DBL Letter.pdf Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
Please see attached CalHDF's public comment regarding the appeal against the proposed SRO development at 1130/1132 Mission Street, calendared as agenda item 29 for the 30 April 2024 Council meeting.

James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]

26.213
Apr 29, 2024
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
By Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision on the project at 1130/2 Mission Street Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment on the appeal of Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission Street, a 48-unit plus 11 ADU development that includes eight units affordable to very low-income households.

The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. These findings must be “supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).) Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the Density Bonus Law (the “DBL”) (Gov. Code, § 65915; the “DBL”) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. As staff notes, as a project consistent with the General Plan and that meets all development standards except those modified by density bonus waivers/concessions, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit. Thus, the Council must deny the appeal and approve the project unless it makes written health and safety findings as described above – which it cannot do, since the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support such a finding. 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org

26.214
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915; the “DBL”) offers the proposed development certain protections. The Council must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the Council must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot size, setbacks, and lot coverage, unless it makes written findings as required by Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)(1) that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (p).)
As noted in the staff report, AB 2097 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most development projects located within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop. Given that within ½ mile of the site there are four transit stops (1225, 1226, 1624, 1625) with frequency intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, the proposal qualifies for an accessory parking exemption pursuant to AB 2097.

Additionally, the project is exempt from environmental review under § 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) Finally, CalHDF would like to note that the City is requiring that a proportion of the ADUs developed on site be restricted to low-income households, with the applicant voluntarily restricting such ADUs to very low-income households. CalHDF is strongly in favor of greater affordable housing development across the state, and the development of this mixed-income project represents a great public benefit to the City and the region.

However, it should be noted that Santa Cruz Zoning Code § 24.16.020(8), as applied to this project, violates state law and is unenforceable. As the staff report notes, Gov. Code, § 66323 allows the conversion of non-residential space into ADUs up to 25% of the existing dwelling units. However, Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (c) states, “(c) No local ordinance, policy, or 2 of 3

26.215
regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this section.” This article in question, Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, does not allow for local inclusionary requirements to be applied to accessory dwelling units permitted pursuant to Gov. Code, § 66323. The City’s inclusionary requirement for the ADUs proposed by the applicant are therefore unenforceable.

While CalHDF thinks that reasonable inclusionary zoning set asides have a place in local housing policy, cities should be careful not to make these requirements too onerous or attempt to impose requirements prohibited by state law, as is the case here.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of climate crisis – and most importantly, it will help house students and provide critical affordable housing. Projects like this one are especially important in helping our state meet its climate goals. While no single housing development can solve all these problems, the project here is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Council to deny the appeal and approve the project, consistent with both its legal obligations and the City’s economic and environmental interests.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

26.216
From: Mike Munson
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 2:31:16 PM
Hello City Council members,
We live on Van Ness Ave near the Food Bin and want to express our deep reservations about the proposed development at Laurel and Mission. The additional traffic and parking needs for more than 125 new residents will completely overwhelm the capacity of the intersection and local parking. Mission Street currently backs up during the evening commute to the extent that many drivers face serious delays between Bay Street and Chestnut. This leads to increased air pollution and degradation of the
adjoining neighborhoods. Highway 1 visitor traffic, UCSC Student and staff commuting, and local area drivers will all be subjected to frustrating delays which will cause traffic to overflow into peaceful neighborhoods.

Better to develop a Mission Street plan that allows for increasing housing opportunities along with sufficient attention to traffic and parking requirements. Please keep us in mind when voting on this Project. We care about our CIty and want the best for all of us, now and for the future. This Project is not a good fit at this intersection.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Munson
Van Ness Ave

26.217
From: Bonnie Bush
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Food Bin/Herb Room Project
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 2:33:00 PM
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:

From: David Emberson <[email protected]>
Date: April 29, 2024 at 2:07:34 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Food Bin/Herb Room Project
To Whom It May Concern,
Please do not approve this 59-unit housing project unless there is sufficient parking provided on the property for the tenants. Avoiding the parking issue will inevitably force the cars into the neighborhood, which will be a huge negative impact on the residential neighborhood. Since the project is a high-rise anyway, it would be a simple matter to add underground parking.

Kind regards,
David Emberson
Santa Cruz, CA
[email protected]

26.218
From: Pamela San Miguel
To: City Council
Subject: 1130 Mission Street Project
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 2:52:10 PM
Attachments: Laurel Creek.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Council,
I’m writing to express my serious concerns about the environmental impact of the 1130 Mission Street project, both during construction and long term. I am afraid that if I do not speak up now, it will be too late, given what has transpired thus far.

In addition to the hawks, other species that rely on the creek include raccoon, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote, mallard duck, and multiple flying bird species, such as Stellar’s and scrub jays, hummingbirds, and cedar waxwings, among others. The creek also supports crayfish, and insect species such as dragonflies and damselflies. There are many other bird and insect species that I cannot identify.

Mallard ducklings would be especially vulnerable, without the creek to provide them safe passage. The Food Bin/Herb Room property borders the entrance to the creek tunnel under the highway.

We have a wonderful, wild ecosystem that’s struggling to survive in an encroaching urban environment. Please, let’s

26.219
do everything we can to preserve it.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this impactful and time-sensitive matter.

Kind regards,
Pamela San Miguel

26.220
1 2
3 4

26.221
From: Ron Pomerantz
To: City Council
Subject: 4-30-24 Council Agenda item# 29: Food Bin development Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:09:36 PM
Re. Council Agenda item# 29: Food Bin development
Good day Council members and Mayor.

I strongly believe there is the need to provide affordable housing that’s thoughtful and well designed. But there must be constraints on the size, scale and impacts of each development under consideration. This is to protect and to insure health and safety of the neighborhood from noise, congestion, parking difficulties, and other impacts and fallout. Such is the case for the Food Bin project. There are numerous and solid grounds to support the appeal of this development. - Tenant parking must be provided as this development is well over 1/2 mile from a major transit stop as required.
- Additionally a traffic impact study analyzing vehicle miles travelled from this development as well as the cumulative impacts from future nearby developments. - In a time of need for roof top photovoltaic systems, this development significantly harms existing and future rooftop solar systems. A shadowing study must be done. - An EIR should’ve been required due to the impacts on the creek, as well as the flora and fauna.

I urge you to uphold the appeal. Then direct staff to find remedies to insure the development's impacts are significantly minimized on the surrounding neighborhoods before approval of the project proceeds.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Ron Pomerantz

26.222
From: Sara Bassler
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: April 30 Council Mtg Re 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23-0103 (APN 006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission St.

Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:24:44 PM
Attachments: Bus Routes 18 and 19_April 2024.pdf
Bus Routes 40_41_42_April 2024.pdf
Sara Bassler
526 Meder St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
April 29, 2024
Santa Cruz City Councilmembers and Mayor Keeley via Email RE: 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23-0103 (APN 006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission St.

Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members:

I reside within the city of Santa Cruz.

Please uphold both appeals of this Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission St. and deny this project because the project design is predicated on the false assertion that it qualifies for full residential parking exemption pursuant to California Government Code section 65863.2. This false assertion results an impermissible project including an inaccurate base plan and density bonus resulting in a faulty overall design and thus must be denied.

This project does not qualify for a full residential parking exemption because this project is not within a half-mile of public transit as defined by California Government Code section 65863.2.

26.223
subsection one must read the code in its entirety: a “’major transit stop’ means a site containing the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (emphasis added)”.

The word “radius” isn’t in code section 65863.2:

This Code does NOT state “within a one-half mile radius” as alleged by the Planning Dept. This detail is important because inserting “radius”, may result in

26.224
measuring this one-half mile by how the crow flies and not how a person walks when the intent of this section is for the public transit to be within one-half mile walking distance not crow flying distance.
“Transit stops” are not synonymous with “bus routes”:

Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c) clearly legally requires the calculation of the “frequency of service interval” for “bus routes” not transit stops.

The legal phrase is “frequency of service interval” not “frequency of interval”:

Code Section 21064.3 requires that there be two intersecting major bus routes at “a site”:

26.225
According to Public Resource Code Section 21064.3 subsection (c), a “’major transit stop’ means a site containing the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (emphasis added)”.

Bus stops 1225 and 1226 are inbound and outbound stops only for bus route 19.

The requirement of residential parking impacts the base density FAR calculation for this project, so the project must be redesigned.

As noted by the Planning Department on page 490 or 29.4, “The prior plan incorrectly included the covered parking area in the FAR calculations, as

26.226
Section 24.22.366 of the Zoning Ordinance only ‘includes covered residential parking.’ Because this is all commercial parking, the area is not included in the above FAR calculation.” Therefore the requirement of residential parking must be taken into account when considering the design of this project and the possible impact on FAR calculation.

For these reasons I ask you to uphold the appeals and deny this project.

Thank you for consideration of my input.

Attachment: Bus routes and schedules for routes 18, 19, 40, 41 and 42 Sincerely,
Sara Bassler
Sent from Mail for Windows

26.227

26.228

26.229

26.230

26.231

26.232

26.233

26.234

26.235

26.236

26.237

26.238

26.239

26.240
From: Thomas Washburn
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin proposal appeal (CP23-0103), parking mitigation Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:41:58 PM
I live a block away from the proposed Food Bin development, which will have 59-130+ residents with no tenant or visitor parking. The project developers said publicly that to mitigate its adverse impact on the neighborhood they may deny tenancy to anybody who owns a car, and evict tenants who subsequently purchase a car.

I urge the City to take up the developers' offer by making these terms explicit requirements for project approval.

This would do more than just not issuing residential parking permits, which aren't even needed to park before 9:59am, after 4:01pm, on weekends, on holidays, or anytime during summer.

At her January 18, 2024 public hearing presentation of the Food Bin project, Workbench Founding Partner and Principal Architect Jamileh Cannon said:
"We'd like to address the car issue. Obviously that's a really big concern for everybody in the neighborhood. The owner--any owner of a building is allowed to legally not rent to somebody who owns a car. You can check it with the DMV. You can, so-to-speak, be prejudiced against the car-owning class. They are not a protected class of people. So we can choose that. "We can say that you cannot rent to anybody who owns a car. You can fact-check it with the DMV, and I don't know what the measure would be for this, but I'm assuming there could be some kind of long-term protocol that checks that. As you renew your lease, or every 6 months, or something like that. To make sure that people aren't moving in, and then buying a car, and being an impact to the neighborhood. So that's one big thing we can do around vehicles."
Video link: https://youtu.be/5kF4JM3dj9A?si=XPqNZApjlLcl8e4e&t=10433 If for some reason the limitations she presented at the public hearing are not actually enforceable, we should have another public hearing.

Regards
Thomas Washburn
1302 Laurel Street
Santa Cruz

26.241
From: Pamela San Miguel
To: City Council; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Food Bin Development-Hearing April 30
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:42:00 PM
Attachments: Laurel Creek.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Council,
I’m writing to express my serious concerns about the environmental impact of the 1130 Mission Street project, both during construction and long term. I am afraid that if I do not speak up now, it will be too late, given what has transpired thus far.

In addition to the hawks, other species that rely on the creek include raccoon, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote, mallard duck, and multiple flying bird species, such as Stellar’s and scrub jays, hummingbirds, and cedar waxwings, among others. The creek also supports crayfish, and insect species such as dragonflies and damselflies. There are many other bird and insect species that I cannot identify.

Mallard ducklings would be especially vulnerable, without the creek to provide them safe passage. The Food Bin/Herb Room property borders the entrance to the creek tunnel under the highway.

26.242
We have a wonderful, wild ecosystem that’s struggling to survive in an encroaching urban environment. Please, let’s do everything we can to preserve it.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this impactful and time-sensitive matter.

Kind regards,
Pamela San Miguel

26.243
1 2
3 4

26.244
From: Michele Replogle
To: City Council
Subject: Food bin project
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:58:30 PM
It would seem people who do not live in this neighborhood are for this project.

They do not have to ride their bikes, walk or drive by this busy little area.

The idea of having a business with even more people in the area is a nightmare.

There is not enough parking as it stands now, and living in this area my whole life there is no one who can convince me that not having parking will dissuade people from having cars.

Laurel street is always full of cars as is King Street adjacent.

Building close to the water way at the side of the building will only create problems and is a natural water way that does not deserve paving over. Our kids have fished out crawdads and the local wildlife rely on these waterways. It is crazy our “eco friendly town” would believe Parkbench and the Food bin Owner that this is a ditch this is a natural waterway that probably has a longer history than any of the housing or businesses.

With so many more suitable places on Mission Street, literally right across the street at Mellis.

We believe this to be a very bad idea. And we feel this project is not in good faith to the people who live in this area.

Michele and Alan Replogle neighbors at Van Ness And King .

26.245
From: Laura Livingston
To: Scott Newsome; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley; City Council
Cc: Laura Livingston
Subject: Food Bin Appeal
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 4:01:56 PM
Attachments: Food Bin ltr. to MayorCouncil 42924.pdf
RE: 1130/1132 Mission Street Appeal of The Food Bin Project Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
The Laurel Street / Cleveland Avenue neighbors have valued working with you over the last few months. We sincerely appreciate your attentiveness to our concerns regarding this project.

As we approach our upcoming appeal meeting this Tuesday, we reflect on the progress made during this process. While we acknowledge our non-expert status, we've come a long way in our understanding of building processes and politics, and you have been a big part of this. We thank you for your generous time.

However, one aspect remains perplexing to us: how could a licensed architect from Workbench overlook such a critical detail as confirming setback parameters for the project? Understanding these fundamental parameters, such as property lines, easements, right-ofways, and setbacks, is fundamental in architecture - Architecture 101. This oversight seems inexplicable.

From the outset, as you recall, our primary concern has been the discrepancy in the stated FAR calculations. They just did not make sense. Upon reviewing the developers’ plans over the past three months, we’ve scrutinized the density bonus calculations they used to justify the building’s size. The sheer scale of the proposed structure on just a quarter of an acre appeared dubious from the start. So, we asked ourselves if this could really be true. Can they legally build five stories here?
From the beginning, our inquiries to the Planning Department for detailed calculations on how Workbench arrived at their density bonus numbers yielded only a summary of the developers’ original numbers, lacking the requested specifics.

Despite meetings with all of you, except for Martine, our concerns persisted. While we appreciate your efforts in addressing these concerns with Planning and Workbench, the responses received from both parties still lacked the necessary detail regarding the FAR calculations.

26.246
neighbors?
o How many other projects have been approved or are pending with similar or different mistakes?
o What are the implications of such a significant error (not caught by Planning) and how will it
impact trust with the City and you, our elected officials? o Lastly, what actions will you take?
We have confidence that you will act in accordance with what is right and just in this matter.

Respectfully,
Laura Livingston

26.247
April 29, 2024
RE: 1130/1132 Mission Street Appeal of The Food Bin Project Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
The Laurel Street / Cleveland Avenue neighbors have valued working with you over the last few months.

We sincerely appreciate your attentiveness to our concerns regarding this project. As we approach our upcoming appeal meeting this Tuesday, we reflect on the progress made during this process. While we acknowledge our non-expert status, we've come a long way in our understanding of building processes and politics, and you have been a big part of this. We thank you for your generous time.

However, one aspect remains perplexing to us: how could a licensed architect from Workbench overlook such a critical detail as confirming setback parameters for the project? Understanding these fundamental parameters, such as property lines, easements, right-of-ways, and setbacks, is fundamental in architecture - Architecture 101. This oversight seems inexplicable.

From the outset, as you recall, our primary concern has been the discrepancy in the stated FAR calculations. They just did not make sense. Upon reviewing the developers’ plans over the past three months, we’ve scrutinized the density bonus calculations they used to justify the building’s size. The sheer scale of the proposed structure on just a quarter of an acre appeared dubious from the start. So, we asked ourselves if this could really be true. Can they legally build five stories here? From the beginning, our inquiries to the Planning Department for detailed calculations on how Workbench arrived at their density bonus numbers yielded only a summary of the developers’ original numbers, lacking the requested specifics.

On April 25, just days before our appeal, we were informed of yet another (a third) revised plan. This prompts us to question whether this iteration is final and more importantly, accurate? We ask you:
o Isn’t building height a main concern in Santa Cruz currently? o Are there any consequences for a developer’s plan that, at best, demonstrates such an egregious “mistake”?
o Why did the Planning Department fail to identify this error, while it was noticed by the neighbors?
o How many other projects have been approved or are pending with similar or different mistakes? o What are the implications of such a significant error (not caught by Planning) and how will it impact trust with the City and you, our elected officials? o Lastly, what actions will you take?
We have confidence that you will act in accordance with what is right and just in this matter.

Respectfully,
Laura Livingston

26.248
From: Lola Quiroga
To: City Council
Subject: Item 29: Support Staff Recommendation
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 4:50:20 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council,
Please support the staff recommendation to deny the appeal of the Food Bin development, and move this project forward.

This is a great location to build housing without parking; it's on a high quality transit line, and the adjacent streets are extremely walkable and bikeable. Mission St, Laurel St, and Bay St will all have active transportation improvements finished by 2026, thanks to investment from our city and Caltrans. This, in conjunction with Reimagine Metro improvements starting this fall, will make living without a car even more feasible than it already is on this corridor.

As a UCSC student, I can assure you students are living in market rate housing already. I've moved 5 times since coming to Santa Cruz 3 years ago, living in nearly every one of your districts, and every off campus housing I've lived in has been market rate housing. I don't know a single student living off campus that is not living in market rate housing. Students can and will live at this development. There are already students living in the single family homes in the adjacent neighborhoods.

I live in a car-free household three blocks from this project (I'm even further from both bus stops this project serves) on Mission and Walnut, and I can confirm that living car-free or carlite on Mission is possible. I have been able to live car free in far less transit accessible neighborhoods in Santa Cruz and have survived. The lack of parking on a project that will draw in students, who mostly don't have cars, is a non-issue.

I support the owner Doug and his effort to improve our neighborhood. Please support this project.

Thank you,
Lola Quiroga

26.249
From: Bodie Shargel
To: Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush; City Council
Subject: Please support the project at 1130 Mission St.

Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 4:58:08 PM
Attachments: Food bin project letter.pdf
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As president of the UCSC Student Housing Coalition, I, along with our members, strongly support the mixed-use development at 1130 Mission St. In a culture where so many are opposed to the construction of housing near them, with a “not in my backyard” mentality, I find it admirable that the owners of the Food Bin chose to use this piece of land to build much-needed housing. This is in their interest, as they get many new potential employees and customers in the process, as well as a new facility, and it is also in the interest of the people who will be able to have homes here, as well as the community more broadly.

I find it exciting that this project is clearly catered to residents who will live without cars. Of course, people living here will live right above a grocery store, but they will also live within walking distance of numerous restaurants, shops, and other amenities. The project also brings with it upgraded bus stops and sidewalks, which is a huge win. This project further necessitates the future question of Mission St., and how to make it more walkable and bikeable.

All in all, this project offers significant benefits for our community. The people most impacted by its construction are in favor of it. Please vote to deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, and support this project.

Sincerely,
Bodie Shargel
President, UCSC Student Housing Coalition

26.250
1 Lindsay Nelson
From: Richard McGahey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 9:02 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Approve Food Bin project on Mission Street
I’m a part-time resident of Santa Cruz (in the DeAnza mobile home park) and an urban economist who studies housing costs, and affordable housing shortages. I urge you to support the food bin project on Mission Street and not delay it any longer. The building has been studied to death and it’s my understanding it meets all legal criteria.

Objections from neighbors are just meant to delay the project at this point. Santa Cruz by some measures is the most expensive housing market in the United States, and a big part of that is due to a lack of new housing construction. Delaying this and other projects just contributes to Santa Cruz’s serious housing unaffordability, which contributes to racial and low income exclusion from the city.

Thanks for your hard work on these difficult issues.
________________________________
Rick McGahey (he/him/his)
Author, Unequal Cities, Columbia U. Press, (nominated for the National Book Award) http://cup.columbia.edu/book/unequal-cities/9780231173346 Senior Fellow, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis Senior Fellow, Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy The New School
[email protected]
[email protected]
mobile: 347-931-0304
Twitter: @rickmcgahey

26.251
2 Lindsay Nelson
From: Danial Kent <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2024 10:13 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Food Bin Project
So far it seems that a three story height limit on new construcƟon on the Westside is the perfect scale. Driving up Mission Street (Highway 1) is sƟll feeling like coming into a small coastal town (not a version of skyscraper San Francisco).

To build any new project without parking is absurd. Who liƟgates the lawsuits this project will cause by not renƟng to car owners? Who pays for that liƟgaƟon? We do, the residents of Santa Cruz, not the builder (long gone) not the property management. This is way over scale for the Westside for the size of the lot. No parking is a crazy idea. Where does addiƟonal water come from for these addiƟonal 59 new units. If this is such a great idea the University can build it as part of University housing.

Thank you,
Danial Kent
[email protected]
Sent from my iPad

26.252
1 Lindsay Nelson
From: Dusten Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 5:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Food Bin Project- Please Deny Appeal
I am writing in support of the proposed mixed-use infill housing project at 1130 Mission St, also known as the Food Bin project. I urge a denial of the appeal and your support to move this project forward. This mix of SROs and 1-bedrooms are much-needed for individuals, seniors, and young couples to live in Santa Cruz.

This project is a great example of sustainable growth. It is located along Mission St, a major transportation corridor that is close to services, schools and jobs. I appreciate that state law is being used locally to prioritize housing people over cars and creating more housing rather than more parking. As METRO continues to expand service it will only become more convenient for future residents.

I am concerned that the process to build this project has resulted in a 5 month delay, with over $200K of requested changes to a project approved in January that meets local and state requirements. I believe the owner has made significant efforts to accommodate neighborhood concerns. Please let this project move forward.

Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St.

Santa Cruz CA 95062

26.253
2 Lindsay Nelson
From: Doug Martine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:25 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley
Subject: FOOD BIN PROJECT NEIGHBOR LETTER
Attachments: SKM_C450i24052109230.pdf
Doug Martine
Santa Cruz Memorial- Oakwood Memorial- Garden of Memories 1927 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-426-1601 Office, 831-426-8489 Fax
Please be advised that my working days are Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. If your email requires a timely response please email my colleague, Michelle Krassow, at [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Visit our website: www.scmemorial.com

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

26.254

26.255
3 Lindsay Nelson
From: Pamela San Miguel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 11:28 AM
To: City Council; City Council; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder
Subject: 1130/1132 Mission Street - Food Bin Development - May 28 meeting Attachments: Laurel Creek.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Council,
I’m wriƟng to express my serious concerns about the environmental impact of the 1130 Mission Street project, both during construcƟon and long term. I am afraid that if I do not speak up now, it will be too late, given what has transpired thus far.

I tried to speak to the owner of the Food Bin about his plan to protect Laurel Creek during construcƟon. He flippantly told me the creek was “dead.” His lack of concern and obvious lack of knowledge has me deeply worried.

Also, there is the bioƟc report, conducted by Kathleen Lyons of the BioƟc Resources Group, which is superficial at best. It completely lacks details, noƟng only “non-naƟve landscaping” and discounƟng the creek’s value due to its size.

I have lived next door to the Food Bin/Herb Room, on the opposite side of Laurel Creek, for 20 years. I guarantee you that the creek is NOT dead!
Laurel Creek is lined with naƟve horsetails—ancient land plants considered “living fossils.” The creek is a thriving waterway that supports a myriad of naƟve animal species, including a courƟng/nesƟng red-tailed hawk pair, whose territory encompasses 1130 & 1132 Mission Street. Red-tailed hawks are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The pair’s territory extends from the redwood trees behind the old Emily’s Bakery on the opposite side of Mission Street/Highway 1 to the redwood trees behind the Willowbrook apartments (1112–1122 Mission Street) that border the creek. The hawks hunt along the creek (see aƩached photo) and are vital in controlling the local rodent populaƟons, both naƟve voles and city rats.

In addiƟon to the hawks, other species that rely on the creek include raccoon, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote, mallard duck, and mulƟple flying bird species, such as Stellar’s and scrub jays, hummingbirds, and cedar waxwings, among others. The creek also supports crayfish, and insect species such as dragonflies and damselflies. There are countless other bird and insect species that I cannot idenƟfy.

Not only is Laurel Creek a source of both food and habitat, but it also serves the criƟcal role of a passageway under busy Highway 1 for all naƟve wildlife, protecƟng them as well as us humans from life-threatening accidents. Mallard ducklings would be especially vulnerable, without the creek to provide them safe passage. The Food Bin/Herb Room property borders the entrance to the creek tunnel under the highway.

Clearly, an in-depth study of the environmental impact of the project is warranted. Has the proper California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) paperwork been completed? Will the project be conducted with the utmost care and regard for the creek and the naƟve species that depend on it? Further, I propose that the setback guidelines of 15 feet be enforced in order to preserve the health and safety of the local naƟve wildlife. Revised plans that reflect the 15-foot setback should be submiƩed.

26.256
4 I’ve aƩached photos of Laurel Creek:
1) top leŌ shows horsetails on one side and the Food Bin’s plasƟc tarp on the other; 2) top right shows lovely Laurel Creek upstream of the Food Bin; 3) boƩom leŌ shows an animal path leading to the creek; 4) boƩom right shows one of the red-tailed hawks in a tree leaning over the creek, with the leafy tree leaning over from the other side of the creek on Food Bin property.

We have a wonderful, wild ecosystem that’s struggling to survive in an encroaching urban environment. Please, let’s do everything we can to preserve it!
Thank you for your prompt aƩenƟon to this impacƞul and Ɵme-sensiƟve maƩer.

Kind regards,
Pamela San Miguel

26.257
1 2
3 4

26.258
1 Lindsay Nelson
From: beth sorauf <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 8:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Food Bin Project
Hello,
This email is to inform the Council that we are absolutely opposed to the proposed build at the Food Bin locaƟon. This is building does not belong in this locaƟon!! What a shame that this is even being considered. Santa Cruz is loosing its way.

No on the Food Bin Build
Thank you
Beth S.

Sent from my iPhone

26.259
2 Lindsay Nelson
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 8:21 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush; [email protected]
Subject: Santa Cruz YIMBY support for the Food Bin Project, item #26 on May 28th agenda Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY - Support for Food Bin - Agenda #26 on May 28 2024.pdf Hello,
Please find attached our letter of support for the Food Bin Project. Deny the appeal and let's move this project forward.

Thank you,
Janine Roeth
on behalf of Santa Cruz YIMBY

26.260
May 25, 2024
To: Santa Cruz City Council
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY
Re: Agenda Item #26 1130 Mission Street, Project No. CP23-0103 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
We are writing in support of the proposed mixed-use infill housing project at 1130 Mission St, Agenda Item #26 on your May 28, 2024 agenda. We urge you to accept the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and move this project forward.

We applaud the owners of the Food Bin for taking a stand during our housing crisis, one that will make our city stronger, more affordable, and more sustainable. This project will ultimately provide 59 homes, 8 of which will be set aside for very low-income residents, and a new home for a beloved local business.

Santa Cruz YIMBY supports sustainable growth along transportation corridors and activity centers and a commitment to lower Vehicle Miles Traveled by housing people near services and jobs. This project checks all those boxes and more. We’re thrilled to see AB2097 being used locally to prioritize housing people over cars and creating more housing rather than more parking. Mission Street is a major transportation corridor and as METRO continues to expand service it will only become more convenient for future residents.

Santa Cruz YIMBY seeks to build a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. 1130 Mission Street is exactly the sort of infill housing that we need to address our city’s housing affordability crisis.

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

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

26.261
3 Lindsay Nelson
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2024 9:17 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush; Bonnie Bush; [email protected]
Subject: Petition in Support of the Food Bin Project
Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY Food Bin Petition.pdf
Hello
Please find attached a petition with over 100 people who support the Food Bin Project. We launched this petition just last Monday. There is a lot of community support for this project! Thank you,
Janine Roeth
on behalf of Santa Cruz YIMBY

26.262
Petition: Support The Food Bin Project
May 26, 2024
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Re: Item #26 on May 28, 2024 City Council agenda
We are writing in support of the proposed mixed-use infill housing project at 1130 Mission St, also known as the Food Bin project. We urge a denial of the appeal and your support to move this project forward.

We applaud the owners of the Food Bin for taking a stand during our housing crisis, and choosing to make improvements on their own land to add 59 homes to our community. This mix of SROs and 1-bedrooms are much-needed for individuals, seniors, and young couples to live in Santa Cruz. We are pleased the project includes a new space for the Food Bin and Herb Room as well.

This project is a great example of sustainable growth. It is located along Mission St, a major transportation corridor that is close to services, schools and jobs. We appreciate that state law is being used locally to prioritize housing people over cars and creating more housing rather than more parking. As METRO continues to expand service it will only become more convenient for future residents.

We are concerned that the process to build this project has resulted in a 5 month delay, with over $200K of requested changes to a project approved in January that meets local and state requirements. We believe the owner has made significant efforts to accommodate neighborhood concerns.

We wholeheartedly support this project.

1. Ben Breen, Santa Cruz, 95064 I teach at UCSC and have seen firsthand how our collective failure to build adequate housing has led to real suffering among students and others who are not lucky enough to own single-family homes.

Please allow this project to move forward.

2. John Mulry, Capitola 95010

3. Theo Kell, SANTA CRUZ, 95060

4. Janine Roeth, Santa Cruz, 95062

5. Ryan Meckel, SANTA CRUZ. 95060

6. Caroline Lamb. Santa Cruz, 95060 We need this kind of housing, and we need it here. This is a great idea.

7. Valerie Thorp, Capitola, 95010

8. Cory Matsui, Santa Cruz, 95060

9. Jeremy Mason-Herr, Santa Cruz, 95062 As a Santa Cruz county resident and homeowner I fully support this building and believe santa cruz will be better for it

10. Meghan Arnold, SANTA CRUZ. 95060 I live on the Westside, am a food bin customer, and strongly support this project

Page 1 of 5 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilMay 28, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
May 28, 2024