26.263
Petition: Support The Food Bin Project
11. Joe De Meo, Santa Cruz, 95060
12. Richard Randall, Santa Cruz, 95060
13. Rick McGahey, Santa Cruz, 95060
14. Gavin Roth, Santa Cruz, 95060
15. Katayun Salehi, Santa Cruz, 95062
16. Daniel Story, Santa Cruz, 95060, We should be saying "yes" to this kinds of housing, and much more like it. See recent news on Oakland's declining rents as proof that building more housing really does make living more affordable.
17. Alexander Pedersen, CAPITOLA, 95010
18. Jacob Knobel, Santa Cruz, 95060
19. Josh Bootz, Bonny Doon, 95060
20. Emeline Fredrick, Santa Cruz, 95060, Allowing appeals to add to the cost of housing projects only increases the demand for multi-story apartment buildings and increases the cost of the future rent. I encourage the city council to deny the appeal.
21. Susan Stuart, Bellmead, 95064
22. Sibley Simon, Santa Cruz, 95065
23. Graham Freeman, Santa Cruz, 95060
24. Jim Carter, SANTA CRUZ, 95060
25. Julia Ryan, SANTA CRUZ, 95062
26. Tim Gordin, Santa Cruz, 95062
27. Vivian Rogers, Santa Cruz, 95060
28. Robynne Blume, Santa Cruz, 95060
29. Mercy Olmstead, Aptos, 95003
30. Jay Melena, Bonny Doon, 95060
31. geri Lieby, Santa Cruz, 95060, A great project. On the transportation corridor.
32. Lindsay Lemmer, Santa Cruz, 95060
33. Chuck Perry, Bonny Doon, 95060
34. Megan Kilmer, Watsonville, 95076, We 100% need this. I have lived at two shared homes on Mission St! I lived with 8 other adults in a single family home, I rented a kitchen to sleep in, and a rodent infested property a stones through from the food bin. People, like me, who were working full time, and living in Santa Cruz deserve proper housing. The Food Bin is a dilapidated property and the best use is housing and to keep the Food Bin and Herb Room alive and well for generations to come.
35. Ben Eisenpress, SANTA CRUZ, 95062, We need more housing!
36. Margaret Barr, Boulder Creek, 95006
37. David Potes, Santa Cruz, 95060, As a neighbor (I am 2 blocks away), I strongly support this project. Densifying along the commercial transit-rich corridor is the right thing to do for people, climate and our future. I urge you to support this project.
38. Amelia Conlen, SANTA CRUZ, 95062
39. Alex Vartan, SANTA CRUZ, 95062
40. thairie ritchie, Capitola, 95010
41. Dusten D, Santa Cruz, 95062
26.264
Petition: Support The Food Bin Project
42. Brett Hatch, SANTA CRUZ, 95060, Please do everything you can to keep this project alive. This is one of the best opportunities we have this year to add affordable, walkable, bikeable housing right on our transit corridor. We are in a crisis and this project is one important part of the solution. Thank you
43. Claire Paul, Santa Cruz, 95062
44. G Trigueiro, Santa Cruz, 95060
45. Marianne Callahan, Santa Cruz, 95062, This is a beautiful and much needed project in a perfect location. I urge you to approve it.
46. Brendan Quirk, Santa Cruz, 95062, I’m in support of this project!
47. Clay Toombs, Bonny Doon, 95060, I am a member of the development team working on behalf of our client, the owner of this project. I am also a resident of Santa Cruz and want to show my support more housing!
48. Sara Swenson, Santa Cruz, 95062, Excited for this and all the other great projects expanding housing options in Santa Cruz.
49. Jocelyn Wolf, Santa Cruz, 95060
50. Henry Hooker, Santa Cruz, 95062
51. Chelsea Muller, Santa Cruz, 95060, Please act with the urgency our housing affordability crisis demands and move this project forward. Delays on critical projects like these contribute to higher project costs and sets us back in an uphill climb to fill the massive lack of housing our community needs. It’s so rare that a property owner offer up their land in such a community-minded way and we should be strongly supporting them.
52. Bennett Williamson, Felton, 95018
53. Stacey Croft-Patterson, Ben Lomond, 95005, We need more housing! Especially in places that are an easy walk from downtown and the UC.
54. Jennifer Pitino, Santa Cruz, 95062
55. Jessica Evans, Santa Cruz, 95060, I live a few blocks away from the Food Bin and I walk there every week or so to get groceries. I support the housing project. We need to add more housing in Santa Cruz, especially apartments. Apartments are more eco-friendly because they house more people on less land. By building apartments in our developed areas we can increase our housing supply while preserving our parks and green spaces.
56. Kate Walker, Santa Cruz, 95062
57. Catherine Sarto, Bonny Doon, 95060
58. Joel Steinberg, Santa Cruz, 95060
59. Jamileh Cannon, Santa Cruz, 95062
60. Anita Joseph, Santa Cruz, 95062, This project provides the type of housing Santa Cruz needs. It is located on a transportation corridor with access to services, schools and jobs. It would be stable housing for individuals, it follows state guidelines, and it would help make Santa Cruz a city in which people who work here could also live, thus enhancing our city with residents whose skills and services we need. This type of housing also provides homes for students who themselves bring economic benefit to our city. This project helps make Santa Cruz more livable, so I urge you to deny the appeal, stop the costly delay, and approve this project. Thank you.
26.265
Petition: Support The Food Bin Project
61. Marisa Gomez, Bonny Doon, 95060, Santa Cruz needs more housing options located near essential goods and services. This project will be well suited for folks who work at UCSC, downtown, or even in downtown San Jose and can travel by bike, bus, and foot to where they need to go. Metro is improving, the highway 17 express is easily accessible, and all of the resources of downtown and the west side are right there. Let’s champion projects like this that prioritize housing people over cars.
62. Stacy Nagel, Scotts Valley, 95066
63. Jaelyn Bos, Santa Cruz, 95060
64. Martha Dexter, Bonny Doon, 95060
65. Carlin Cook, Santa Cruz, 95065, I support the food bin project
66. Garrett Richard, Santa Cruz, 95062
67. Sarah Missett, Bonny Doon, 95060
68. Catherine Brennan, Bonny Doon, 95060, This project is necessary on so many levels and will help keep our community viable, vibrant, and all around a good place to call home. We all know more housing is needed. Let’s take care of it ourselves instead of having the state take it over for us which they eventually will. This is such a good location right on the transit route for the university One of our major employers
69. Kathy Cheer, Santa Cruz, 95060, So what's the problem? Is there a housing shortage? Are most available rentals overpriced? Do students face homelessness since the University chooses to over-enroll the number of new students despite lack of rooms available? If yes is the answer in most cases, let the project move on TODAY!
70. Gabriel Handford, Bonny Doon, 95060, We desperately need more housing and we need to streamline these projects so they stay affordable.
71. Iris Russell, Bonny Doon, 95060
72. Bill Schneider, Santa Cruz, 95062, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with this housing project. Times are changing, and so must we. I believe this housing project is reasonable and appropriate for Santa Cruz.
73. James Weller, Capitola, 95010, This is a good housing project. Please deny the appeal and get on with the public’s business.
74. Evan Wiinikka, Aptos, 95003, This town desperately needs more housing. Build it
75. Kyle Bratisax, Bonny Doon, 95060
76. Dan Dion, Bonny Doon, 95060
77. Belinda Greysmith, Bonny Doon, 95060
78. Kevin Karplus, Bonny Doon, 95060, Although the project is not perfect, it is a good use of the space on Mission Street and should not be derailed by NIMBYs. I live nearby and walk to shop at Food Bin a couple of times a week.
79. Hope Armstrong, Bonny Doon, 95060
80. Carolyn Kelley, Santa Cruz, 95060
81. Austin Johns, Capitola, 95010
82. Kris Younggren, Watsonville, 95076
26.266
Petition: Support The Food Bin Project
83. Fred Della Santina, Bonny Doon, 95060, I fully support this housing project and hope my city council will too. I understand the push back, but at the end of the day this is about putting a roof over someone's head.
84. Phoenix Buddeberg, Bonny Doon, 95060 The city urgently needs more housing, including greater density. This project is situated in a excellent location for an increase in density, both in terms of transportation and in terms of impact on the area (Mission St is already a significant impact; a larger building on it isn't going to do much). There will be few projects better suited to meet Santa Cruz's need for greater housing capacity.
85. Rachael Spencer-Hill, Boulder Creek, 95006
86. Debra Sun, Bonny Doon, 95060
87. Joe Doty, Bonny Doon, 95060, It can't be 1972 in Santa Cruz forever.
88. Felix Vayssieres, Santa Cruz, 95062
89. Braeden Webb, San Jose, 95125
90. Christopher Murray, Aptos, 95003
91. Andrew Robinson, Orinda 94563
92. Lola Quiroga, Santa Cruz, 95060
93. Estefania Sanchez, Rancho Cucamonga, 91730
94. Kevin Sasaki, Santa Cruz, 95064
95. Olivia Howell, San Jose, 95123
96. Nicolas Robles, Santa Cruz, 95064
97. Noel Martinez, Santa Cruz, 95064
98. Alex Santiagi, Santa Cruz, 95064
99. Killian Kiuttu, Bonny Doon, 95060
100. Marshall Sekula, Bonny Doon, 95060
101. Gosha Moskaev, Bonny Doon, 95060
102. Joshua Brons, 92679
103. Vanessa Canchola, Sacramento, 95823
104. Junuh Tejeda Nussman, Bonny Doon, 95060
105. Cora Doyle, Santa Cruz, 95064
106. Colleen Josephson, Santa Cruz, 95064
107. Amy Hyler-Essig, Santa Cruz, 95064
108. Ethan Nunez, Bonny Doon, 95060
109. Louise Edwards, , Concord, 94521
110. Zoe Gromer, Bonny Doon, 95060
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.
26.267
4 Lindsay Nelson
From: Liz Pollock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 8:51 AM
To: City Council
Cc: AAmine
Subject: Food Bin Development
dear city council members,
the proposed plan of the development for the food bin is atrocious! it does not reflect the values of the surrounding residenƟal neighborhood.
i ask you to please vote no!
sincerely,
liz pollock
1121 n branciforte ave
sc 95062
831.251.9218
26.268
5 Lindsay Nelson
From: Jacqueline Davidow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 1:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Tall buildings
What can be done to protect the integrity of our town? All the tall buildings are ruining Santa Cruz. Not everyone can live here! We only have so much water, our streets can only tolerate so many vehicles! If newcomers cannot afford to live here let them go elsewhere. It’s a big country!! Please stop 늚늛 trying to accommodate everyone who wants to come here when our own children have had to move away. The situaƟon is becoming increasingly intolerable with all the big ugly rectangular buildings totally destroying our town. Sent from my iPhone
26.269
1130/1132 Mission Street
CP23-0103
City Council
May 28, 2024
26.270
2 26.271
3 Santa Cruz
26.272
4 26.273
5 Key State
Legislation
Housing Accountability Act
Density Bonus
Parking
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Consistency & Streamlining
26.274
Project Proposal • Five story mixed-use
project
• At grade parking • 2,627 sq ft Commercial
Space
• 48 SRO Units
6 26.275
7 Entitlements
• Nonresidential Demolition
Authorization Permit
• Boundary Adjustment
• Design Permit
• Special Use Permit
• Watercourse Development Permit
• Density Bonus
• Waivers (height/FAR/setbacks)
• Concessions (Food Service/Deferred
Payment)
26.276
8 Community Outreach
• Community Meeting
•April 18, 2023
• Staff, Project Development Team, 100 members of the
community
• Project Webpage
26.277
Background
• PC approved on 1/18/24
• Appealed 1/29/24
• Revised plans submitted
• On 4/30/24 CC referred revisions to PC for recommendation • Plans updated to clarify issues prior to 5/16/24 PC
9 26.278
10 Appeals
• Eligiblity for AB2097 (parking requirements)
• Loss of Solar
• Base Density/FAR calculations accuracy
• Traffic Impacts
• Neighborhood Compatibility
• Creek Impacts
26.279
11 Planning Commission 5/16/24
• 8 members of the public spoke
• 2 expressed concerns (Truck Delivery/Creek Impacts)
• 6 spoke in favor (RHNA/Housing Needed/Maintains Food Bin) • PC recommended approval 7-0
• Conditions:
• Solar
• 6-foot solid wall
• Biotic Report Peer Review
26.280
12 Revisions
• Base Density Diagram
• FAR
• Unit Size
• Inclusionary Requirements
• Storage Spaces for ADUs
• Additional Requested Concessions
• New Conditions of Approval
26.281
Base Density Diagram
13 26.282
Base Density Diagram - FAR
14 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
26.283
Base Density Diagram – Unit Size
• Average Gross Unit Area
• Project Average Gross Unit Area =< Base
Density Average Gross Unit Area
• Revised Plans show compliance
• Net Unit Size specific to SRO
Requirements
15 26.284
Base Density Diagram – Inclusionary Requirements
• Base Density – 33 units
• 6 VLI (50% of AMI)
• 11 ADUs – 2 required at LI (80% of AMI)
• Volunteered to provide all 8 at VLI
16 26.285
17 Storage Spaces for ADUs
26.286
Additional Requested Concessions
• Future Food Service Use Condition of Approval
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.
• Defer Payment of Impact Fees
18 26.287
New Conditions of Approval
67. The amenity/laundry rooms shall include motion-sensor lighting in compliance with the 2022 Energy 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. 19 26.288
New Conditions of Approval
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.
74. Mural shall be complete prior to occupancy, including temporary occupancy. 20 26.289
New Conditions of Approval
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.
21 26.290
Recommendation
That the City Council Adopt a resolution denying the appeal(s), thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s acknowledgment of the environmental determination 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.”
22 26.291
1130/1132 Mission Street
CP23-0103
City Council
May 28, 2024
26.292
End
24 26.293
Ian and Natasha Guy
with testimony from Veronica Elsea
thanks to Sara Bassler for kick starting our effort.
Food Bin Appeal
05/28/2024
26.294
Parking & Transit stops
26.295
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.
The city must enforce parking requirements or they
are breaking the law.
26.296
By PRC § 21064.3 a major mass transit stop is defined as Public Resources Code - PRC § 21064.3:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
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.
26.297
26.298
By PRC § 21064.3 a major mass transit stop is defined as Public Resources Code - PRC § 21064.3:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
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. ❌
26.299
By PRC § 21064.3 a major mass transit stop is defined as Public Resources Code - PRC § 21064.3:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
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. ❌
❌
26.300
“Analyzing the transit stops within a halfmile 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).”
What did the planning commission say?
26.301
“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.” Reminder, that the law states major mass transit as:
26.302
26.303
Direction
different
directions
Direction
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
North East
South West
North West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
South West
26.304
Direction
North East
South West
South East
North West
South East
North West
South East
North West
South East
North West
West
Direction
South East
North West
South East
North West
South East
North West
East
North West
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
different
directions
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
North East
South West
South East
South West
26.305
The planning commission have calculated the frequency of any bus, going anywhere, arriving to any of the stops within the half mile radius - even counting the same bus making two stops on it’s route.
This is not, frequency of services of a major bus route.
26.306
26.307
This analysis is erroneously based on only the afternoon commute period, and AB2097 strictly states
“15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”
26.308
What if we calculate the frequency of service of a bus route correctly?
26.309
42 41
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
26.310
What is a bus route?
26.311
A bus route is a designated path or itinerary that a bus follows to pick up and drop off passengers at specified locations or stops. Some key metrics in measuring public transport are:
1. Start and End Point: The route typically has a defined starting point (origin) and an ending point (destination).
2. Stops: Locations along the route where the bus picks up and drops off passengers.
3. Schedule: The timetable indicating the times at which the bus will arrive at and depart from each stop.
4. Frequency: The interval at which buses run on the route, through a particular stop, often varying by time of day (e.g., more frequent during rush hours).
5. Direction: Routes can be bidirectional, meaning buses travel back and forth between the start and end points, or unidirectional, with buses traveling only in one direction.
6. Number and Name: Routes are usually identified by a unique number or name, which helps passengers and transit operators distinguish between different routes.
26.312
What is a major transit stop?
26.313
What is a major transit stop?
“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.”
26.314
30 33
25 I calculated the frequency of service of buses at the stops highlighted as within one half mile.
26.315
26.316
26.317
42 41
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
26.318
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
41 40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
26.319
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.320
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.321
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE] - 33.5 mins ❌
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.322
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE] - 33.5 mins ❌
19 [SE] - 22.1 mins ❌
18 [SW]
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.323
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE] - 33.5 mins ❌
19 [SE] - 22.1 mins ❌
18 [SW]
19 [NW] - 19.2 mins ❌
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.324
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE] - 33.5 mins ❌
19 [SE] - 22.1 mins ❌
18 [SW] - 20.4 mins ❌
19 [NW] - 19.2 mins ❌
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.325
42 - 120 mins ❌
Are any of these major bus routes?
1225
1226
1624
1625
40 [NE] - 33.5 mins ❌
19 [SE] - 22.1 mins ❌
18 [SW] - 20.4 mins ❌
19 [NW] - 19.2 mins ❌
18 [NE] - 21.3 mins ❌
40 [SW] - 32.5 mins ❌
41 - 60 mins ❌
26.326
42 41
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.327
42 - Never ❌
41 40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.328
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW]
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.329
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE]
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.330
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE]
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.331
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE] - 9.01am ❌
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.332
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE] - 9.01am ❌
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW]
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.333
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE] - 9.01am ❌
18 [SW]
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW] - 8.51am ❌
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.334
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE] - 9.01am ❌
18 [SW] - 8.21am ❌
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW] - 8.51am ❌
18 [NE]
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.335
42 - Never ❌
41 - Never ❌
40 [NE] - Never ❌
19 [SE] - 9.01am ❌
18 [SW] - 8.21am ❌
1225
1226
1624
1625
19 [NW] - 8.51am ❌
18 [NE] - 8.58am ❌
40 [SW] - Never ❌
When does 15 min service interval start?
26.336
Finally, it is worth noting, that while route 18 and 19 are the closest routes to meet the definition of a major transit route. They do not intersect at a single stop.
Route 18 stops at 1624 in one direction and 1625 in the other direction.
Route 19 stop sat 1225 in one direction and 1226 in the other direction.
26.337
Finally, it is worth noting, that while route 18 and 19 are the closest routes to meet the definition of a major transit route. They do not intersect at a single stop.
Route 18 stops at 1624 in one direction and 1625 in the other direction.
Route 19 stop sat 1225 in one direction and 1226 in the other direction.
No two major bus routes intersect at any of the stops listed by the city planning commission.
26.338
By PRC § 21064.3 a major mass transit stop is defined as Public Resources Code - PRC § 21064.3:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service.
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. ❌
❌
❌
26.339
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.
The city must enforce parking requirements or they
are breaking the law.
26.340
Veronica Elsea
on the health + safety impact of this development
26.341
Low Cost Housing
26.342
Low Cost Housing
Workbench: Three-story triplex project on Pennsylvania Avenue This project was proposed to include three affordable units. After gaining planning approval Workbench then resubmitted the plans, removing the affordable units.
Link to article
26.343
Low Cost Housing
Workbench + The Developers of 1130 Mission + Council Members hold a responsibility to the people of Santa Cruz, both present and future, to uphold the agreement for low cost housing.
All members should co-sign an agreement that the units agreed upon in the plans, must remain low cost for a duration of time. (E.g. 50 years).
26.344
Health & Safety
26.345
Prior to issuance of a building permit, local agencies are able to require modifications to plans, to mitigate an adverse impact upon public health and safety
26.346
Seismic and Wildfire safety
Mission/laurel is an extremely busy intersection. By adding a 5 story block here, which would set a precedent for further developers to build densely, the population density in the area would grow exponentially.
We suggest CALtrans, CALfire & SCZ fire dept, conduct studies into the evacuation routes at present, and how these would be impacted by a growing population, to mitigate future disasters.
Air Quality
The development will likely exacerbate air quality issues, dust from construction and heavy machinery.
Given the lack of set backs and proximity to adjacent neighbors this is of great concern and should be mitigated.
Water Contamination
The development is directly adjacent to the creek and overhangs in areas. Dust or hazardous construction materials will enter the water supply. The impact of this upon public safety, as well as delicate ecosystem should be studied.
Other
Large groups of residents will be waiting a long time for infrequent busses on a busy intersection of a major highway.
And finally, the mental & Physical health toll of this development on neighbors and locals.
Health & Safety
26.347
‘Not only do we have proof that design can have a positive impact on our mental health, but it has also been proven that poor design evokes negative reactions like anxiety, raised blood pressure, and increased risk of infections (Ulrich, 2001). Because mental health is a direct link to physical health, all environments that we spend long periods of time in would benefit from thoughtful design.’ Linked article
‘A 2011 study from the Central Institute of Mental Health at the University of Heidelberg found that city living was associated with greater stress responses in both the amygdala and the cingulate cortex – areas linked to emotional regulation, depression and anxiety. This increased activation, the research team said, could have a “lasting effect”, both on the brain’s development and its ongoing susceptibility to mental illness.’ Linked article Health & Safety
26.348
‘The aesthetics of our surroundings actually have a direct impact on both our physical and mental health. In 2005, Cecilia Svensson and Linda Johansson from Blekinge Technical University reviewed several studies on the subject. They found that patients in hospitals recover more quickly if their environment includes details such as colors and shapes.’ Linked article ‘Ugly architecture could have direct negative consequences. Arnold J. Wilkins, Professor of Psychology at the University of Essex, has found that looking at certain urban landscapes may actually give you a headache and cause migraines. Over the last 100 years, the design of buildings has been departing further and further from the rule of nature, making the buildings less and less comfortable to look at.’ Linked article
Health & Safety
26.349
Health & Safety
26.350
Building dense housing and high rises affects human beings mental and physical health.
26.351
Summary
26.352
Main Points:
• Proposed parking included in the develop is insufficient. The development is not eligible for the waiver in AB2097 and the development therefore must include parking for the residents. • Workbench + 1130 Developers + Council members must all co-sign an agreement to ensure low cost housing at the development remains intact for (e.g.) 50 years. Details to be agreed upon. • Planning / Council members have a duty to consider and investigate the detrimental physical & mental health affects of the proposed development.
Additionally:
• Buildings of this nature should aim to fit into the existing landscape as seamlessly as possible in order to better suit everyone, not just the architects personal taste.
26.353
“My studio's passion is improving the public experience of cities for everyone.”
“You can make people feel valued or cared for by design alone. It's not purely about money. It's about how we choose to value human experience.”
- Thomas Heatherwick
26.354
Thank you
26.355
Backup
26.356
Food bin | 1225 Morning Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.357
Food bin | 1225 Evening Schedule
Monday - Yes Tuesday - Yes Wednesday - Yes
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.358
Food bin | 1226 Morning Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.359
Food bin | 1226 Evening Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.360
Food bin | 1624 Morning Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.361
Food bin | 1624 Evening Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.362
Food bin | 1625 Morning Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.363
Food bin | 1625 Evening Schedule
Monday - No Tuesday - No Wednesday - No
Thursday - No Friday - No
26.364
1130 Mission St Project
Laurel/Cleveland Neighborhood Appeal
26.365
What are we appealing?
We are appealing the Planning Commission's
January 18th approval of the original project.
This project was approved in violation of city and state law.
26.366
We are a pro-housing neighborhood
● A lot of housing needs to be built
● The Food Bin location is a great location for housing ● Housing without good planning is a disaster
● Good planning needs good enforcement
● The city worked hard to be in the 6% of communities that met our housing RHNA quota which allows us to avoid Builders Remedy ● This project needs to address the concerns of today, but also the needs of the city with a 50+ year time horizon
26.367
Our Experience With Workbench
26.368
Developer’s Misleading
Rendering
26.369
More Realistic
Rendering
26.370
Rendering Comparison
26.371
Three Legal Justifications To Our Appeal
1. Base building FAR is out of limits, Violates SCMC
24.10.4340
2. Base building setback violate the MSUDOD, Violates
SCMC 24.10.4340
3. Developer’s base building units are smaller than those in the final plans, Violates SB330 and SCMC 24.16.255
26.372
● Base building is the
basis from which
density bonus is
calculated
● Base building is
required to meet all
local zoning laws
26.373
1. FAR Calculations
26.374
Developer’s FAR Calculations (v.3/14/2024)
26.375
Consultant’s FAR Calculations
26.376
26.377
Base Building - Consultant’s FAR Totals
● Consultant calculated FAR based on ‘generous’ and ‘strict’ assumptions. ● All assumption profiles put FAR above the 1.75 limit
26.378
What did the Planning Staff have to say?
26.379
2. Setback Issues
26.380
MSUDOD - Overlay
Part 43: MISSION STREET URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
c. Build-to Lines and Setbacks.
(8) 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.
26.381
Planning Department Summary (from 1/18/24 staff report)
26.382
15 foot rear
setback
violated
MSUDOD
(from 1/18/24
planning
department Base
Density calc)
26.383
What does the developer have to say?
26.384
What did planning staff have to say?
26.385
3. Base Unit Size Issue
26.386
Applicable Density Bonus Law
SCMC 24.16.255 (6): THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS
PRESENTED IN THE BASE DENSITY PROJECT MUST BE EQUAL TO
OR GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS
PRESENTED IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT.
26.387
Planned units must be
equal to or smaller than
the base units
Images from Plans approved by Planning Commission
26.388
What did planning staff have to say?
26.389
Summary - Reason To Approve Appeal
1. FAR limit for the ‘base’ building was exceeded
and violated city code
2. Setbacks for the ‘base’ building violated city code
3. Base units are smaller than the planned units
which violates density bonus law and city code
26.390
ADU Issues
26.391
ADU Issues - Existing or New?
Workbench’s 4/25 letter:
SCMC 24.16.125
26.392
ADU Issues Cont…
SCMC 24.16.141
26.393
ADU Summary
The proposed ADUs are not existing, they are clearly new New ADUs are not permitted to have windows looking into neighbors yards
26.394
Accountability
Developer must be held accountable for their actions -
They shouldn’t be allowed any waivers or concessions other than what they are legally entitled to
Other developers are watching: If these tactics are successful they will be replicated - let’s not reward these tactics
26.395
CEQA Categorical Exemption
Section 15332
Infill Development Class 32
1130 Mission Street Redevelopment Project Does Not Qualify 1 26.396
15332. IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section (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. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources Code. 2 26.397
Condition (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
The project has potential negative effects to water quality in Laurel Creek and Neary Lagoon, as well as to on-site and off-site groundwater, that have not been evaluated. These include potential:
❏ Increases in sedimentation in Laurel Creek and Neary
Lagoon.
❏ Introduction of contaminants into surface waters as well as to adjacent groundwater at the site and possibly onto adjacent offsite residential property.
3 26.398
Surface Water - Laurel Creek and Neary Lagoon
Laurel Creek is a year-round stream, fed by 4 springs originating in marble bedrock at/near UCSC.
These springs provided drinking water during the Mission period.
Laurel Creek is the main tributary to the Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge.
4 26.399
1130 Mission
St. is the first
commercial
property
Laurel Cr.
encounters. Its
4 springs
sustain
summer inflow
to Neary
Lagoon.
Map from:
Neary Lagoon: Lagoon Specific
Sedimentation Management Plan,
2006, Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
5 1130 Mission St
26.400
Sediment Impacts to Laurel Creek and Neary Lagoon
Laurel Creek contributes 70-80% of the sediment inflow to Neary Lagoon. This is costly for the City to manage. Proposed project should be evaluated for potential to increase sediment load & add to cost. - Removing existing vegetation has potential to cause bank erosion - Overhanging building will cast channel in year round deep shade - Will prescribed native plants establish and thrive in deep shade? - If plants cannot re-establish and thrive, how much more sediment will Laurel Creek deliver to Neary Lagoon and what additional cost will City incur to manage this?
6 26.401
POTENTIAL IMPACTS to AIR, SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
The project site, a former gas station, was monitored by the State for gasoline contaminated soil and groundwater between 1990 and 2023. The site (UST case: T0608700059) was granted a Low Threat Closure in June 2023.
Low Threat Closure does not mean a site is “clean.”
The closure packet states:
“Residual soil and groundwater pollution may still exist on site that could pose an unacceptable risk under certain site development activities, such as grading, excavation or dewatering. The Central Coast Regional Water Board, the local health agency, and the appropriate planning and building departments must be notified prior to any changes in land use, grading activities, excavation or dewatering. This notification must include a statement that residual soil and groundwater pollution underlie the property and nearby properties.”
7 26.402
Project Application Form for Housing Crisis Act of 2019 SB 330 - misrepresented site, is this project eligible for SB 330 density bonus? 8 26.403
Site is Contaminated with Gasoline and on Cortese List
9 26.404
Developer Violated State Water Board Requirements Twice - not notifying required agencies of planned subsurface work and likely spreading site contamination and risking health and safety of workers:
- In August and September 2022, while the Site was still an active UST case under the full jurisdiction of the State Water Board, the developers contracted a geotechnical subsurface exploration without notifying the Board, and drilled through gasoline contaminated soils and groundwater. Risked health and safety of workers and spreading contamination on site.
- On May 7, 2024, a week after the State Water Board and County Environmental Health “reminded” the City, developer authorized subsurface work with PG&E without notifying Water Board and Environmental Health. PG&E claimed they had City permits. 10 26.405
Potential Chemical Impacts to Air and Water Quality
On-site stockpiling of soils contaminated by gasoline, or their re-use as fill or in planters, can spread
contamination into the air, into shallow groundwater,
as well as into Laurel Creek.
Geotechnical findings, approved by the Planning
Commission, stated that site soils may be used as fill.
This is not within the City’s jurisdiction. The suitability of site soils for reuse must be determined by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and County
Environmental Health.
12 26.406
Development Related Risk to Air and Water Quality
from residual gasoline contamination in site soils and groundwater Development related risks of spreading site contamination without appropriate agency oversight and planning is
compounded by the developer’s demonstrated disregard for the required notification of the State Water Board and County Environmental Health.
The developers’ track record of attempting to circumvent this site’s post closure management requirements poses a distinct risk to human health and safety, and to the environment. 11 26.407
Condition (c) The project site has no value as habitat
for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Planning Department addressed some of our concerns through requiring a peer review of the original biotic report. Some concerns linger:
Raptors are CA Species of Concern. Disrupting raptor habitat constitutes an illegal “incidental take” as per the Federal Migratory Birds Treaty Act. The impact of a 5 story building overhanging the creek and their historic nesting, breeding and hunting zone has not been evaluated.
13 26.408
Resident Red Shouldered Hawks - protected by Migratory Birds Treaty Act 14 Riparian Corridor and
Riparian Setback waivers
will allow the proposed
building to overhang
their feeding/flying zone.
Lights from windows will
interfere with habitat
needs, constituting
illegal “incidental takes.”
26.409
Condition (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.
- Buildings that conform to the planning documents have been pre-screened for environmental impact, by virtue of conforming to these codes.
- The proposed building, with all the many waivers, results in a building that far exceeds planning documents relative to height, setback to residential neighbor and riparian setbacks. The environmental impacts of these should be
evaluated individually and for their cumulative effects. 15 26.410
Setback Waivers risk spreading contamination at the site, into the creek and possibly onto the neighboring property
Most of the known residual gasoline contamination is
located toward the central portion of the property, in the vicinity of the Herb Room and between the Herb Room and the Food Bin buildings.
Maintaining setbacks will concentrate development in a
way that partially mitigates the risk of contaminants
moving toward the property margins, or offsite - into
Laurel Creek, or toward the west-adjacent property.
16 26.411
Conclusion: This project fails to meet requirements for CEQA Section 15322 Infill Development Class 32 Exemption due to:
❏ it being a former gas station, with residual gasoline contamination, a water table that rises to less than 3 feet below the ground surface adjacent to a year round stream, and with a potential to adversely impact air quality and groundwater and surface water onsite and offsite; ❏ it intrudes into known raptor habitat with a high potential to result in illegal incidental takes in violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and,
❏ in its waiver of riparian corridor and riparian development setbacks as per the City Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, approved by the City and certified by the California Coastal Commision.
17 26.412
We respectfully request City Council and the Planning
Department to abide by all CEQA regulations regarding
exemptions and to develop standards for reviewing
cumulative impacts for projects that far exceed the
scale of existing applicable zoning and building codes, and planning policies.
The CEQA Exemption criteria are in place so that
communities have development by code, not by
multiple and intersecting waivers.
26.413
Compromise Approach
Base building: 33 units
50% Bonus: 17 units
Total entitled units: 50 units
Including reduced setbacks for environmental and neighbor concerns?
We need housing, and we need a building that we can live with for 50+ years, does this plan exist? Yes!
26.414
50 Units in 4 Floors
26.415
Compromise Details
➔ 50 units instead of 59
➔ Only 4 floors instead of 5
➔ Full setbacks to protect
the neighbors and
riparian corridor
➔ Allows sun, privacy, and
housing!
26.416
Approve FAR waiver (required)
Approve height waiver to 4 stories
(required)
Deny setback waiver (not required
& violates CEQA waiver)
Allow storage & amenities within
these parameters
26.417
This plan is buildable
● Small lot with high density - reduced acquisition costs and lower overhead compared to other projects
● No parking required - entire building is leasable, unlike all other housing projects = saves developer $$$
● 4 Story building is less expensive to build than a 5 story building
● Up to 50 new housing units!
26.418
1130 & 1132
MISSION STREET
City Council Hearing
May 28, 2024
Santa Cruz, California 95060
26.419
INTRODUCTIONS
Doug Wallace, Owner of the Food Bin
Jamileh Cannon, Workbench, Project Architect
26.420
Overview
● Intros
○ Food Bin Owner & Project Developer, Doug Wallace
○ Project Architect, Jamileh Cannon of Workbench
● Development Financing 101
● Project Modifications
26.421
Meet:
FOOD BIN, Project Owner & Developer
Doug Wallace
26.422
Project Overview
FOOD BIN & HERB ROOM
Doug Wallace - Owner, Operator and Developer
Project Goals
1. Redevelopment of 1130-1132 Mission Street
2. Provide a long-term home for the Food Bin/Herb Room
3. Create housing to meet community and City needs
4. Continue to be a community meeting/gathering space
on the Westside
26.423
ESTIMATED COSTS OF APPEAL AND CONDITIONS TO THE PROJECT Item Est. Cost
Window coverings in spaces facing the creek $12,500
Neighbor's solar buyout $10,000
Electronic parking sign $21,000
Bus stop improvement bond $7,500
(2) ADUs at VLI rate instead of LI income rate $148,320 Costs for drawing updates and hearing process $42,000
Total Estimated Cost $241,320
26.424
Meet:
WORKBENCH, Project Architect
Jamileh Cannon
26.425
ABOUT WORKBENCH
We believe that building housing is essential to
keeping our community vibrant and thriving.
WHO WE ARE
Based in Santa Cruz, we are designers,
architects, contractors, developers & housing
policy nerds.
Of our 27 person team, 21 of us live in Santa
Cruz, where we raise our families, support
our local economy & feel so lucky to call this
place home.
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT
We work to bring our community’s goals into reality - creating diverse infill housing that supports our population and natural spaces.
26.426
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Our work feeds our local economic
ecosystem - from consultants, skilled
construction labor and 1000’s of people
in between. Our final product- homescreate safe places for people to live, thrive & contribute to our community.
About Workbench
COMMUNITY VISION
We have designed this project
in response to our
community’s vision - to
create housing while
preserving our natural spaces.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
There is a growing unmet
demand for housing. We need
housing to support our changing
population & reduce displacement
of families & essential workers.
BY THE NUMBERS… Santa Cruz Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
WORKBENCH & OUR COMMUNITY
26.427
DEVELOPMENT
FINANCING 101
26.428
Land Costs
Size, location, amenities,
assessment, buildability,
supply, and demand all
determine the cost of
land for development.
Carrying costs also factor
into the cost of the land.
Project Development Costs
Determined by many economic
factors, project scope, and
governing entities.
● Design
● Entitlement Process
● Permits
● Concessions/Impacts
● Construction
Rent & Income
Total project income
must cover repayment
of principal and
interest on all
borrowed and invested
capital and all
operating costs.
Income – Expenses
=
Finished Project
Value
Cost of Capital
Determined by bank interest and investor rates. Income of project must also cover the interest and returns on all borrowed and invested capital.
Costs Value
26.429
Development Financing 101
Investors Expect Returns
The rest of the project costs are funded by
investor equity.
Investors also have long term financial
return goals that have to met if they are
going to invest.
A project “pencils” if the finished value
exceeds all the project costs, including
financial returns to equity and debt.
FUNDING THE PROJECT
Banks are Risk Averse
Banks will fund conventional construction
loans at about 65% of project cost.
For a rental project the Bank will want to
see that projected rents exceed the project’s
costs by 25%
Proforma
A financial tool that developers use to
analyze a particular project and to secure
investment partners.
26.430
California housing laws make housing projects more financially viable and therefore attractive to banks and investors by allowing greater height and density. They do this by decreasing project costs and risks and creating more value by adding density.
COSTS VALUE
State laws create more feasible projects.
Feasibility
Threshold
COSTS VALUE
Before state laws After state laws
26.431
Summary of
Project
Modifications
COAs
Project Drawings
Costs
26.432
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS BETWEEN
1.18.2024 PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL AND NOW
26.433
Design Strategies
AGREED UPON NEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
● Management plan details; including trash bins, noise and owner’s intent to prioritize tenancy for households that don’t own cars.
● Lighting and shading conditions for amenity spaces facing the creek
● Loading zone clarifications
● Mural change approval process
● Voluntary pay off of the Neighbor’s solar system up to $10,000 ● Voluntary cash bond of $7,500 for future bus stop
improvements, anywhere within the City.
Concessions requested in response to the new COAs
- Impact fees to be paid at CofO instead of building permit issuance
- Removal of draft COA requiring building be constructed for future restaurant use.
26.434
Planning Hearing
Package
40 units base
density
Challenged by
neighbors on FAR
and base unit size vs
proposed unit size.
Rev 03 - 3.11.2024
Neighbor appeals and conversations
with the City questioned whether the
average base unit size was at least as
large as the proposed average unit
size. We enlarged the base units to
make them as large as the proposed
units.
Neighbors also questioned whether
the base density diagram met the
1.75 FAR restriction. We provided the
calculations to show our base density
was under 1.75. (Original FAR was
correct)
32 units base density
We proposed “conversion” ADUs (12)
to make up for base density unit
reduction.
Challenged by neighbors on 20%
reduction vs. SB330
DRAWING UPDATES
26.435
Rev 04 - 4.19.2024
Appellants challenged the reduction
from 40 to 32 base density units as not
complying with SB330’s limitation of “less
than 20% change” in number of units.
The resulting % change was 20%.
This was corrected by modifying the base
density to have 33 units instead of 32
units.
Then challenged by neighbors on rear
yard setback and number of conversion
ADUs
DRAWING UPDATES
Rev 3 Rev 4
26.436
Rev 05 - 4.24.2024
The appellant submitted a new document to
the City challenging the Setbacks, FAR calcs,
unit sizes and SB330 20% changes:
Drawing modifications include rear yard
setback updates based on Mission Street
Overlay District setbacks.
- 15’ to 25’ at 2nd level
- 15’ to 35’ at upper levels
FAR calcs were correct in drawings and unit
sizes were updated in a previous version of the
drawings.
For clarity we also reduced the ADUs from 12
to 11 to be under the 20% requirement.
However, we could have calculated the base
density differently and still kept the 12 units.
DRAWING UPDATES
26.437
Rev 06 - 5.8.2024
The City and Workbench met on 5.7.2024 to
review additional feedback from neighbors and
the City Council.
Dimensions were added where could on the
density diagrams. Some of the geometries are
rather complex and both adding dimensions,
and calculating square footages from them
would be complicated.
We also modified the net area plans to be
consistent between the base and bonus
project.
Lastly, we have adjusted one gross area plan for
residential area that was off by 30 square feet.
DRAWING UPDATES
26.438
Since our SB330 Pre Application, The City has
rezoned the site from CC to MU-M.
Current zoning: MU-M with Mission Street Overlay
● MU-M zoning allows 4 stories instead of 3.
● MU-M zoning allows 1.75 FAR, same as before.
● Would allow an additional story of base density.
● But FAR would not allow additional base units.
● Would allow base density of 33 units.
Current State law allows a second density bonus of 50%. ● Base density = 33 units
● First density bonus = 17 units
● Second density bonus = 17 units
● Base + Bonus density = 67 units
● ADU conversions = 25% of 67 units = 17 units
● Lot-based ADUs allowed = 2 units
● Allowable units under current law: 86 units
Height is unlimited with a waiver under State Density
Bonus Law.
POTENTIAL DENSITY UNDER CURRENT LAW
26.439
THANK YOU
26.440
26.441