Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 1 of 5)

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting - November 19, 2024
12:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM/COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM 12:30 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, CONSENT, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND GENERAL

BUSINESS, ZOOM/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting may be viewed remotely, using any of the following sources:
 Click on Zoom link (no time delay): https://zoom.us/j/94684401344  Online at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council/council-meetings  Online at Watch – Community Television of Santa Cruz County  Comcast Channel 25
Or: Call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.  1-833-548-0276 (Toll Free)
 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
 1-877-853-5247 (Toll Free)
 1-669-900-9128
 Enter the meeting ID number: 946 8440 1344
 When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
 Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.  It will be your turn to speak when the Mayor calls on you. Press *6 to unmute yourself. The timer will then be set.

Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 5:00 pm on Monday, November 18th
PLEASE NOTE:
 Council may take a break(s) as needed.
 Requests for extra speaking time on items other than Oral Communications must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 17th by emailing the Mayor and the City Clerk.

Approval will be confirmed via email.
[email protected] [email protected]
November 19, 2024 City Council 2
The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the City Clerk’s Department at 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such special assistance, or email [email protected]. The CalRelay system number: 1-800-735-2922.

Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 420-5030 al menos cinco días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected]. El número del sistema Cal-Relay es: 1-800-735-2922.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council agenda and the complete agenda packet containing public records, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, are available for review on the City’s website:
www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council-meetings and at the Office of the City Clerk located at 809 Center Street, Room 8, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours.

Agenda Materials Submitted after Publication of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, public records related to an open session agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available at the same time they are distributed or made available to the legislative body on the City’s website at: www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-councilmeetings and are also available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, 809 Center Street Room 8, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours, and at the Council meeting.

Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-420-5030. 12:00 PM
Statements of Disqualification
Closed Session

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95)
1) Claimant: Cameron Abrams
2) Claimant: Autumn Amber Parks
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
1) Fleck, Robert v. City of Santa Cruz, et al.
(Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 23CV01131)
2) Elaine Vierra v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV01750)
November 19, 2024 City Council 3
City Council
12:30 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Oral Communications Announcement – Members of the public may address Council on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Council. 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications. No extra time for groups will be granted.

Oral Communications
Presentations

3. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring November 19, 2024, as Anna Eshoo Day

4. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring November 19, 2024, as Joe Simitian Day

5. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring November 19, 2024, as Bruce McPherson Day

6. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring November 19, 2024, as Zach Friend Day Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification
Additions and Deletions
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
November 19, 2024 City Council 4
Council Meeting Calendar

7. The City Council will review the meeting calendar attached to the agenda and revise it as necessary.

Consent Agenda

8. Minutes of the October 22, 2024 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.

9. Amending the FY 2025 Budget and Appropriation of Funds for Safe Sleeping and Shelter – Amory (p102202), Safe Sleeping – Transitional Camp “1220” (p102207), and the Safe Parking Programs (p102210 and p102211) – Budget Adjustment (CM)
Motion to adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $2,000,000 from unanticipated revenue for expenses in the Safe Sleeping and Shelter – Armory (p102202), Safe Sleeping – Transitional Camp “1220” (p102207), and the Safe Parking Programs (p102210 and p102211).

10. Contract with Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. for the ProHousing Incentive Program Award (CM)
Motion to award a contract to the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. for the ProHousing Incentive Program in the amount of $500,000 and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on a form approved by the City Attorney. The Homelessness Response Manager is authorized to execute change orders within the approved budget.

11. Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Ordinance Update (CN)
Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending the effective date for the citywide ban on gas-powered leaf blowers from January 1, 2025, to July 1, 2025; and
2) Direct staff to evaluate the number of residents who use gaspowered leaf blowers and their potential need for financial assistance.

November 19, 2024 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)

12. Homeless Garden Project Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to Facilitate Continuation and Expansion of Uses at Their Existing Location on the East Side of Shaffer Road, West of Antonelli Pond (2394 Delaware Avenue). Owner: Ronald Swenson. CEQA: Not a Project.

Also, Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (Information Collection) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). (CN) Motion to:
1) Direct staff to process, as expeditiously as possible, the following request from the Homeless Garden Project (HGP), based on HGP’s application:
a) Amend the General Plan 2030 Map to designate the northern 4 acres of the 11-acre Swenson parcel as Agriculture/Grazing (AG) land.
b) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to classify these 4 acres as E-A Exclusive Agricultural District.
c) Adopt a Local Coastal Program Amendment for submission to the Coastal Commission to designate these 4 acres as
Agriculture/Grazing (AG) land.
2) Direct staff to address any “no net loss” issue related to Recommendation #1 above when the proposed changes return to the Council for final action; and
3) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this agenda report.

The Council’s direction is not a “project” under CEQA. And, even if it were considered to be a CEQA “project” the following exemptions apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (collection of data, research, and evaluation); and “common sense” exemption (no possibility that the Council’s direction may have a significant effect on the environment.”) (14 Cal Code Regs 15061(b)(3)).

November 19, 2024 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Development Project:

Gov’t Code § 54220 et seq. [the "SLA"]) declaring that real property owned by the City located at 119 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-21) and 113 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-11) as exempt surplus land under Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(A) of the SLA;
2) Adopt a resolution approving the Relocation Plan for 113 Lincoln and final relocation expenses in accordance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and
3) Based on the prior City Council action on March 14, 2023, determine that these actions are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Projects Consistent with General Plan or Zoning”), a CEQA Guidelines, Class 5 categorical exemption (Section 15305 – “Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”), CEQA Guidelines, Class 32 categorical exemption (Section 15332 – “In-Fill Development Projects”), and the CEQA "common sense" exemption.

14. Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Downtown Association of Santa Cruz (EDH)
Motion to:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Downtown Association of Santa Cruz, and any documents, amendments or extensions of a non-substantive nature, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the kiosk located at 1130 K-2 Pacific Avenue; and
2) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this Agenda Report. The Council’s action is exempt from CEQA review under 14 CCR 15301 and 14 CCR 15061. Under those authorities, CEQA does not apply to (1) existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; and (2) activities where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

November 19, 2024 City Council 7
Consent Agenda (continued)

15. Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Paul Cocking dba café gg (EDH)
Moton to:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Paul Cocking doing business as café gg, and any documents, amendments or extensions of a non-substantive nature, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the kiosk located at 1130 K-1 Pacific Avenue; and
2) Approve of the CEQA determination contained in this Agenda Report.

The Council’s action is exempt from CEQA review under 14 CCR 15301 and 14 CCR 15061. Under those authorities, CEQA does not apply to (1) existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; and (2) activities where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

16. Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Crepe Cones LLC (EDH) Motion to:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Kiosk Lease and License Agreement with Crepe Cones LLC, and any documents, amendments or extensions of a non-substantive nature, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the kiosk located at 1520 K-2 Pacific Avenue; and
2) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this Agenda Report.

November 19, 2024 City Council 8
Consent Agenda (continued)

17. Approval of Navigation Center Grant Application (EDH) Motion to adopt a resolution to approve submission of an application for the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act (BHIBA) of 2024 Round 1 funding for behavioral health services at the Navigation Center to be located at 125 Coral Street and authorize the City Manager to execute a Program Funding Agreement for the award amount, and any documents, amendments or extensions of a non-substantive nature, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

18. Small Business Saturday Proclamation (EDH)
Motion to issue a proclamation recognizing Small Business Saturday on November 30, 2024 and encouraging all community members to shop locally this holiday season.

19. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion to reject the liability claims of 1) Cameron Abrams and 2) Autumn Amber Parks, based on staff recommendation.

20. Award Agreement for Plan Review and Inspection Services for Building and Safety Division. CEQA: Exempt 15061(b)(3) (PL)
Motion to:
1) Award three contracts to 4Leaf, Inc. (4Leaf), BPR Consulting Group (BPR), CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) with annual renewals up to five years, recognizing the environmental exemption; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney with 4Leaf, BPR, and CSG, with the Director of Planning and Community Development authorized to execute change orders within the approved budget.

November 19, 2024 City Council 9
Consent Agenda (continued)

21. Authorization to Submit a Grant Application for General Plan Mobility and Transportation Analysis Updates – Budget Adjustment (PW) Motion to:
1) Authorize the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds from the California Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for the General Plan Mobility and Transportation Analysis Updates; and
2) Adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget in the amount of $450,000 for the General Plan Mobility and Transportation Analysis Updates.

22. Frederick Street Park Pacific Gas and Electric Company Easement – Approval of Easement Deed (PW)
Motion to adopt a resolution to approve an easement deed granted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) for the installation of a gas distribution regulator station on the frontage of Frederick Street Park - APN No. 011-141-17.

23. Resolution Amending the FY 2025 Budget to WWTF Master Planning (c402504) and WWTF Master Planning – Collection System Projects (c402516) – Budget Adjustment (PW)
Motion to adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $550,000 for the WWTF Master Planning – Collection System project (c402516), and appropriate funds in the amount of $844,705 from anticipated revenue for expenses with the WWTF Master Planning project (c402504).

November 19, 2024 City Council 10
Consent Agenda (continued)

24. Union/Locust Backup Generator Project (c702107) – Approval of Plans and Specifications, California Environmental Quality Act Exemption, and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award of Contract (WT) Motion to:
1) Approve the plans and specifications for the Union/Locust Backup Generator Project (c702107) (Project) and authorize staff to advertise for bids at https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/santacruzca. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract as authorized by Resolution No. NS-27,563;
2) Approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination contained in this Agenda Report. The Council’s action is exempt from CEQA review under California Code of Regulations Section 15301 and Section 15303. Under those authorities, CEQA does not apply to existing facilities or new construction of small structures; 3) Authorize the Water Director to execute change orders for the Project within the approved project budget; and
4) Authorize the City Manager to execute an Implementation Agreement between the City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz Public Libraries to implement the Project in a form approved by the City Attorney.

25. Meter Replacement Project (c701603) - Change Order Authorization for Badger Meter, Inc. (WT)
Motion authorizing the Water Director to approve contract change orders exceeding the limits set forth in Council Policy 29.6 for the purchase of water meters from Badger Meter needed to complete the Meter Replacement Project (c701603).

November 19, 2024 City Council 11
Consent Agenda (continued)

26. Beltz 12 Upgrades for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (c702101) – Approval of Plans and Specifications, Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract, and Approval of Contract Amendment for Construction Management Services (WT)
Motion to:
1) Approve plans and specifications for the Beltz 12 Upgrades for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (c702101) (Project) and authorize staff to advertise for bids at
https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/santacruzca. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract as authorized by Resolution No. NS-27,563;
2) Authorize the Water Director to approve change orders for the Project for amounts that are within the approved project budget; 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment in a form to be approved by the City Attorney with MNS Engineers, Inc. (San Jose, CA) for construction management services for the Project in the amount of $347,317; and
4) Authorize the Water Director to approve future contract amendments for construction management services for the Project that are within the approved project budget.

End Consent Agenda
November 19, 2024 City Council 12
Public Hearings

27. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-19 Rescinding Uncodified Ordinance No. 1440 – An Ordinance Establishing the Planning Commission and Amending Chapter 18.41.020 – Appointment of Board of Building Appeals and Length of Term (FN)
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-19 amending Chapter 18.41.020 - Appointment of Board of Building Appeals and Length of Term, and rescinding uncodified Ordinance No. 1440- An Ordinance establishing the Planning Commission.

28. 119 Madrone Street: CP24-0078 (APN 008-222-06) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of a Master Use Permit and Special Use Permit to Convert an Existing Brewpub (Woodhouse Brewery) to a HighRisk Alcohol Outlet and to Allow for Expanded Live Entertainment and Events on a Parcel Located in the CT (Thoroughfare Commercial) Zone District. (Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption) Applicant: William Moxham (Woodhouse Brewery). Council District: 5. (PL)
Motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal from Stacey and Guy Mitchell, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s
acknowledgement of the environmental determination (Categorical Exemption Sections 15301, 15303, and 15332) and approval of the Master Use Permit and Special Use Permit, based on the findings listed in the draft resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.”
November 19, 2024 City Council 13
Public Hearings (continued)

29. Amendments to Chapter 18.15 of the Municipal Code Requiring Additional Energy Standards for Alterations and Additions to Existing Single-Family Homes. CEQA: Exempt under general rule, 15061(b)(3) and per Guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources, and Reuse of Climate Action Plan 2030 Negative Declaration. Location and Council District:

Citywide. Applicant: City of Santa Cruz. (PL/CM)
Motion to introduce for publication an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 18.15 to adopt local amendments to Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (California Energy Code). The ordinance creates an energy reach code that requires additional energy standards for renovations to existing single-family homes with an intent to provide property owners with a range of energy efficiency measure options when undertaking alterations and additions that will also meet goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel use citywide. Council finds the amendments are consistent with the Negative Declaration approved for the City of Santa Cruz 2030 Climate Action Plan adopted by City Council on September 13, 2022. The ordinance is also exempt under exempt from CEQA under the general rule, 15061(b)(3) and per CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources.

November 19, 2024 City Council 14
General Business

30. Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) Recommended Awards (CM)
Motion to:
1) Approve the Recommended Awards from the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments Request for Proposals (RFP) process;
2) Direct staff to allocate $189,576 of the remaining City CORE funding for elected officials set aside for emerging needs or priorities not funded through the competitive RFP process;
3) Direct staff to coordinate with the Human Services Department (HSD) to execute agreements for all final recommended awards and set aside fund;
4) Direct staff to coordinate with HSD to return by April 30, 2025, with an update on new and existing CORE contracts, a lessons learned framework, and an updated agreement between the City and County of Santa Cruz.

31. SCMU Utility Customer Assistance Program - Council Policy and Special Revenue Fund (WT/FN/PW)
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Council Policy creating a Santa Cruz Municipal Utilities (SCMU) Utility Customer Assistance Program and creation of a Special Revenue Fund.

Adjournment
November 19, 2024 City Council 15

INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – NOVEMBER 19, 2024

32. City Clerk: Annual Advisory Body Appointments - 10/15/24 (CCFYI 221)

33. City Manager: Quarterly Grant Report – Fiscal Year 2024 as of June 30, 2024 - 10/21/24 (CMFYI 269)

MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – NOVEMBER 19, 2024

34. Proclaiming November 1, 2024 as “Extra Mile Day” and urging each individual in the community to take time on this day to not only “go the extra mile” in his or her own life, but to also acknowledge all those who are inspirational in their efforts and commitment to make their organizations, families, community, country, or world a better place.

35. Proclaiming Sunday, November 3, 2024 as “International Live Looping Day” and urging all citizens to join in supporting the work of these innovative artists from around the world, welcoming them to perform here, and thanking them all for their tireless work to innovate in this emerging global musical art form.

36. Proclaiming Monday, November 11, 2024 as “City Veteran Appreciation Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in saying “thank you” to these employees for their dedicated service to our country and continued service to our community and committing to causes that are greater than self and promoting public service.

November 19, 2024 City Council 16
Advisory Body Appointments
The following positions are either currently vacant or the terms are due to expire. Council will make appointments at a future meeting.

Children’s Fund Oversight Committee One opening – youth organization representative
County Latino Affairs Commission One opening – at-large nomination Downtown Commission One opening – at-large nomination
Public Hearing
If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

Any person seeking to challenge a City Council decision made as a result of a proceeding in which, by law, a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action either 60 days or 90 days following the date on which the decision becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Please refer to code of Civil Procedure 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes “final.” The 60-day rule applies to all public hearings conducted pursuant to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Title 24, Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The 90-day rule applies to all other public hearings.

Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting (will be added as scheduled)
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
November 28
November 29
Courtyard Conf. Room Closed Session - Closed to the Public Council Chambers Council Regular Meeting - Open to the Public December 25/26
December 25
December 24 Meeting Cancelled - CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure - Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed - sundown to sundown)
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2024
December 10
City Hall Closure - Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure - Day After Thanksgiving Day
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change

7.1 MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 22, 2024
11:30 AM
Mayor Keeley opened the City Council Closed Session at 11:31 a.m. in a public meeting via Zoom and in Council Chambers, for the purpose of announcing the agenda, and receiving public testimony.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner, KalantariJohnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager M. Templeton, Assistant City Attorney C. Bronson, Director of Information Technology K. Morgan, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Public Comment
Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period at 11:32 a.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period at 11:32 a.m., at which time the meeting was closed to the public and Council adjourned to the Courtyard Conference Room.

8.1 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6987
Closed Session

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) 1) Claimant: Rosemarie Patricia Slawinski
2) Claimant: Keyan Zokaie
3) Claimant: Judith Anne Baldwin
4) Claimant: Noah J. Sweeters
5) Claimant: Rebecca Barraza
6) Claimant: Barbara Lawrence
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz
Council received a status report, took up under agenda item 9, and no reportable action was taken.

2. Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Gov’t. Code §54956.9(d)(2))
Significant exposure to litigation (one potential case to be discussed) Council received a status report, and took no reportable action.

8.2 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6988
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 22, 2024
12:00 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Keeley called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner, KalantariJohnson; Vice Mayor Golder (arrived at 1:58 p.m.); Mayor Keeley.

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager M. Templeton, Assistant City Attorney C. Bronson, Director of Finance E. Cabell, Chief of Fire R. Oatey, Director of Water H. Luckenbach, Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler, Chief People Officer S. De Leon, Director of Public Works N. Nguyen, Director of Information Technology K. Morgan, Director of Economic Development and Housing B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Senior Planner S. Neuse, Principal Planner M. VanHua, Senior Planner C.

Stanger (via Zoom), Principal Management Analyst V. Pearson, Chief Building Official J. Gervasoni, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.

Oral Communications
At 12:06 p.m. Mayor Keeley opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the City Council agenda.

Stephen Bosworth spoke regarding direct-choice voting and asking Council to establish a Committee to further discuss this.

Unidentified person spoke regarding something he listened to on Brighteon, and donating blood with vaccinations.

8.3 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6989
Oral Communications (continued)
Unidentified person spoke regarding Pogonip encampments and the lack of resources available for people living in Pogonip.

Unidentified person spoke regarding a potential public safety training facility to be built at UCSC.

Joe Thompson spoke regarding ranked-choice voting and asking Council to agendize forming a committee for further consideration.

Unidentified person spoke in opposition to funding the potential public safety training center on the UCSC campus.

At 12:19 p.m. Mayor Keeley closed Oral Communications.

MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, to place on a future agenda consideration of the establishment of a committee to explore ranked-choice voting with engagement from the public.

The motion failed due to a lack of a second.

Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification – Councilmember Brunner announced she will be recusing herself from item 16 as it relates to her employment.

Additions and Deletions – Mayor Keeley announced item 18 was previously removed from the agenda.

City Attorney Report on Closed Session – See page 6987 for the report.

Council Meeting Calendar

3. The City Council reviewed and did not revise the meeting calendar attached to the agenda.

Consent Agenda
Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson made a comment on item 12.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. The following person spoke:

James Ewing Whitman spoke regarding item 4.

Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

8.4 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6990
Consent Agenda (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember KalantariJohnson, to approve the Consent Agenda.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner, KalantariJohnson; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

4. Minutes of the October 8, 2024 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

5. Resolution Setting the Regular Meeting Schedule for the Calendar Year 2025 (CC)
Resolution No. NS-30,396 was adopted setting the 2025 City Council meeting calendar.

6. Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Response (CM)
Motion carried to authorize the Mayor to submit the required response to the Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury on behalf of the Santa Cruz City Council for the Honoring Commitments to the Public report.

7. License Agreement with Bogard Construction, Inc. for Construction Staging and Access on 125 Coral Street (EDH)
Motion carried to authorize and direct the City Manager to negotiate and execute License and Lease Agreement(s) and any amendment(s) or extension(s) thereto of a non-substantive nature, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, 1) with Bogard Construction, Inc. (“Developer”) for construction staging and access at 125 Coral Street (APNs 008-171-24, and -25); and, 2) with James P. Gillespie and Boni Jean Gillespie, Trustees of Gillespie Revocable Trust, to amend existing lease terms to enable Developer’s use of the property.

8.5 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6991
Consent Agenda (continued)

8. Year-End Budget Adjustment for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (FN) Resolution No. NS-30,397 was adopted amending the FY 2024 budget adjusting annual revenues and expenditures in various funds.

9. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion carried to reject the liability claims of 1) Rosemarie Patricia Slawinski, 2) Keyan Zokaie, 3) Judith Anne Baldwin, 4) Noah J. Sweeters, 5) Rebecca Barraza, and 6) Barbara Lawrence, based on staff recommendation.

10. Request to Hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant to Fulfill Interim Water Assistant Finance Director Duties During and After Recruitment (HR) Motion carried to approve a contract to hire a CalPERS Retired Annuitant to fulfill Interim Assistant Finance Director duties for the Water Department while position is vacant and during recruitment and after for cross-training.

11. Escalona Drive Storm Drain Rehabilitation (c401610) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW)
Motion carried to approve the Plans and Specifications for the Escalona Drive Storm Drain Rehabilitation (c401610), authorize staff to advertise for bids, award the contract, and find the project exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Director of Public Works is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

8.6 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6992
Consent Agenda (continued)

12. Consulting Services for 800 West Cliff Drive - Request for Proposals and Award Contract (PW)
Motion carried to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,398 to amend the FY 2025 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $2,000,000 to the 800 West Cliff Drive Road Realignment Project (c402515), with approximately 88% of project funding from reimbursement from the Federal Highway Administration Permanent Repair Program and the remaining 12% City match from Fund 221 – Gas Tax for consulting services for 800 West Cliff Drive; and  Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Engineering, Environmental/Permitting, Geotechnical and Right of Way services and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute contract amendments within the project budget.

13. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 12 - Grant Applications (PW)
Motion carried to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds from the California Department of Transportation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 12 for three projects: Nonsignalized Intersection Improvement Project, Water Street Protected Bike Lanes, and Citywide Intersection Daylighting.

14. City Arterial and Collector Street Reconstruction and Overlay (c400809), Bikeway Striping Minor Improvement Maintenance (m409335), and Bay Drive Protected Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Path (c402304) – Budget Adjustment (PW) Resolution No NS-30,399 was adopted to amend the FY 2025 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $419,949 from unanticipated revenue for expenses for City Arterial and Collector Street Reconstruction and Overlay (c400809), Bikeway Striping Minor Improvement Maintenance (m409335), and Bay Drive Protected Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Path (c402304).

End Consent Agenda

8.7 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6993
General Business

15. Ordinance Rescinding Uncodified Ordinance No. 1440 – An Ordinance Establishing the Planning Commission and Amending Chapter 18.41.020 – Appointment of Board of Building Appeals and Length of Term (FN) City Clerk Administrator B. Bush spoke.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.

Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Councilmember Newsome, to introduce for publication Ordinance No. 2024-19 amending Chapter 18.41.020 – Appointment of Board of Building Appeals and Length of Term, and rescinding uncodified Ordinance No. 1440 – An Ordinance establishing the Planning Commission.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

At this time, Councilmember Brunner recused herself and left the dais.

Neuse, and Principal Planner M. VanHua gave a presentation and responded to Council questions.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

Bryan Shields
Kim
Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

8.8 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6994
General Business (continued)

16. Downtown Plan Expansion, Downtown Density Bonus, and Anti-Displacement Policy. Location: South of Laurel Street, Roughly Between Center/Cedar Streets and the San Lorenzo River (in Council District 4) and, for a Future AntiDisplacement Policy, Citywide. Applicant: City of Santa Cruz. (PL) (continued) MOTION: Councilmember Newsome moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to:
 Direct staff to include the Downtown Density Bonus, as discussed in this report, in the forthcoming amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan as a part of the Downtown Plan Expansion Project;
 Consider options for a funding source that could be used to create a local affordable housing tenant preference for households at risk of displacement; and
 Acknowledge that the Council’s direction as part of this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 – Information Gathering.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, KalantariJohnson; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: Councilmember Brunner.

At this time, Councilmember Brunner returned to the dais.

8.9 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6995
General Business (continued)

17. Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans for the Economic Development and Housing, Finance, Fire, Human Resources, Information Technology, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Community Development, Police, Public Works, and Water Departments (HR/FN)
Chief People Officer S. De Leon gave a presentation and responded to Council questions.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

Unidentified person
Ken Bare
Greg Benson
Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Brown moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,400 amending the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans for the FY 2025 budget personnel complement by implementing approved compensation adjustments and position changes in multiple departments as identified in Exhibit 1; and
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,401 amending the FY 2025 budget in the amount of $1,866,590 to fund compensation increases related to the 2021 Compensation Study as identified in Exhibit A.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.10 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6996
General Business (continued)

18. Homeless Garden Project Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to Facilitate Continuation and Expansion of Uses at Their Existing Location on the East Side of Shaffer Road, West of Antonelli Pond (2394 Delaware Avenue). Owner: Ronald Swenson. CEQA: Not a Project. Also, Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (Information Collection) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). (CN)
This item was removed from the agenda and was not discussed.

Public Hearings

19. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-17 Adding Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 24.04.095, and Amending Chapters 24.04, 24.08, 24.10, and 24.12, and 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-18 Amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 21.06, and 24.08; Amending Chapter 24.16 Part 1 and Part 2. Ordinances Are Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to Maintain Consistency with State Regulations, Clarify Existing Standards, and Require Properties with Rented Accessory Dwelling Units to Enroll in the Residential Rental Inspection Service, and Related to Other Minor Technical Changes Regarding Hearing Bodies for Design Permit Approval.

Amendments to Chapter 24.04; Chapter 24.08 Parts 5, 9a, 14, 21, and 22; Chapter 24.10 Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 24(a); and Chapter 24.12 Are Part of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (LCP IP) and Will Require Approval by the California Coastal Commission Prior to Taking Effect Inside the Coastal Zone (CEQA: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as a Project Consistent With the General Plan for Which an EIR Was Certified) (PL)
Senior Planner C. Stanger and Principal Planner M. VanHua gave a presentation and responded to Council questions.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

Kim Dean
Unidentified person
Kaylan Kelsen
Adam Evans
Unidentified person
Carolyn Coleman
Kathleen Pruett
Carol Polhamus

8.11 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6997
Public Hearings (continued)

19. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2024-17 and 2024-18 (PL) (continued)
Public comment (continued)
Thomas Hamilton
Cindy Firenzi
Sue
Eric Grodberg
Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to:
1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-17 adding new Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section

24.04.095 and amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 24.04, 24.08,

24.10, and 24.12 related to accessory dwelling units and related to other minor technical changes regarding hearing bodies for design permit approval and comprising parts of the LCP IP;
2) Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-18 amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters

21.06 and 24.08 and amending Chapter 24.16 Part 1 and Part 2 related to accessory dwelling units, and rescinding Temporary Ordinance Nos. 2022- 22 and 2023-01;
3) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,402 authorizing the City Manager to submit the proposed amendments within Ordinance No. 2024-17 that are part of the Local Coastal Program as Local Coastal Implementation Plan amendments to the California Coastal Commission for final certification; 4) Direct staff to include, as part of the ADU ordinance changes planned for December 10, 2024, removal of owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs constructed prior to 2020; and
5) Direct staff to include, as part of the ADU ordinance changes planned for December 10, 2024, an option for ADUs to be sold as condominiums.

Councilmember Watkins requested to split the motion so that item 5 was its own motion. Mayor Keeley approved the request.

8.12 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6998
Public Hearings (continued)

19. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2024-17 and 2024-18 (PL) (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-17 adding new Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 24.04.095 and amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 24.04, 24.08, 24.10, and 24.12 related to accessory dwelling units and related to other minor technical changes regarding hearing bodies for design permit approval and comprising parts of the LCP IP.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to adopt Ordinance No. 2024-18 amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 21.06 and 24.08 and amending Chapter 24.16 Part 1 and Part 2 related to accessory dwelling units, and rescinding Temporary Ordinance Nos. 2022-22 and 2023-01.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.13 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6999
Public Hearings (continued)

19. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2024-17 and 2024-18 (PL) (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to adopt Resolution No. NS-30,402 authorizing the City Manager to submit the proposed amendments within Ordinance No. 2024- 17 that are part of the Local Coastal Program as Local Coastal Implementation Plan amendments to the California Coastal Commission for final certification.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

MOTION: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson moved, seconded by Councilmember Brunner, to direct staff to include, as part of the ADU ordinance changes planned for December 10, 2024, removal of owneroccupancy requirements for ADUs constructed prior to 2020.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: Councilmembers Brown, Watkins.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.14 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7000
Public Hearings (continued)

20. Review and Adopt Revised Citywide Fee Update for User Fees – Phase Two for the Departments of Planning and Community Development – Building and Safety Division, Economic Development and Housing, Public Works – Engineering Division, Fire – Marine Safety Division and Prevention Division Schedule. Location: Citywide. CEQA: Exempt 15061(b)(3) (PL/FN) Principal Management Analyst V. Pearson gave a presentation and responded to Council questions.

Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler responded to Council questions.

Chief Building Official J. Gervasoni responded to Council questions.

Mayor Keeley opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.

Mayor Keeley closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Watkins, to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,403:
a) Revising the title of the fee schedule to “Citywide Fee Schedule,” adding all approved Phase Two user fees effective January 1, 2025, confirming annual October Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases and new fees go into effect annually in January, and acknowledging the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for this item; b) Amending Resolution Nos. NS-29,231, NS-30,161, NS-28,085, and NS30,069 as set forth in Exhibit A; and c) Amend Resolution No. NS-29,798 “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Revising Code Compliance Related Fees to Flat Rates; Revising the Unified Master Fee Schedule (UMFS) for Planning, Building, Code, and Rental Divisions; and Changing Any Reference to Consumer Price Index Adjustments Occurring Annually in July to Occur in January and Referencing All Fees as Part of the UMFS and Rescinding Resolution No. NS-29,793” to update the Fee Schedule to include the changes set forth in Exhibit A to the resolution, as it relates to the Building and Safety Division, including increasing fees that in 2025 will be under 100 percent cost recovery, increasing to 100 percent cost recovery by 2026 as specified in Exhibit A.

8.15 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7001
Public Hearings (continued)

20. Review and Adopt Revised Citywide Fee Update for User Fees – Phase Two for the Departments of Planning and Community Development – Building and Safety Division, Economic Development and Housing, Public Works – Engineering Division, Fire – Marine Safety Division and Prevention Division Schedule. Location: Citywide. CEQA: Exempt 15061(b)(3) (PL/FN) (continued) MOTION (continued):
2) Authorize the City Manager to approve budgetary adjustments for the Phase Two fee amendments.
3) Direct staff to look into workforce housing projects that are also paid for from another tax base.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Councilmember Watkins requested to add direction to staff to present Council with more information about possible Nexus studies that could outline impacts of development and recommendations how to pursue those. Vice Mayor Golder accepted.

ACTION: The amended motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Brown, Watkins, Brunner,
Kalantari-Johnson; Vice Mayor Golder; Mayor Keeley.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Adjournment – Vice Mayor Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Newsome, to adjourn. By consensus City Council adjourned at 2:37 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

8.16 October 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7002
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Fred Keeley, Mayor

8.17 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/31/2024
AGENDA OF: 11/19/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Amending the FY 2025 Budget and Appropriation of Funds for Safe Sleeping and Shelter – Amory (p102202), Safe Sleeping – Transitional Camp “1220” (p102207), and the Safe Parking Programs (p102210 and p102211) – Budget Adjustment (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget and appropriate funds in the amount of $2,000,000 from unanticipated revenue for expenses in the Safe Sleeping and Shelter – Armory (p102202), Safe Sleeping – Transitional Camp “1220” (p102207), and the Safe Parking Programs (p102210 and p102211).

BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the 2024 California Budget Act (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2024, SB 108 [leginfo.legislature.ca.gov]), $2,000,000 is allocated for the City of Santa Cruz for onetime, temporary operational support of the City Overlook Emergency Shelter-Armory, the 1220 River Street Transitional Camp, and the Safe Parking Programs from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, when greater receipts from the recently enacted local sales tax will be available for this purpose. If there is any remaining, unspent balance from this amount as of July 1, 2025, the City of Santa Cruz shall return that unspent balance to the State of California for deposit into the General Fund.

DISCUSSION: This revenue was not expected at the time of budget adoption. In order to receive the funding for p102202, p102207, p102210 and p102211, the City Manager’s Office needs to receive this $2,000,000 in new appropriations.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Not applicable.

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 actions and approaches discussed herein support the pillar of equity by providing outreach, shelter, and connection to services that support individuals experiencing homelessness. They support public health by providing mental health, case management, and hygiene resources to those experiencing homelessness. The actions and approaches support sustainability by providing resource and land management staff, shelter, and hygiene resources, thereby

9.1 decreasing the amount of litter, debris, and human waste that is disposed of improperly.

Therefore, these actions and approaches are consistent with the three pillars of HiAP.

FISCAL IMPACT: The $2,000,000 increase in revenues and appropriations will be added to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Larry Imwalle
Homelessness Response
Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

9.2 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
)LVFDO<HDU

ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
255(9(18($&&28177,7/(
ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
25EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TITLE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
5HVR

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
&RXQFLO$SSURYDO

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

TOTALREVENUE
'DWH

1VSQPTF
3FWJTFE/PWFNCFS
Clear Form
2025
09/13/2024
Pursuant to the 2024 California Budget Act (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2024, SB 108 [leginfo.legislature.ca.gov]), $2,000,000 is allocated for the City of Santa Cruz for one-time, temporary operational support of the City Overlook Emergency Shelter-Armory, the 1220 River Street Transitional Camp, and the Safe Parking Programs from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. If there is any remaining, unspent balance from this amount as of July 1, 2025, the City of Santa Cruz shall return that unspent balance to the State of California for deposit into the General Fund.
101-10-16-6105-43210 p102202-290-0-0 State of CA: City of Santa Cruz Emergency Shelter Support 2,000,000 2,000,000
0 2,000,000
Gina
Liebig
Digitally signed
by Gina Liebig
Date: 2024.10.08
10:26:45 -07'00'
Matthew
Huffaker
Digitally signed by
Matthew Huffaker
Date: 2024.10.08
10:35:11 -07'00'
Nicholas
Gong
Digitally signed by
Nicholas Gong
Date: 2024.10.08
10:42:57 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by
Elizabeth Cabell
Date: 2024.10.10
07:40:20 -07'00' 9.3
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/31/2024
AGENDA OF: 11/19/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Contract with Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. for the ProHousing Incentive Program Award (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to award a contract to the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. for the ProHousing Incentive Program in the amount of $500,000 and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement on a form approved by the City Attorney.

The Homelessness Response Manager is authorized to execute change orders within the approved budget.

BACKGROUND: In March 2024, the Department/HCD released a grant opportunity through the ProHousing Incentive Program (Program), and the City Council authorized the application and acceptance of Program funds. In July 2024, the City of Santa Cruz was awarded this proposed grant funding in the amount of $500,000. The awarded grant application included a partnership with the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. (CAB) to manage and administer an Emergency Eviction Prevention Program/Rental Assistance Program.

DISCUSSION: The City of Santa Cruz will contract with CAB to provide housing stabilization, eviction prevention, rental assistance, and rapid rehousing services. CAB is uniquely qualified, with significant experience and success in providing these services across Santa Cruz County.

The City of Santa Cruz has previously contracted with CAB to provide similar services, most recently in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

Under Pub. Resources Code, § 21065, the proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the proposed Council action represent the type of “activity” described in subdivisions (a) through (c) of Section 21065.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The contract with CAB is supportive of many current Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments program goals pertaining to health and wellness, economic security and mobility, thriving families, community connectedness, healthy environments, a safe and just community, and stable, affordable housing and shelter. The subject areas support two of the three pillars of HiAP, equity and public health, as well as related community well-being outcome metrics adopted as part of the HiAP initiative.

10.1 FISCAL IMPACT: FY 2025 funding to support the Program will come from grant project g102501 in the amount of $500,000. There is no impact on the general fund.

Prepared By:

Larry Imwalle
Homelessness Response
Manager
Submitted by:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT CONTRACT.DOCX

10.2 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 1
Professional Services Agreement With

COMMNUITY ACTION BOARD
For EVICTION PREVENTION AND RAPID REHOUSING (NOVEMBER 15, 2024 – MARCH 31, 2026)
THIS AGREEMENT for professional services is made by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, a nonprofit corporation (“Consultant”) (each is referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”) as of November 15, 2024 (the “Effective Date”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of each other’s mutual promises, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant will furnish services as defined and described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSULTANT
All work performed by Consultant, or under Consultant’s direction, shall be rendered in accordance with the generally accepted practices, and to the standards of, Consultant's profession. Consultant represents and agrees that Consultant: (i) is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the work and services provided for herein, (ii) has the financial capability required for the performance of the work and services, and (iii) is properly equipped and organized to perform the work and services in a competent, timely, and workmanlike/professional manner, in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.

Consultant shall not undertake any work beyond the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A unless such additional work is approved in advance and in writing by City. The cost of such additional work shall be reimbursed to Consultant by City on the same basis as provided for in Section 4.

If, in performing the work, it is necessary to conduct field operations, security and safety of the job site will be the Consultant's responsibility excluding, the security and safety of any facility of City within the job site which is not under the Consultant's control.

Consultant shall meet with Larry Imwalle, Homelessness Response Manager, hereinafter called "Director", or other designated and authorized City personnel, or third parties as necessary, on all matters connected with carrying out of Consultant’s services described in Exhibit A. Such meetings shall be held at the request of either Party. Review and City approval of completed work shall be obtained monthly, or at other intervals as may be mutually agreed upon during the course of this Agreement. Review, approval, or acceptance of Consultant’s work by City or others shall not relieve Consultant from responsibility for errors and omissions in Consultant’s work.

SECTION 3: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
City shall make available to Consultant all necessary data and information in the City's possession and shall actively assist Consultant in obtaining such information from other agencies and individuals as needed. Consultant is entitled to reasonably rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such data and information, and Consultant shall provide City prompt written notice of any known defects in such data and information.

The Director may authorize a staff person to serve as his or her representative. The work in progress shall be reviewed at such intervals as may be mutually agreed upon between the Parties. The City will be the sole judge of acceptable work, provided that such approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the work is not acceptable, City will inform Consultant of the changes or revisions necessary to secure approval.

10.3 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 2
SECTION 4: FEES AND PAYMENT
For services actually performed, the City will compensate Consultant at the rates set forth in the Fee Schedule detailed in Exhibit B and in accordance with the terms set forth therein. Payment for Consultant's services in carrying out the entire Scope of Work shall be made within the budget limit, or limits shown, upon Exhibit B.

Consultant agrees that the payments to Consultant specified in this Section 4 will constitute full and complete compensation for all obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. Such payments shall be considered the full compensation for all personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment used by Consultant in the Scope of Work Where conflicts regarding compensation may occur, the provisions of this section apply.

Variations from the budget for each task which are justified by statements indicating personnel time expended and submittal of a revised budget are only allowed with prior City approval; however, in no event shall the total fee charged for the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A exceed the budget of $500,000 (“the Maximum Fee Amount”) without advance written City authorization in the form of an amendment or change order.

This Agreement is contingent upon the appropriation of sufficient funding by the City for the services covered by this Agreement. If funding is reduced or deleted by the City for the services covered by this Agreement, the City has the option without penalty or liability to either terminate this Agreement or to offer an amendment to this Agreement indicating the reduced amount.

SECTION 5: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
The City shall not be responsible for any travel, meal, or lodging reimbursements to Consultant and/or Consultant’s employees.

SECTION 6: CHANGES IN WORK
City may negotiate changes in the Scope of Work. No changes in the Scope of Work shall be made without the written approval of City and Consultant. Any change requiring compensation in excess of the sum specified in Exhibit B shall be approved in advance in writing by the City. Only City’s authorized representative(s) is authorized to approve changes to this Agreement on behalf of City.

SECTION 7: TERM AND SCHEDULE
The term of this Agreement shall be effective November 15, 2024, and terminating on March 31, 2026. At the option of the City, this Agreement may be renewed annually under the same contractual terms and conditions by letter agreement.

Consultant shall begin work as specified in a written authorization (e.g., Notice to Proceed) to perform services. The written authorization to perform work shall not be issued until after this Agreement has been approved and authorized by the City.

Neither party will be held responsible for delay or default caused by declared emergencies, natural disasters, or any Force Majeure event which is beyond the party's reasonable control. Consultant will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement.

10.4 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 3
The City reserves the right to obtain the item(s) and/or services covered by this Agreement from another source during any on-going suspension of service due to the circumstances outlined above.

SECTION 8: TERMINATION
The City may terminate the Agreement for any reason by providing written notice to Consultant not less than 30 calendar days prior to an effective termination date.

The City may, at its option, allow Consultant to cure its failure to perform within 10 business days (or longer period authorized in writing by the City) from the date of the City’s termination notice. The termination shall become effective if Consultant has not cured within the specified time period to the City’s satisfaction.

Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause if the City fails to cure a material default in performance within a period of 30 calendar days (or such longer period agreed to by the Consultant), from the date of the Consultant’s written termination notice specifying the default in performance. Consultant must provide a written notice of termination to the City not less than 30 calendar days of the effective termination date.

Upon notice of termination by either the City or Consultant, the Consultant will immediately act to not incur any additional obligations, costs or expenses, except as may be reasonably necessary to terminate its activities. The City’s only obligation to the Consultant will be just and equitable payment for services authorized by, and received to the satisfaction of, the City up to and including the effective date of termination less any amounts withheld. All finished or unfinished work or documents procured or produced under the Agreement will become property of the City upon the termination date. In the event of Consultant’s failure to perform pursuant to the Agreement, the City reserves the right to obtain services elsewhere and Consultant will be liable for the difference between the prices set forth in the terminated Agreement and the actual cost to the City. Termination of the Agreement pursuant to this paragraph shall not relieve the Consultant of any liability to City for additional costs, expenses, or damages sustained by City due to failure of the Consultant to perform pursuant to the Agreement. City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due City from Consultant is determined. After the effective date of termination, Consultant will have no further claims against the City under the Agreement. No other compensation will be payable for anticipated profit on unperformed services.

SECTION 9: INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Agreement, Consultant will maintain and comply with the Insurance Requirements as set forth in Exhibit D. Consultant will insure the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder. The insurance coverages required shall not in any way limit the liability of the Consultant.

SECTION 10: INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, claim, action, loss, injury, damage, judgment, or expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs (“Losses”) caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors in any way related to this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees shall not apply to the extent such Losses are caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. Consultant’s obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that Indemnitees caused or contributed to the Losses.

In the event this Agreement involves the performance of design professional services by Consultant, Consultant’s officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, Consultant’s costs to defend Indemnitees shall not exceed the

10.5 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 4
Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault per Civil Code §2782.8. This section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

SECTION 11: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES City’s policies promote a working environment free from abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and require equal opportunity in employment for all regardless of race, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), color, national origin (including language use restrictions), ancestry, religion, disability (mental and physical), medical condition, sex, gender (including gender identity and gender expression), physical characteristics, marital status, age, sexual orientation, genetic information (including family health history and genetic test results), organizational affiliation, and military or veteran status, or any other consideration made unlawful by local, State or Federal law. City requires Consultant to comply with all applicable Federal and State and local equal employment opportunity laws and regulations, and Consultant is responsible for ensuring that effective policies and procedures concerning the prevention of abusive conduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation exist in Consultant’s business organization. The City’s current Equal Employment Opportunity and Non-Discrimination policies to which this Section applies may be viewed at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/?SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0983.html and http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=59192.

SECTION 12: LEGAL ACTION/ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief. The laws of the State of California, with jurisdiction in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, shall govern all matters relating to the validity, interpretation, and effect of this Agreement and any authorized or alleged changes, the performance of any of its terms, as well as the rights and obligations of Consultant and the City.

SECTION 13: AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may not be amended in any respect except by way of a written instrument which expressly references and identifies this particular Agreement, which expressly states that its purpose is to amend this particular Agreement, and which is duly executed by the City and Consultant. Consultant acknowledges that no such amendment shall be effective until approved and authorized by the City’s authorized representative. No representative of the City is authorized to obligate the City to pay the cost or value of services beyond the scope of services set forth in Exhibit A.

Such authority is retained solely by the City Manager, Director, or their designee. Unless expressly authorized by the City Manager or Director, Consultant’s compensation shall be limited to that set forth in Exhibit B, Fee Schedule.

SECTION 14: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. Project Manager/Key Staff. Director reserves the right to evaluate and confer with Consultant regarding the project manager or other key staff assigned by Consultant to perform the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall replace the project manager or key staff upon Director’s request due to Director’s concern about their performance.

Otherwise, no change in assignment by the Consultant may occur without prior written approval of the City.

2. Consultant Services Only. Consultant is employed to render professional services only and any payments made to Consultant are compensation solely for such professional services.

3. Independent Contractor. In the performance of this Agreement, it is expressly understood that Consultant, including each of Consultant’s employees, agents, subcontractors or others under Consultant’s supervision or control, is an independent contractor solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers,

10.6 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 5
employees, and agents against any claim or liability, including attorneys’ fees and costs, arising in any manner related to this Agreement that an employee, agent or others under Consultant’s supervision or control was misclassified.

In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

4. Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

5. Subcontractors. Consultant shall obtain prior approval of the City prior to subcontracting of any work pursuant to this Agreement. If at any time, the City determines any subcontractor is incompetent or unqualified, Consultant will be notified and will be expected to immediately cancel the subcontract. Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all of the requirements stated herein, including naming the City of Santa Cruz, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds. Any modification to the insurance requirements for subcontractors must be agreed to by the City in writing.

Consultant shall be as fully responsible to the City for the negligent acts and omissions of its contractors and subcontractors or subconsultants, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, or acting on Consultant’s behalf pursuant to this Agreement, as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Consultant’s obligation to pay its subconsultants is an independent obligation from the City’s obligation to make payments to the Consultant.

6. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned without first obtaining the express written consent of the Director or after approval of the City Council. Neither party may assign this Agreement unless this Agreement is amended in accordance with its terms.

7. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant agrees to comply with conflict of interest laws in performing the work and services under this Agreement. Consultant covenants (on behalf of Consultant and Consultant’s employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors) that there is no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions of conflict of interest law and regulations, including the CA Political Reform Act, Sections 1090 and 87100 of the Government Code, and the City’s conflict of interest code. Consultant will immediately advise City if Consultant learns of a conflicting financial interest of Consultant during the term of this Agreement.

8. City Property. The work, or any portion, of Consultant in performing this Agreement shall become the property of City. The Consultant may be permitted to retain copies of such work for information and reference in connection only with the provision of services for the City. All materials and work product, whether finished or unfinished, shall be delivered to City upon completion of contract services or termination of this Agreement for any reason.

Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the work product shall be considered a work made for hire within the meaning of the patent and copyright laws of the United States; and Consultant agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of project-related documents and materials pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in the City and Consultant waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of City. Any work product related to this Agreement shall be confidential, not to be used by the Consultant on other projects or

10.7 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 6
disclosed to any third party, except by agreement in writing by the City, or except as otherwise provided herein.

Consultant’s final deliverables shall comply with Section 508 (29 U.S.C. Section 794d) accessibility requirements, as applicable.

9. Intellectual Property and Indemnity. Consultant represents to City that, to the best of Consultant’s knowledge, any Intellectual Property (including but not limited to: patent, patent application, trade secret, copyright and any applications or right to apply for registration, computer software programs or applications, tangible or intangible proprietary information, or any other intellectual property right) in connection with any services and/or products related to this Agreement does not violate or infringe upon any Intellectual Property rights of any other person or entity.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, damages, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of a claim of infringement, actual or alleged, direct or contributory, of any Intellectual Property rights in any way related to Consultant’s performance under this Agreement or to the City’s authorized intended or actual use of Consultant’s product or service under this Agreement. This provision shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.

If any product or service becomes, or in the Consultant’s opinion is likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement, the Consultant shall, at its sole expense: (i) provide the City the right to continue using the product or service; or (ii) replace or modify the product or service so that it becomes non-infringing; or (iii) if none of the foregoing alternatives are possible even after Consultant’s commercially reasonable efforts, in addition to other available legal remedies, City will have the right to return the product or service and receive a full or partial refund of an amount equal to the value of the returned product or service, less the unpaid portion of the purchase price and any other amounts, which may be due to the Consultant. City shall have the right to retrieve its data and proprietary information at no charge prior to any return of the product or termination of service.

10. Confidentiality.
a. Consultant shall not acquire any ownership interest in data and information (“City Data”) received by Consultant from City, which shall remain the property of the City. Certain information may be considered confidential (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information shall mean all information or proprietary materials (in every form and media) not generally known to the public and which has been or is hereafter disclosed or made available directly or indirectly to Consultant through any means of communication, either verbally or in writing even if it has not been designated in writing as “Confidential” to Consultant in connection with this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law, Consultant shall not, without City’s written permission, use or disclose City Data and/or Confidential Information other than in the performance of the obligations under this Agreement. As between Consultant and City, all City Confidential Information shall remain the property of the City. Consultant shall not acquire ownership interest in the City’s Confidential Information.
b. Consultant shall be responsible for ensuring and maintaining the security and confidentiality of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of City Data and Confidential Information, protect against unauthorized access to or use of City Data and Confidential Information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to City or any end users; and ensure the proper return and/or disposal of City Data and Confidential Information upon termination of this Agreement with notice to the City.
c. Consultant shall take appropriate action to address any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, including addressing and/or remedying the issue that resulted in such

10.8 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 7
unauthorized access, notifying City as soon as possible of any incident of unauthorized access to City Data and Confidential Information, or any other breach in Consultant’s security that materially affects City or end users; and be responsible for ensuring compliance by its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors with the confidentiality provisions hereof. Should confidential and/or legally protected City Data be divulged to unauthorized third parties, Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1798.29 and 1798.82 at Consultant’s sole expense. Consultant shall not charge City for any expenses associated with Consultant’s compliance with these obligations.
d. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees and agents against any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage (including attorneys’ fee and costs) arising out of, or in connection with, the unauthorized use, access, and/or disclosure of City Data and/or Confidential Information by Consultant and/or its agents, employees or subcontractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

11. Consultant's Records/Audits. Consultant shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to the costs incurred relating to this Agreement for examination and audit by the City, State, or federal government, as applicable, in compliance with Gov. Code §8546.7 for a contract in excess of $10,000, or in compliance with other applicable federal laws (e.g. 48 CFR 31) or regulations for a period of three (3) years from: the date of the final City payment for Consultant's services, or from the date of final disposition of real property or equipment acquired with federal funds, or date of the termination of this Agreement, whichever is later. If Consultant engages a subcontractor to perform work related to this Agreement with a cost of $10,000 or more over a 12-month period, such subcontract shall contain these same requirements. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

12. California Public Records Act. City is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If Consultant’s proprietary information is contained in documents or information submitted to City, and Consultant claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, Consultant must clearly mark such information “Confidential and Proprietary,” and identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such information, City will make best efforts to provide notice to Consultant prior to such disclosure. If Consultant contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief, or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Cruz County before the City is required to respond to the CPRA request. If Consultant fails to obtain such remedy within the time the City is required to respond to the CPRA request, City may disclose the requested information without any liability. Consultant further agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold City harmless against any claim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments, costs, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by City of a CPRA request for information arising from any representation, or any action (or inaction), by the Consultant.

13. Compliance with Laws. All activities of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and/or agents will be carried out in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Consultant further agrees to comply with the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and other provisions of Santa Cruz Municipal Ordinance chapter 3.09, or otherwise Consultant may be subject to penalties including being declared an irresponsible contractor.

14. Licensure. Consultant agrees that Consultant, its subcontractors and/or agents (if any) has/have complied with all applicable federal, state, and local licensing requirements and agrees to provide proof of a current City of Santa Cruz Business Tax Certificate if:
 Consultant, its subcontractor(s) and agent(s) or its business is/are located in the City of Santa Cruz;

10.9 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 8
 Will perform actual work in the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually; or  Will use company vehicles to deliver within the City of Santa Cruz for 6 or more days annually.

For additional information and licensing requirements, view the City’s Business Licenses and Permits webpage or call the Revenue and Taxation division at 831/420-5070.

15. Living Wage. Every contract for services to the City for $10,000 or more, is subject to City of Santa Cruz Living Wage Ordinance number 2000-25. If applicable, Consultant agrees to comply with the requirements of the Living Wage ordinance as provided in Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 5.10.

16. Prevailing Wages for Public Work. To the extent that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement may be considered a “public work” (construction, alteration, demolition, or repair work) pursuant and subject to Labor Code section 1720 et seq., Consultant (and any subconsultant performing the work or services) shall conform to any and all prevailing wage requirements applicable to such work/and or services under this Agreement. Consultant (and any subconsultant) shall adhere to the prevailing wage determinations made by the Director of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to California Labor Code Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2, applicable to the work, if any. All workers employed in the execution of a public works contract (as such term is defined California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and section 1782(d)(1)) must be paid not less than the specified prevailing wage rates for the type of work performed. (CA Labor Code sections 1720, 1774 and 1782.) To the extent applicable to the scope of work and services under this Agreement, Consultant agrees to be bound by the state prevailing wage requirements, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. If a worker is paid less than the applicable prevailing wage rate owed for a calendar day (or any portion thereof), Consultant shall pay the worker the difference between the prevailing wage rate and the amount actually paid for each calendar day (or portion thereof) for which the worker(s) was paid less than the prevailing wage rate, as specified in Labor Code section 1775; b. Consultant shall maintain and make available payroll and worker records in accordance with Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812;
c. If Consultant employs (and/or is legally required to employ) apprentices in performing the work and/or services under this Agreement, Consultant shall ensure compliance with Labor Code section 1777.5; d. Consultant is aware of the limitations imposed on overtime work by Labor Code sections 1810 et seq. and shall be responsible for any penalties levied in accordance with Labor Code section 1813 for failing to pay required overtime wages;
e. Consultant shall post a copy of the applicable wage rates at each jobsite at a location readily available to its workers.
f. Any failure of Consultant and/or its subconsultant to comply with the above requirements relating to a public work project shall constitute a breach of this Agreement that excuses the City’s performance of this Agreement at the City’s sole and absolute option and shall be at the sole risk of Consultant. Consultant on behalf of itself and any subconsultant, agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, damages, expenses, fines, financial consequences, interest, and penalties, of any kind or nature, arising from or relating to any failure (or alleged failure) of the Consultant and any subconsultant to pay prevailing wages or to otherwise comply with the requirements of prevailing wage law relating to a public work.
g. Consultant acknowledges that it and/or any subconsultant may not engage in the performance of any contract for public work unless currently registered with the DIR and qualified to perform public work

10.10 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 9
pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].

17. Storm Water Requirements. To the extent applicable to the Scope of Work under this Agreement, Consultant, Consultant’s employees, subcontractors, and agents are required to abide by the applicable City of Santa Cruz Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the duration of the work. The City’s mandatory Storm Water BMPs, which are listed according to the type of work, operations, or business, are located on the City website at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/stormwater/bestmanagement-practices

18. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree to attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Either party may initiate negotiations by providing written notice in letter form to the other party, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested.

Promptly upon such notification, the Parties shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place in order to exchange relevant information and perspective, and to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event that no resolution is achieved, and if, but only if, the parties mutually agree, then prior to pursuing formal legal action, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by non-binding mediation or negotiations between representatives with decision-making power, who, to the extent possible, shall not have had substantive involvement in the matters of the dispute. To the extent that the dispute involves or relates to a public works project, the Parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by complying with the claims process as set forth in Public Contract Code sections 9204(e), 20104-20104.6, but without waiving the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, Gov’t Code section 800 et seq. unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.

19. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, acts of terrorism, war, a strike, lockout or other labor difficulty, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and without the negligence of the respective Parties. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any Force Majeure claimed to delay, hinder or prevent performance of the services under this Agreement. Each Party will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and will, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in this Agreement. In the event either party is prevented or delayed in the performance of its respective obligation by reason of such Force Majeure, the only remedy is that there may be an equitable adjustment of the schedule based on City’s sole discretion.

20. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, along with any attachments, is the full and complete integration of the Parties’ agreement with respect to the matters addressed herein, and that this Agreement supersedes any previous written or oral agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent there is any conflict between this Agreement and any other agreement (written or oral), the terms of this Agreement shall control.

21. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

22. Waiver. Waiver by any party of any portion of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the same or any other portion hereof.

23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with California law.

10.11 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 10

24. Contract Interpretation. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement.

25. MacBride Principles/Peace Charter. City of Santa Cruz Resolution NS-19,378 (7/24/90) encourages all companies doing business in Northern Ireland to abide by the MacBride Principles and Peace Charter.

26. Notices. If either party shall desire or is required to give notice to the other such notice shall be given in writing, via email, and concurrently delivered by: (a) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (b) overnight courier (i.e., Federal Express) with charges prepaid or charged to the sender’s account, in which case notice is effective when delivered; (c) priority U.S. Mail, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on the second business day after the deposit thereof with the U.S. Postal Service. Notices shall be addressed to recipient as follows:

To CITY:

City Manager’s Office
Larry Imwalle
809 Center St. Rm 10
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
[email protected]
(831) 420-5405
To CONSULTANT:

Community Action Board
MariaElena De La Garza
406 Main St., Suite 207
Watsonville, Ca 95076
(831) 763-2147
Changes to the above information shall be given to the other party in writing ten (10) business days before the change is effective.

27. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

28. Warranty of Authority. The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

10.12 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 11
Approved As To Form:

By: ______________________________ Date: __________________ Office of the City Attorney,

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: ______________________________ Date: __________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager

CONSULTANT
By: ______________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: ___________________________ Title: __________________ By: ______________________________ Date: __________________ Printed: ___________________________ Title: __________________ Signature Requirements for a Corporation – 2 officer signatures required (one from each group, unless person signing holds officer positions in both Group 1 and 2):

Group 1: Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, President, or Vice President Group 2: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer

10.13 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 12
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK
Program Scope of Work
Contract funding timeline: 11/15//2024-3/31/2026
Services Provided:

The case workers will provide:
 Outreach to site, locations and individuals to promote the program  Eligibility screening for any interested individuals
 Intake for eligible participants
 Simple budgeting support
 Communication with landlords
 Paperwork processing
 Coordinating with CAB's Fiscal team to produce and send out checks to landlords  Clients follow up post-assistance
1) Eligibility screening: CAB case workers will screen all interested parties against criteria for inclusion into program. Eligible participants will be individuals or families who are low income, living within Santa Cruz city limits and with past due rent or at risk of eviction due to past due rent. 2) Eviction Prevention/Past Due Rent assistance:

Expected participation: approximately 50 households
Assistance limits:
 Max assistance per household $10,800.
 Max number of months assistance 3.
 Anticipated average assistance: $2500/mon. Average number of months 2.

Flexibility to support Rapid Rehousing in the form of application cost, deposit and first month’s rent. This rehousing assistance may be outside the city of Santa Cruz.
3) Post assistance housing survey: rent assisted households will be contacted at or around 3 months post assistance to assess ongoing housing situation, success of housing support to avoid eviction.

Consultant’s Employee Conduct
Consultant will agree to remove any employee whose conduct is improper, inappropriate, or offensive as determined by the City. A removed employee(s) is not to work on City premises without the written consent of the City. The Consultant will remove any employee from working in, or delivering to, City facilities who is convicted of a felony during their employment.

10.14 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 13
EXHIBIT B: FEE SCHEDULE
The total amount payable under this agreement shall not exceed $500,000. CONTRACTOR shall provide monthly invoices, using a template provided by the CITY, to document services costs based on the budget detailed in this scope of work and the attached Exhibit B – Fee Schedule/Budget document Contractor will invoice the City on or before the 15th of each month for actual expenses incurred based upon the agreed upon budget included in this contract. Monthly invoices should include the following information and costs:
 Personnel costs with staff levels/hours for the invoicing month  Operational and supply costs with list of supplies purchased to support the Program during the invoicing month
 Itemized list of direct assistance provided during the invoicing month Budget Categories Amount Notes
Personnel & Benefits $105,586 1.5 FTE Case Managers with Supervision) Program Operations $16,854 Rent, utilities, supplies
Direct Assistance to Households $352,559 Rental Assistance & Rapid rehousing support Admin/Indirect (5% of total grant): $25,000
========================================
TOTAL $500,000

10.15 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 14
EXHIBIT C: WORK SCHEDULE
Consultant shall provide eviction prevention, rental assistance, and rapid rehousing services as described in Exhibit A (Scope of Work), from November 15, 2024 through March 31, 2026.

10.16 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 15
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property and otherwise which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Agreement and the results of that work by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

A. CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS
The City will be issued a Certificate of Insurance (a Memorandum of Understanding will not be accepted) with the following minimum requirements:
 Certificate(s) will show current policy number(s) and effective dates,  Coverage and policy limits will meet, or exceed, requirements below,  The Certificate Holder will be City of Santa Cruz, Risk Management, 1200 Pacific Ave., Suite 290, Santa Cruz, CA 95060,
 Certificate will be signed by an authorized representative,  An endorsement, if required below, will be provided to show the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds, and
 Coverages must be maintained during the term of the Agreement with the City, unless a longer duration is required as specified below.

B. MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. If Consultant maintains broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below, the City of Santa Cruz requires and shall be entitled to the broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Cruz.

Coverage will be at least as broad as:
 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (CGL): $5,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE; $5,000,000 AGGREGATE Proof of coverage for $5 Million per occurrence and $5 Million in the aggregate including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury will be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL.  SEXUAL ABUSE OR MOLESTATION (SAM) LIABILITY: If the work will include contact with minors, and the CGL policy referenced above is not endorsed to include affirmative coverage for sexual abuse or molestation, Contractor shall obtain and maintain a policy covering Sexual Abuse and Molestation with a limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim.  PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (ERRORS AND OMISSIONS): $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE OR CLAIM, $2,000,000 AGGREGATE.

Consultant will maintain insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession; with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after date of completion of the services under this Agreement. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date or start of work date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

10.17 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 16
 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY:

Proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH STATUTORY LIMITS, AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

The Worker’s Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant and its employees. (Not required if Consultant provides written verification it has no employees) - If Consultant has no employees, Consultant shall complete and sign a Workers’ Compensation Exemption Declaration and Release of Liability.

C. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to comply with the following provisions:
 ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS
The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations, products and completed operations. General liability coverage will be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 (if a later edition is used).
o PRIMARY COVERAGE
For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s and all subcontractor’s insurance coverage will be primary and non-contributory as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers will be excess of Consultant’s and all subcontractor’s insurance and will not contribute with it.
 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Each insurance policy required above shall state that the coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Consultant hereby grants to the City a waiver of any right to subrogation, except as otherwise not applicable, which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss, including attorney’s fees under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effectuate this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.  EXCESS LIABILITY/UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICIES
Consultant may use excess liability/umbrella policies to meet the required liability limits on the condition that they provide all of the insurance coverages required herein, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The excess liability/umbrella insurance policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying CGL insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the additional insureds, whether primary or excess, and

10.18 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing July 2024 (Form Rev.01/24 ) Page 17
which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.  SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS (SIR)
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related expenses.

The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
 ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
 CLAIMS MADE POLICIES
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.  VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Consultant will furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy (and CPL, automobile and any Excess Liability/Umbrella policies, as applicable) listing all policy endorsements to be approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning will not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

D. SUBCONTRACTORS
Consultant shall include their subcontractor(s) as additional insured(s) under the policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each contractor and subcontractor. Consultant shall require and verify that all contractors and subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are named as additional insureds on insurance required from its contractor(s) and subcontractor(s).

E. SPECIAL RISKS/CIRCUMSTANCES
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances and provide notice to Consultant.

10.19 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/24/2024
AGENDA OF: 11/19/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Ordinance Update (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending the effective date for the citywide ban on gas-powered leaf blowers from January 1, 2025, to July 1, 2025; and 2) Direct staff to evaluate the number of residents who use gas-powered leaf blowers and their potential need for financial assistance.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz’s (City) Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030), adopted by City Council (Council) on September 13, 2022, contains 152 actions that the City and community need to take to meet state and local targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 (https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/city-manager/climate-action-program/climate-action-plan). Recognizing the negative environmental and health impacts of gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs), CAP 2030 Action T6.5 committed the City to banning small off-road engines (SOREs), which includes GLBs by 2024. Additionally, Action T6.1 committed the City to exploring ways to mitigate the equity impacts of electrifying SOREs and Action T6.3 commits the City to pursuing and accessing funding to decarbonize SOREs.

In Fall 2023, the City Manager directed staff to start developing potential regulations for GLBs.

On January 23, 2024, Council transferred work on the development of a GLB ordinance to the Health in All Policies (HiAP) City Council Committee which worked with staff on developing the ordinance. During the ordinance development process staff conducted extensive community outreach to solicit public feedback about the ordinance and how the City can work with community members to successfully implement the ordinance if it were adopted. The feedback received indicated that providing financial assistance to help small businesses and low-income residents transition to electric leaf blowers (ELBs), a comprehensive public education campaign, and providing a lengthy transition period were viewed as very important to successful implementation of the ordinance.

On June 11, 2024, Council conducted the first reading of the ordinance. During the Council meeting staff provided a detailed report summarizing the community feedback received including concerns raised by residents and businesses about the need for financial assistance.

Importantly, staff’s report informed Council that, although the City currently lacks the resources

11.1 to create its own financial incentives or rebate program, proactive steps were taken to address this issue. City staff met five times with representatives from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) to confirm the availability of financial assistance through their Landscape Equipment Exchange Program (LEEP). LEEP offers rebates to residents and businesses in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito Counties to replace gasoline-powered landscaping equipment with new zero-emission electric alternatives. Staff also explored the possibility of MBARD administering more funds, specifically for city residents, if the City provided funding to MBARD. Additionally, City staff confirmed that the funding for the LEEP program, provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is included in this this year’s California state budget at current levels and expected to continue for the foreseeable future, thereby reassuring Council and the community that LEEP rebates would be available to support residents and businesses’ adoption of ELBs. Subsequently, on June 25, 2024, Council adopted the proposed ordinance which applies a citywide ban on the use of GLBs with some exemptions and is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2025. Please refer to attachment Ordinance No.2024-10 to review the adopted ordinance.

DISCUSSION: MBARD recently informed City staff that, due to CARB requirements, LEEP’s residential rebates are not available to drive compliance in cities that have enacted bans on gaspowered landscaping equipment (such as leaf blowers) as of the implementation date of such bans. CARB aims to incentivize individuals to voluntarily adopt electric equipment rather than mandate compliance with local ordinances. Importantly, commercial LEEP rebates will remain available to businesses located in cities with enacted bans on GLBs, as they may serve areas outside their home city limits.

For City of Santa Cruz residents, CARB’s exclusion of cities that have enacted GLBs bans from residential rebates means that residents, under the current ordinance, will only be able to access LEEP rebates until the ordinance goes into effect on January 1, 2025. Commercial landscaping businesses will not be affected and will continue to have access to LEEP rebates after the ordinance goes into effect. Given that the availability of LEEP rebates was a significant factor in the City adopting the ordinance, this new information requires additional direction from Council regarding how to proceed with the ordinance before moving forward with enforcement.

In response to the new information about LEEP rebate availability, on August 13, 2024, the Santa Cruz County (County) Board of Supervisors (Board) decided not to adopt a similar countywide ban on GLBs. Instead, the Board directed County staff to focus on creating an outreach and education plan aimed at raising awareness about the harmful effects of GLBs and informing residents about available financial assistance, such as rebates.

Although the County did not pass a similar ordinance banning GLBs, City staff met multiple times with representatives from the County, MBARD, and Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County (CAB) Day Labor Center to coordinate efforts on public outreach and promoting the availability of LEEP rebates. Importantly, these meetings have also explored the possibility of using MBARD’s LEEP funding to create a more streamlined GLB trade-in program specifically for City and County monolingual, single proprietor landscapers who likely are not part of a business license database and thus not receiving traditional communications.

The City also confirmed that MBARD would be able to administer funding that is not restricted by CARB’s requirements (e.g., via another grant, City funds) to provide rebates to residents

11.2 through the existing LEEP program. However, staff have not identified a source of funding yet to operationalize that option.

On October 15, 2024, due to Council’s focus on the need for incentives when considering the GLB ban earlier in the year, City staff updated the HiAP City Council Committee on CARB’s restrictions on residential rebates in cities with enacted bans on GLBs. Staff presented three potential options for the HiAP City Council Committee to consider in moving forward with implementation of the adopted ordinance. The three proposed options provided the HiAP City Council Committee with a range of viable options that account for the complexities of implementation, the availability of financial support, and potential consequences for the community.

It is important to note that while the City has provided repeated notifications to the community of existing MBARD rebates, staff also did not begin more targeted outreach so as not to put information out to the community about the ordinance itself that could conflict with any potential Council action that would change the current implementation date of January 1, 2025.

Option 1: Continue as Planned with a January 1, 2025 Implementation Date The City could proceed with implementation of the ordinance as adopted, meaning the ordinance will go into effect on January 1, 2025. Maintaining the current implementation timeline would allow the City to remain on track with the actions outlined in CAP 2030 to meet the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets.

The potential drawbacks of proceeding as planned include: 1) Minimal time for City staff to conduct significant education and outreach about the ordinance and availability of rebates; 2) Low-income residents may struggle to switch to ELBs without LEEP’s residential rebates, potentially leading to non-compliance; and 3) If switching to ELBs is financially burdensome, some residents may not have the resources to comply with the ordinance, which could result in an ordinance that disproportionately affects low-income residents.

Option 2: Postpone Ordinance Implementation to July 1, 2025 The City could amend the ordinance to delay the effective date by six months, moving the implementation date to July 1, 2025. This extension would provide residents an additional six months to access LEEP rebates and would allow staff to conduct robust public education and outreach to small businesses and residents to ensure they are aware of the ordinance and LEEP rebates. The additional time will also allow the City to conduct further research on the extent of GLB use citywide, as directed by the HiAP City Council committee. For example, staff could conduct a citywide survey to evaluate how many residents currently use GLBs and their need for financial assistance to determine how much funding is needed to supplement the existing rebate program.

The potential drawbacks of delaying implementation until July 1, 2025 include: 1) Changing the effective date may cause confusion with the public about the compliance deadline; and 2) Delaying implementation would prolong the negative environmental and health impacts associated with continued use of GLBs.

Option 3: Postpone Ordinance Implementation Until Funding is Secured The City could postpone implementation of the GLB ordinance indefinitely until sufficient unrestricted funding is secured to support both residents and businesses switching to ELBs. This

11.3 approach could increase the likelihood that the transition to electric equipment is financially feasible for all. This option promotes compliance with the ordinance by avoiding placing a financial burden on any community member and in particular low-income individuals. Similarly to option 2, this option would also allow staff to conduct additional research on GLB use citywide to determine the amount of funding needed to supplement the existing rebate program.

The potential drawbacks to postponing implementation of the ordinance until incentive funding is secured include: 1) Uncertainty in availability of an unrestricted funding source to supplement the existing rebate program could lead to an indefinite delay and undermine the ordinance’s momentum; and 2) An extended delay will impede progress on adoption and realizing the City’s GHG reduction goals, also delaying the anticipated environmental and health benefits.

HiAP City Council Committee Recommendation: Option 2 – Postpone Ordinance Implementation to July 1, 2025
Considering the public feedback received, and Council’s concerns about the availability of financial assistance, the HiAP City Council Committee recommends that City Council consider postponing the ordinance implementation date to July 1, 2025. Informed by staff’s evaluation of the available options to the City, the HiAP City Council Committee believes this approach best balances the City’s commitment to achieving its CAP 2030 goals while addressing the financial concerns raised, ensuring a more equitable and manageable transition to ELBs. Although the delay temporarily slows the City’s progress toward CAP 2030 targets, by setting a clear enforcement date of July 1, 2025, this approach avoids the uncertainty and potential setbacks of an open-ended delay (option 3). Importantly, the additional time will allow residents concerned about the financial cost of switching to ELBs to access LEEP rebates for an additional six months. Changing the implementation date to July 1, 2025 will also enable staff to conduct a comprehensive public education and outreach campaign which will increase compliance by ensuring that all affected parties understand the ordinance, the benefits of switching to ELBs, and LEEP residential rebates availability and restrictions.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: This item is exempt from CEQA under the general rule, 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that the three options contained in this report would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): It is important to acknowledge that the GLB ban is one type of small off-road engine and CAP 2030 Action T6.5 committed the City to banning [all] small off-road engines (SOREs). The CAP 2030 modeled GHG emissions reductions related to implementation of a ban on all SOREs by 2024, therefore, the City is not on schedule to achieve the full GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the CAP 2030 GHG emissions targets.

Future state and local policy may address GHG emissions produced by other SOREs.

FISCAL IMPACT: At this time there is no direct fiscal impact to the City’s general fund from any of the three options presented in this report.

11.4 Submitted By:

Sonja Brunner
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Martine Watkins
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT ORDINANCE.DOC

2. ORDINANCE NO. 2024-10.PDF

11.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.110, SECTION 6.110.070, “PROHIBITION OF GASPOWERED LEAF BLOWERS” BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2022 the City Council adopted the City’s Climate Action Plan 2030; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan 2030 commits the City to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan 2030 specifically identifies passing a ban on gas-powered small off-road engines, which includes gas-powered leaf blowers, by 2024; and WHEREAS, the City’s Climate Action Plan 2030, commits the City to exploring and mitigating equity impacts of electrifying and upgrading off-road equipment; and WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD) Landscape Equipment Exchange Program (LEEP) provides financial assistance in the form of rebates to residents and businesses in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito Counties to replace gasoline-powered landscaping equipment with new zero-emission electric alternatives; and WHEREAS, recognizing the financial costs associated with switching to electric leaf blowers, the City worked with MBARD to confirm the availability of LEEP rebates for City of Santa Cruz residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-10, establishing a citywide ban on gas-powered leaf blowers with an effective date of January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, recent guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prohibits the availability of LEEP rebates for residents in cities with enacted bans on gas-powered leaf blowers, restricting access to LEEP rebates for City of Santa Cruz residents beginning on the ordinance effective date of January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2024, the Health in All Policies City Council Committee reviewed the potential impacts of CARB’s recent guidance, and recommended postponing the ordinance’s effective date to July 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, postponing the ordinance effective date to July 1, 2025 will allow the City to conduct additional research on residents’ use of gas-powered leaf blowers and their potential need for financial assistance to switch to electric leaf blowers; and

11.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX
WHEREAS, postponing the ordinance effective date to July 1, 2025 will provide City of Santa Cruz residents an additional six months to access LEEP rebates.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
(NOTE: All other portions of this section not included remain in force, unchanged) Section 1. That Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 6.110.070, Effective Date, of Chapter 6.110 is amended as follows:

6.110.070 Effective Date
The prohibitions of this chapter shall become effective on July 1, 2025.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this XX day of XX, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2024-XX and
that it has been published or posted
in accordance with the Charter of
the City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

11.7 11.8

11.9 11.10

11.11 11.12
From: Kitty Dennis
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 4:39:14 PM
Hello City Council Members,
Please stick with your promise of the leaf blower ordinance put into effect January 2025. Please stop delaying this ordinance. Most people are in favor of clean air, less noise, and not using gas powered tools.

Thank You,
Kitty Dennis and Larry McFall
Santa Cruz residents
Sent from my iPhone

11.13 From: Bonnie Sager
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 4:39:58 PM
Attachments: Mayor-Adams-Maplewood-NJ(1).docx
Gas leaf blowers are dangerous and need to be eliminated. To delay this effort is to delay decent working conditions for vulnerable landscape workers who may not have health insurance and if they do most likely not generous plans.

To delay means more medical complications to your community in the form of asthma, cancer, heart disease, COPD, and autism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xuu-BUMaR8
To delay passage or push out a date for compliance is to be complicit in harming the welfare of your constituents to which you have a duty to protect.

Small business will not be harmed by having to purchase one piece of equipment in their arsenal of tools. They will save money on gas, oil, belts, hoses, degreasers, detergents, and filters as well as time refueling gas blowers andtime spent going to gas stations.

Rebates and subsidies should not be the deciding factor. Washington, DC banned the use and sale of gas leaf blowers over two years ago. The only subsidy was a $75. rebate from the local power authority. The program has been extremely successful and the monetary savings from decreased health care costs, more productivity for home-based businesses and telecommuters are legion.

No small business landscapers went out of business. The same went for Maplewood, NJ. You can contact the Mayor of Maplewood, and she will be happy to confirm these facts with you. 973 704 4584. (See attachment.)
As a health care provider, I cannot stress strongly enough that you are not doing workers or residents a favor by delaying the elimination of gas leaf blowers.

Sincerely,
Dr. Bonnie Sager

11.14 From: Lee Taiz
To: City Council
Subject: gas powered blowers
Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 4:47:36 PM
Dear City council,
Please stick to the January deadline for relief from air pollution from gas-powered blowers.

No more delays. We need cleaner air.

Lee Taiz
328 Oxford Way
SantaCruz, Ca 95060

11.15 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 4:53:50 PM
I’m writing to express my concern about the leaf blower ordinance passed unanimously by the council in June, which is set to go into effect on January 1, 2025.

I feel that delaying this ordinance so that a small number of largely affluent residents can access this government subsidy for another six months is preposterous.

I urge you to stick to the promise made to residents and landscape workers and to honor your duty to put public health, equity, and the environment and reject the recommendation for yet another delay to this long overdue relief. thank you,
Josh Salesin

11.16 From: julie hughes
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 5:05:17 PM
Hello City Council members,
You unanimously approved the ban, provided rebates, and now you want to postpone enforcement until July? Sounds like once again you are bending to the rich in this community who cries are louder than our environment and our peace.

Please stop cowering to this group. It’s enough!
Best,
Julie Hughes

11.17 From: Jonathan Kaufman Scher
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 5:07:57 PM
Please stick to the promise you made to residents and landscape workers; and honor your duty to put public health, equity, and the environment and reject the staff’s recommendation for yet another delay to this long overdue relief.

Thank you,
Jonathan Scher
410 High St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(sent from my phone)

11.18 From: E. Ma
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024 8:24:52 AM
Keep your promise!
Thank you.

Resound Language Services
Ma. Ester Mattioli Zapata
State Certified Judicial, Medical, Administrative Hearings Interpreter Santa Cruz, Ca
831-359-1011

11.19 From: Claire Schneeberger
To: City Council
Subject: please KEEP the leaf blower ban
Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024 8:36:31 AM
Council members,
Please KEEP the gas-powered leaf blower ban. Do not delay! As a homeowner on the west side, surrounded on three sides by condos, I have been looking forward to the end of the fumes and noise in my environment three days a week. Let’s move forward now.

Thank you, Claire Schneeberger
690 Nobel Dr.

11.20 From: Andrew Hall
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to the leaf blower ordinance Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:01:15 PM
Hello,
Please don’t delay the leaf blower ordinance! It’s more important than ever to continue to fight for a reduction in noise and pollution.

Thank you,
Andrew
Westside resident
Beware of typos, composed with whimsical thumbs!

11.21 From: David Bezanson
To: City Council
Subject: Please reject the delay to implementation of our leaf blower ordinance Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024 4:22:28 PM
Hi Councilmembers,
Thanks for your successful diligence in formulating and passage of the ordinance prohibiting use of combustion leaf blowers. A small minority of SC citizens are calling for a delay in the effective date. Please represent the majority of SC citizens by swift enactment. Plentiful funding is currently available from the state of CA for any resident to purchase new ZE blowers. Then owners of new ZE equipment will enjoy lower operating costs, better health, and less noise pollution.

Health in all policies please.

Thanks,
David Bezanson, Ph.D.

Santa Cruz

11.22 From: C.H.A.S.E. Santa Cruz
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #11 November 19, 2024
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 7:33:24 AM
Dear City Council Members,
We understand that MBARD informed the City that the LEEP residential rebates for battery powered landscape equipment will not be available after a city’s ordinance banning gas leaf blowers goes into effect, which for Santa Cruz would be January 1. City staff are concerned that if the availability of residential LEEP rebates was a significant factor in the council passing the policy, then the earlier-than-expected sunset of those rebates could undercut the ordinance.

However, in meetings and hearings, the populations which council members and other expressed concern for were always low-income landscapers and small business-owners, not homeowners. All commercial landscapers will still have access to the rebates after January 1. “Residential” (i.e. consumers) was simply a second category which MBARD’s program also offered rebates to, so their ability to access rebates all this time has been a bonus; the end of that category of rebates on January 1 is not cause to delay the entire ordinance.

Very few consumers own or operate gas-leaf blowers anymore. Nearly every time a gas leaf blower is used there is a landscaper’s truck out front. That’s because consumer-grade battery blowers have been capable enough for personal use and highly affordable for years. They can easily be had for well under $150. Most homeowners who do their own blowing already have one (and most renters are not responsible for the owner’s yard maintenance).

CARB data (slide 13) show that within the residential sector, in 2018, for every gas leaf blower (GLB) purchased by a homeowner, three electric ones were purchased by homeowners. Put another way, only 1 in 4 residential leaf blowers bought in 2018 was a GLB.

The median lifespan of GLBs used in a residential context is 5 years (source: SORE2020), so most of the gas ones bought in 2018 and before are today already scrapped. And uptake of consumer-grade battery leaf blowers has grown a lot since then, so many of the remaining residential GLBs will have since been voluntarily replaced by battery ones.

Finally, when a resident's gas leaf blower does die, it is cheaper to replace it with a comparable battery one than to buy a new gas one, even without rebates, and this has been so for years. The cost of an average consumer/residential battery blower kit is 70% of the cost of the average consumer/residential gas blower (source: Lawnstarter).

So there is no responsibility nor reason for city government to alter or delay its leaf blower ordinance to further extend rebates for the residential category. The need and the equity concerns are for small landscapers to have help affording battery equipment, and the commercial rebates will continue to be available after January 1.

And it’s worth remembering that the Climate Action Plan required the city to start phasing out these machines in 2024, not halfway through 2025.

Another delay would signal that the City’s stated priorities of equity, public health, and the environment are not, in fact, high priorities.

For these reasons we urge you to vote no on the proposed delay and to reaffirm your commitment to this important policy.

Sincerely,
Chris Ryan
Carol Wilhelmy
Ken Foster
Santa Cruz Coalition for a Healthy & Safe Environment (C.H.A.S.E.)

11.23 [email protected]
chasesantacruz.org

11.24 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/15/2024
AGENDA OF: 11/19/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Homeless Garden Project Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to Facilitate Continuation and Expansion of Uses at Their Existing Location on the East Side of Shaffer Road, West of Antonelli Pond (2394 Delaware Avenue).

Owner: Ronald Swenson. CEQA: Not a Project. Also, Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (Information Collection) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Direct staff to process, as expeditiously as possible, the following request from the Homeless Garden Project (HGP), based on HGP’s application:
a) Amend the General Plan 2030 Map to designate the northern 4 acres of the 11-acre Swenson parcel as Agriculture/Grazing (AG) land.
b) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to classify these 4 acres as E-A Exclusive Agricultural District.
c) Adopt a Local Coastal Program Amendment for submission to the Coastal Commission to designate these 4 acres as Agriculture/Grazing (AG) land. 2) Direct staff to address any “no net loss” issue related to Recommendation #1 above when the proposed changes return to the Council for final action; and 3) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this agenda report. The Council’s direction is not a “project” under CEQA. And, even if it were considered to be a CEQA “project” the following exemptions apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 (collection of data, research, and evaluation); and “common sense” exemption (no possibility that the Council’s direction may have a significant effect on the environment.”) (14 Cal Code Regs 15061(b)(3)).

BACKGROUND: The Homeless Garden Project (HGP) has been a critical partner in the City’s efforts to reduce homelessness in the City of Santa Cruz (City) for decades. It provides jobs and job skills to some of the City’s most vulnerable residents, has enormous support throughout the City, and is one of the region’s most successful programs responding to homelessness. Despite

12.1 many costly attempts, the HGP has been unable to secure a permanent home for its farm where it can consolidate its operations and improve the services it provides.

The HGP was founded in 1990 and farmed on Pelton Avenue from 1990-1998. In 1995, the HGP temporarily located the farm on the northern end of the 11-acre Swenson property at 2394 Delaware Avenue on the City’s west side and consolidated there in 1998. Aware of the uncertainty of land security and the vital importance of a permanent site, HGP has spent nearly 30 years looking for a permanent home. Finding a site for its urban farm has been a huge challenge for the program.

Councilmembers will remember the difficulties experienced in the proposed move to Pogonip.

That process started in 1993. In 1998, after considerable environmental review, the City Council supported a 9-acre site for the HGP on the lower meadow of Pogonip. HGP worked with City Parks and Recreation Department to satisfy requirements to move forward with approvals for the site.

Between 2015 and 2019, the HGP conducted a successful capital campaign to support the cost of the site development, including accessory buildings. The City and HGP worked together to locate the HGP farm in the Lower Main Meadow for a number of years. Until 2019, HGP had been moving forward with farming in the Pogonip when historic skeet shooting was discovered on the site. The City directed HGP to put the project on hold until the property could be assessed for contamination and deemed safe for the intended use. The City enrolled in the County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Division’s Voluntary Site Clean-up Program for project oversight. Numerous rounds of soils investigations found lead and other contaminants over portions of the site at unsafe levels for the intended farming use, posing significant cost, feasibility, and health concerns for HGP’s proposed farm in the Pogonip. Based on these circumstances, the City’s understanding is that HGP is no longer interested in pursuing the “Pogonip Farm and Garden Project.”
Currently, the HGP is focusing efforts on purchasing their current site, a 4-acre parcel on the northern end of the 11-acre Swenson property. The purchase is contingent on obtaining the necessary entitlements. HGP is eager to create clarity around future direction and to deliver results for funds raised more than five years ago.

DISCUSSION: HGP has requested the City approve the necessary General Plan, Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning revisions. If the City approves these revisions, the LCP amendment will be sent to the Coastal Commission for approval. After this, the HGP will submit applications for a Minor Land Division for the four acres and a Coastal Development Permit for the construction of accessory buildings on one of the four acres. The remaining 3 acres will be used as the permanent HGP farm.

Concern has been raised regarding state law provisions for “no net loss” of residential capacity as a result of amendments to the General Plan or Zoning. While this is not the intention of the recommendations, staff should address this issue when the proposed changes return to the Council for final action.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The Council’s direction as part of this report is not a final action that approves or adopts any changes and is therefore not a “project” under CEQA. An activity undertaken, supported, or authorized

12.2 by a public agency is a “project” subject to CEQA only if it “may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.) Council’s direction is not a final approval that will cause a change to the environment.

In the alternative, if the Council action is considered a “project” under CEQA, the following exemptions applies:
• Class 6 Categorical Exemption because the action amounts to the collection of data, research, and evaluation that will allow for consideration of formal action on future applications. HGP will be responsible for conducting the appropriate level of CEQA review, and that information and CEQA clearance path will be presented to the Council with consideration of the future applications. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15306, Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15306.)
• The “common sense” exemption applies because the Council is simply providing direction to staff, and there is no possibility that the Council’s direction may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 14 Cal Code Regs 15061(b)(3).)
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 actions recommended herein support the pillar of equity by expediting the process to help create clarity around future direction to a program that supports individuals experiencing homelessness.

HGP supports public health by offering jobs and job training to those experiencing homelessness and, thereby, improving their ability to become and remain healthy. The actions support sustainability by expediting the process to help create clarity for the HGP in its aim to permanently operate an organic farm in an environmentally sensitive manner. Therefore, the recommended actions are consistent with the three pillars of HiAP.

FISCAL IMPACT: The City’s costs associated with the application processing will be covered by HGP as part of their formal submittal of an application.

Submitted By:

Fred Keeley
Mayor
Submitted By:

Renee Golder
Vice Mayor
Submitted By:

Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

12.3 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 10/31/2024
AGENDA OF: 11/19/2024
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing
SUBJECT: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Development Project:

Declaration of Property as "Exempt Surplus Land" and Confirmation of Approval of Relocation Plan for 113 Lincoln Street; Determination That These Actions are Exempt from CEQA Review under Statutory Exemption Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines § 15183, and CEQA Guidelines Categorical Exemptions §§ 15305 and 15332 (EDH) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution pursuant to the California Surplus Land Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 54220 et seq. [the "SLA"]) declaring that real property owned by the City located at 119 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-21) and 113 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-11) as exempt surplus land under Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(A) of the SLA;
2) Adopt a resolution approving the Relocation Plan for 113 Lincoln and final relocation expenses in accordance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and
3) Based on the prior City Council action on March 14, 2023, determine that these actions are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Projects Consistent with General Plan or Zoning”), a CEQA Guidelines, Class 5 categorical exemption (Section 15305 – “Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”), CEQA Guidelines, Class 32 categorical exemption (Section 15332 – “In-Fill Development Projects”), and the CEQA "common sense" exemption.

BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2023, the City Council approved several entitlements related to the development project, the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project (“DLAHP" or "Project”), located at 113 & 119 Lincoln Street to develop 124 units of affordable housing, a new downtown branch library, parking garage, childcare center, and commercial uses. The permits approved included a nonresidential demolition authorization permit, special use permit, heritage tree removal permit, design permit, density bonus request, and lot line adjustment. The City now owns both the parcels at 119 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-21) and 113 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-11).

13.1 DISCUSSION: Efforts leading to the proposed development of the subject site began over a decade ago with the Santa Cruz Public libraries initiating a comprehensive facilities master planning process culminating in a Library Master Plan in 2014. Over the next several years, various council advisory and sub committees reviewed the project development, which is now planned for 124 units of affordable housing with a mix of affordability for households with an average of local area median income that does not exceed 60% area median income. The culmination of multiple public meetings and hearings resulted in the approval of the entitlements of the Project.

In 2021, the City released a request for proposals (“RFP”) to solicit an affordable housing developer partner and selected a joint proposal from For the Future Housing and Eden Housing to build the Project. For the Future Housing and Eden Housing partnered to form DTLMU Investors L.P., a California limited partnership, as a joint venture to serve as the developer.

The City and/or the Project has received grant funding including:
 State Housing & Community Development (HCD) Local Housing Trust Fund award ($3.805 million)
 Permanent Local Housing Allocation ($1.75 million)
 Central Coast Community Energy Grant ($240,000.00)
 Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (“AHSC”) award ($33.5 million)  US Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Community Housing Development Organization (“CHDO”) HOME Investment Partnerships Program award ($1,700,621.00),
 Fiscal Year 2023 federal budget appropriation of ($2 million) Per State funding requirements, the City needs to enter into a lease(s) with the affordable housing developer, For the Future Housing and/or Eden Housing or its affiliate to use the awarded funds and to apply for any future funds.

On April 22, 2024, the City closed on the purchase and acquisition of 113 Lincoln street (APN 005-141-11). This parcel acquisition now gives the City total site control of all parcels that are included in the approved project entitlements. Additionally, the City entered into an Amended and Restated Option agreement with the affordable housing developers that set forth the terms of entering into a future lease agreement with DTMLU Investors L.P. and/or its affiliate(s). The actions before the Council for consideration today are in alignment with HCD’s guidance on best practices for compliance on the Surplus Land Act (SLA) and business relocation as it pertains to the City’s AHSC award and other awarded Project funds.

Compliance with the Surplus Land Act:

Prior to disposing of surplus property, the City must comply with the SLA. The property for the Project qualifies as "exempt surplus" if the project complies with specified affordability covenants that are recorded against the property. Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution pursuant to Government Code section 54221 declaring that real property owned by the City located at 119 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-21) and 113 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-11) is exempt surplus land under the SLA as the project complies with Government Code § 37364 and the following requirements: (1) not less than 80 percent of the area of any parcel of the property is used for the development of housing, (2) not less than 40 percent of the total number of the housing units are affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 75 percent of the maximum income of lower income households, and at least half of which shall be

13.2 affordable to very low income households; and, (3) the affordability restrictions are imposed by a regulatory agreement for a term of the longest feasible time, but not less than 30 years, that binds successors in interest and is duly recorded in the office of the county recorder where the housing is located.

Staff previously submitted a proposed resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). On September 27, 2024, HCD responded that the proposed resolution satisfied the requirements of the SLA and that the City may proceed with a declaration of exempt surplus land based upon this description of the Project.

Compliance with Relocation Requirements:

Under the California's Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code section 7260 et seq.), the City previously approved relocation efforts for 113 Lincoln prior to executing a Purchase and Sale agreement acquiring the parcel required to move forward with the DLAHP. This included negotiation of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and providing relocation assistance to the former owner. Under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the City acquired ownership of the property, but the former owner remained as an occupant until a replacement location was identified and made available for occupancy. The former owner/tenant is in process of taking the final steps needed to complete the renovation of their new location which will allow for the relocation to be completed before the end of calendar year 2024.

Additionally, HCD requested that a written Relocation Plan be prepared for 113 Lincoln Street.

This request was required to satisfy compliance with the AHSC funding award through HCD.

The plan has been prepared, reviewed and approved by HCD as compliant. Additionally, as required by state law, the plan was provided to the current occupant and former property owner thirty (30) days prior to this meeting. Based upon HCD requirements, staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution approving the Relocation Plan for 113 Lincoln Street (see attached relocation plan and relocation plan resolution). Staff is nearing completion of arrangements with the current occupant and former property owner to facilitate relocation to a new site, expected by year-end. To finalize the City's relocation assistance, staff is requesting approval of implementing the Relocation Plan and the associated final expenses to be submitted by tenant following their move. The final expenses are currently estimated to be between $95,000 - $150,000 as outlined in the Relocation Plan and required by California’s Relocation Assistance Law.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: On June 26, 2012, the Santa Cruz City Council certified the CEQA Environmental Impact Report for the City’s General Plan 2030 (“General Plan EIR”). On November 14, 2017, the Council certified a supplemental CEQA Environmental Impact Report for amendments to the Downtown Plan (“Downtown Specific Plan EIR”) to address additional environmental impacts specific to downtown development. Following these certifications, on March 16, 2023, the City of Santa Cruz filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) for the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project with both the Clerk of the Board for Santa Cruz County and the Office of Planning and Research. This NOE affirmed that the Project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA.

The City’s designation of the parcels at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street as “exempt surplus land” under the Surplus Land Act and approval of the 113 Lincoln Street Relocation Plan (“activity”),

13.3 does not constitute a CEQA “Project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The activity has no potential to result in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly, as it pertains solely to the designation of these parcels as exempt surplus land and the relocation planning for existing occupants, without authorizing any specific development or ground-disturbing activities.

Additionally, based on the March 14, 2023 approval by the City Council, the activity is statutorily exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, based upon the same findings that the overall Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Downtown Plan, and certified Environmental Impact Reports (“EIRs”). Similarly, also based on the March 14, 2023 approvals, the Project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 (Class 5 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), 15312 (Class 12 – Surplus Government Property), and 15332 (Class 32 – In-fill Development Projects). These prior findings established that the Project site meets all in-fill exemption criteria, being under five acres, surrounded by urban uses, and the Project involves only minor alterations with no expansion of current use. Since the declaration of exempt surplus land and approval of the Relocation Plan is merely implementing the prior approvals, and these activities are consistent with the prior approvals, these further activities are also categorically exempt from CEQA review.

Based on prior environmental review and approval, there is substantial evidence that none of the categorical exemption exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the further approvals presented here to declare the Property exempt surplus land and approve the Relocation Plan consistent with the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project CEQA Exemption Review, dated March 6, 2023. The Environmental Checklist confirms that Project impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, and public services were thoroughly analyzed in prior certified EIRs, and any remaining Project impacts, including the declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land and the approval of the Relocation Plan, are mitigated by existing policies (Appendix I, Environmental Checklist Review, March 2023).

The approvals presented here are consistent with the prior approvals for the Project, which the City already determined will not impact environmental resources of hazardous concern as the Project site is fully developed, paved, and lacks sensitive habitat (Appendix IV.A, Habitat Review, Environmental Checklist Review, March 2023). Cumulative impacts are insignificant since similar projects were already considered in the General Plan EIR, with growth projections remaining within anticipated limits (Appendix II, General Plan EIR Analysis). These approvals for the Project do not involve unusual circumstances as the declaration of exempt surplus land and approval of the Relocation Plan align with current zoning, development standards, and have no unique site features (Appendix III, Zoning Compliance Review). No scenic resources will be affected, as the Property is not near scenic highways or corridors (Appendix IV.B, Scenic Resources Review). The Project site is also not listed as a hazardous waste site (Appendix IV.C, Hazardous Waste Site Review), and the existing structure is not eligible for historic listing, with no archaeological resources present (Appendix IV.D, Historical Resources Assessment, Environmental Checklist Review, March 2023).

For the foregoing reasons, the declaration of exempt surplus land and approval of the Relocation Plan are consistent with the approvals for the Project, including the bases for determining the entirety of the Project activities are categorically exempt from CEQA. The attached resolutions contain findings in support of this determination.

13.4 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 DLAHP supports the pillar of equity by providing a destination public facility, childcare, commercial facility, and affordable residential rental units on a site in the City’s downtown urban core, in an area that is improved with sidewalks and street trees near public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas.

With the Project located downtown, it encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by allowing residents to walk, cycle, and ride to the job center and commercial uses in the downtown vicinity. By providing 100% affordable rental apartments, this will not only help the City with a more sustainable supply of rental housing but will also help create a more inclusive equitable community.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund by the approval of the recommended actions. The relocation expenses estimated to be between $95,000 - $150,000 for 113 Lincoln have been planned and budgeted for in the current project budget following previous City Council authorization to move forward with the land acquisition of 113 Lincoln Street.

Once the development is complete, significant enhancement to the downtown urban core will be achieved including improved sidewalks and bikeways adjacent to the Project, a childcare facility, new commercial spaces, replacement parking supply, a new modernized accessible Downtown Library, and much-needed affordable housing, achieving many policy goals of the City Council to enhance the vitality and economy of downtown. The City will receive increased revenue from future commercial tenants in the Project and the Downtown Parking District will receive a revenue stream from the managed parking supply.

Prepared By:

Brian Borguno
Development Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development and Housing
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SLA RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. RELOCATION PLAN RESOLUTION.DOCX

3. 113 LINCOLN STREET RELOCATION PLAN.PDF

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, MARCH 2023 (APPLICATION NO CP22-00128).PDF

13.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 DECLARING THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY

OWNED BY THE CITY IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND FINDINGS THAT THESE

ACTIVITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM FURTHER REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.3, CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183, 15305, AND 15332
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz (the “Agency” or the “City”) recognizes the critical need for affordable housing within the City to address the housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, California, commonly referred to as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 005-141-021 and 005-141-011 (collectively, the “Property”), and further described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein, which parcels have a surface area of approximately 6,882 square feet and 59,764 square feet, respectively, for a total of approximately 66,646 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into an Amended & Restated Option Agreement to Enter Into Ground Lease for Real Property (the "Option Agreement") that grants an option to lease the Property to a developer, DTLMU Investors, L.P., a California limited partnership, which is a partnership between an affiliate of Eden Housing, Inc. a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and affiliates of For the Future Housing, Inc., a California corporation (collectively, the "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, the Option Agreement sets forth terms and conditions for entering into a lease (the "Lease"), including a condition that the Lease complies with the California Surplus Land Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 54220 et seq., hereafter, the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Lease would require developer to construct the following improvements (collectively, the "Project"): a new public library building of approximately 38,069 square feet (the "Library Building"); an affordable housing project of approximately 111,250 square feet consisting of one hundred twenty three (123) deed restricted units for low, very low, and extremely low income households and one (1) unrestricted manager’s unit (the "Affordable Housing Project"); a childcare facility of approximately 1,919 square feet (the "Childcare Facility"); commercial tenant space of approximately 9,732 square feet (the "Commercial Space"); and a parking garage with approximately two hundred and forty (240) parking spaces (the "Parking Garage"); and
WHEREAS, the Lease would require completion of construction of the Project within less than fifteen (15) years from the commencement date of the lease and, upon completion of construction, the Library Building, Commercial Space, and Parking Garage (collectively, the "City Reversion Property") would revert back to the City and would no longer be subject to the lease; and

13.6 WHEREAS, upon the transfer of the City Reversion Property back to the City, the Lease would only provide the developer with airspace rights above the City Reversion Property for purposes of retaining ownership and control of, and maintaining and operating, the Affordable Housing Project and Childcare Facility for the duration of the Lease term; and WHEREAS, the Lease would provide that the developer would retain ownership and control of the Affordable Housing Project and the Childcare Facility for a total lease term of fifty five (55) years; and
WHEREAS, the City must comply with the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq. (the “Act”) when disposing of surplus land; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 54221(d)(2), “dispose” shall not mean the entering of a lease for surplus land, which is for a term of fifteen (15) years or less; and WHEREAS, because the Lease provides that the City Reversion Property will revert to the City within less than fifteen (15) years of the lease commencement, it is not a "disposition" under the Act; and
WHEREAS, to the extent the leasehold interest creating airspace rights for the Affordable Housing Project and the Childcare Facility constitutes "land" subject to the Act, such land may be disposed of as "exempt surplus land" pursuant to Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(A), because the disposition for the Affordable Housing Project and Childcare Facility (hereafter, the "Exempt Surplus Property") will meet the requirements of Government Code Section 37364; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 37364 authorizes a city to dispose of property to provide affordable housing to low or moderate income families, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50093, provided that: (1) not less than 80 percent of the area of any parcel of the property is used for the development of housing, (2) not less than 40 percent of the total number of the housing units are affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 75 percent of the maximum income of lower income households, and at least half of which shall be affordable to very low income households; and, (3) the affordability restrictions are imposed by a regulatory agreement for a term of the longest feasible time, but not less than thirty (30) years, that binds successors in interest and is duly recorded in the office of the county recorder where the housing is located; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Affordable Housing Project and Childcare Facility, more than 80 percent of the area for each parcel subject to the Lease of Exempt Surplus Property will be used for the development of housing and more than 40 percent of the total number of the housing units will be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 75 percent of the maximum income of lower income households, at least half of which will be affordable to very low income households; and
WHEREAS, the Lease will require a regulatory agreement in compliance with Government Code section 37364 for the Exempt Surplus Property; and

13.7 WHEREAS, the Exempt Surplus Property is eligible for determination as exempt surplus land consistent with Government Code Section 54221(f)(2) of the Act because the Property is not: within a coastal zone; adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System; listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places; or, within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Government Code Section 66905.5; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this Resolution and now desires to declare the disposition of the Exempt Surplus Property, on terms and conditions set forth in the Lease, as described herein, qualifies as a disposition of exempt surplus land under the Act, based on the findings and justifications contained in this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1, Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that the lease of the Property for purposes of constructing the City Reversion Property, which will transfer back to the City upon completion of construction, does not constitute a disposition of surplus land because the term of the Lease for the City Reversion Property does not exceed fifteen (15) years, and the City Reversion Property will be returned to the City for public purposes.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that the Exempt Surplus Property transferred pursuant to the Lease for a period of fifty-five (55) years qualifies as "exempt surplus land" that may be transferred pursuant to California Government Code Section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(A), and in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 37364.

SECTION 4. The City Council further finds that the Exempt Surplus Property may be declared exempt surplus land consistent with Section 54221(f)(2) of the Act because the Exempt Surplus Property is not: within a coastal zone; adjacent to a historical unit of the State Parks System; listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places; or, within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Government Code Section 66905.5.

SECTION 5, Environmental Findings. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, finds and declares as follows:
a. The City is the Lead Agency for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.). As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for assuring that an adequate analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts.

13.8 b. The declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land as provided for herein is consistent with and implements the prior Project approvals by the City on March 14, 2023 (the "Prior Project Approvals"), as described further below, and on that basis no further CEQA review is required.
c. The City previously issued a Notice of Preparation and a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the General Plan 2030, then prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") that included the DEIR, appendices, comments, responses, and revisions, and on June 26, 2012, the City certified the FEIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations under CEQA, and approved the General Plan 2030 (collectively, the "General Plan 2030 EIR"). d. The Project is in the Downtown Plan area, which was adopted as a specific plan under the California Government Code to implement General Plan policies for the downtown, and in November 2017, the Santa Cruz City Council approved amendments to the Downtown Plan after certifying the Environmental Impact Report, which included the Draft EIR (July 2017) and Final EIR (October 2017), and this EIR addressed impacts from future development in the downtown area, such as aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology, public services, transportation, utilities, land use, and cumulative impacts (collectively, the "Downtown Plan Amendments EIR").
e. The City Council, at its agendized public meeting on March 14, 2023, adopted the Prior Project Approvals after it independently reviewed and considered whether the Project is consistent with the General Plan 2030 EIR, the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and all other related documents in the record before it. f. The City's Prior Project Approvals determined there are no environmental effects of the Project peculiar to the parcel(s) on which the Project would be located, because: (i) there is nothing unique or peculiar about the parcel(s) which would distinguish such impacts from other parcels in the Downtown Plan area upon which similar uses are located; and (ii) all effects of the Project on the environment will be substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards previously adopted by the City.
g. All environmental effects of the Project were analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and the proposed Project, as part of adopting the Prior Project Approvals.
h. The declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land is limited to activities that are substantially similar to, and no more intense than, the Prior Project Approvals of the development previously approved and analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR as previously determined by the City Council.
i. All of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution. j. Substantial Evidence.
i. There is substantial evidence that the declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land pursuant to the SLA is consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City's prior findings that the Project is a necessary

13.9 and carefully planned initiative aimed at addressing the community’s needs by providing a new public library, affordable housing, childcare facilities, and commercial space within a mixed-use development in the downtown area, thereby enhancing community resources and access to essential services while aligning with the City’s objectives for downtown development.
ii. The City Council, in adopting the Prior Project Approvals, reviewed the General Plan 2030 EIR and the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, both certified by the City Council in 2012 and 2017 respectively, which include extensive analysis of environmental impacts associated with development consistent with the City’s General Plan and Downtown Plan.
iii. Additionally, the staff report, oral testimony, and Environmental Checklist from the Prior Project Approvals confirm that the Project’s environmental impacts were comprehensively analyzed in the prior certified EIRs or are mitigated by existing policies, supporting the finding that the Project is statutorily exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as a Consistent with Plan Exemption.
iv. The designation of the Property as “exempt surplus land” under the SLA is consistent with the Prior Project Approvals for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15312 (Class 12 – Surplus Government Property Sales), since this action merely involves the potential disposition of exempt surplus land, and implements the prior Project approvals that do not authorize any specific development or ground-disturbing activities, thus allowing the City Council to find the Activity categorically exempt from further CEQA review. k. Categorical Exemptions. Based on these findings, the City Council concludes that declaration of exempt surplus land is consistent with and implements the prior Project approvals, and therefore this approval is categorically exempt under the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines.
i. Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). The Project involves a minor lot-line adjustment to merge two existing parcels into a single parcel, without creating a new parcel or altering land use density. The City Council finds this activity qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, as it involves minor alterations with no expansion of current use. The declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land is consistent with this prior determination. ii. Section 15312 (Surplus Government Property Sales). The Project includes the sale of surplus government property, designated as “exempt surplus land” under the Surplus Land Act. The City Council finds that the Activity qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15312, as it pertains solely to surplus land and does not authorize any specific development or ground-disturbing activities.
iii. Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). The Project qualifies as an in-fill development within the City limits, meeting all criteria for

13.10 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The Project site is less than five acres, surrounded by urban development, and have no value as habitat for endangered species. The Project will not cause significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and is adequately served by utilities and public services. The City Council concludes the Project meets the requirements for a Class 32 categorical exemption. The declaration of the Property as exempt surplus land is consistent with this prior determination. l. Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). The “common sense exemption” states that a lead agency may find a project exempt from CEQA is “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The declaration of exempt surplus land is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it will have no significant effect on the environment—it is limited to activities that are substantially similar to, and no more intense than, the Prior Project Approvals of the development previously approved and analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR as previously determined by the City Council.
m. No Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Apply to the Project. Consistent with the City's Prior Project Approvals, the City Council further finds that none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project by virtue of the declaration of exempt surplus land, specifically:
i. Location in Sensitive Environments. The Project site was assessed and determined to be outside environmentally sensitive areas. No new disturbances to sensitive environments will occur.
ii. Cumulative Impact. The City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that the Project does not contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts, based on the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Specific Plan EIR, certified by the City Council in 2012 and 2017 respectively, which together provide an extensive analysis of cumulative impacts on land use, transportation, air quality, noise, utilities, and public services, and further supported by the Environmental Checklist and Project-specific declarations, all of which affirm that the Project remains consistent with previously reviewed growth assumptions and environmental thresholds established by the certified EIRs, ensuring that cumulative impacts from this Project are within anticipated limits and mitigated by uniformly applied development standards.
iii. Unusual Circumstances. The Project uses—including a public library, affordable housing, and supporting commercial space—are consistent with established land uses and zoning within the downtown area and align with existing General Plan designations, thereby presenting no unusual circumstances that could lead to significant environmental effects; in light of Hilltop Properties, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the Project shall not be subject to additional environmental review, as it is

13.11 consistent with applicable zoning and General Plan standards and presumed not to introduce unusual circumstances, aligns with typical downtown development patterns and does not introduce elements that would foreseeably result in unique or heightened environmental impacts.
iv. Scenic Highways and Historical Resources. The Project site is not located near state-designated scenic highways, nor does the Project affect any known historical resources. The City Council finds no significant visual or historical resources will be impacted by the Project.

SECTION 6, Publication. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this Resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with the requirements of the SLA Guidelines or authorize a designee to take such actions.

SECTION 7, Notice of Exemption. The City Council hereby authorizes and instructs staff to prepare, execute, file and record a Notice of Exemption with the Santa Cruz County Recorder and the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 8, Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, portion or part of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, declares the provisions of this ordinance severable from one another.

SECTION 9, Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately following its adoption.

SECTION 10, Reservation of Powers. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the City from exercising any of its powers under the California Government Code or other applicable law including but not limited to its power to adopt ordinances, resolutions, rules or regulations in response thereto.

SECTION 11, Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

13.12 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

CERTIFICATION

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the City of Santa Cruz held on November 19, 2024. ________________________
Mayor
I, the undersigned, hereby certify: That I am the duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz, and that at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Agency held on November 19, 2024 the foregoing Resolution No. NS-30,XXX was duly and regularly adopted by said City Council, and that said resolution has not been rescinded or amended since the date of its adoption, and that it is now in full force and effect.

DATED:

City Clerk

13.13 Exhibit A
Legal Description of 113 Lincoln and 119 Lincoln

13.14 13.15

EXHIBIT B
Depiction of City Property

13.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ APPROVING A RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 113 LINCOLN STREET,

AND FINDINGS THAT THESE ACTIVITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM FURTHER REVIEW

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.3, CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183, 15305, AND 15332 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz (the “Agency” or the “City”) recognizes the critical need for affordable housing within the City to address the housing needs of persons and families of low or moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, California, commonly referred to as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 005-141-021 and 005-141-011, which parcels have a surface area of approximately 6,882 square feet and 59,764 square feet, respectively, for a total of approximately 66,646 square feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 7260 et seq., and implementing regulations, the City has prepared a relocation plan (the "Relocation Plan"), and provided to the City Council concurrently with the approval of this resolution, regarding the acquisition and relocation of the existing occupant of 113 Lincoln Street; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development has notified the City that the Relocation Plan complies with state law; and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this Resolution and now desires to approve the Relocation Plan and determine that said approval does not require further environmental review.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1, Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Relocation Plan and directs and authorizes City staff to implement the Relocation Plan consistent with the requirements of State law, inclusive of Government Code section 7260 et seq., and implementing regulations.

SECTION 3(A), Environmental Findings. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City Council, finds and declares as follows:
a. The City is the Lead Agency for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.). As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for assuring that an adequate analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts.

13.17 b. The approval of the Relocation Plan as provided for herein is consistent with and implements the prior Project approvals by the City on March 14, 2023 (the "Prior Project Approvals"), as described further below, and on that basis no further CEQA review is required.
c. The City previously issued a Notice of Preparation and a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the General Plan 2030, then prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") that included the DEIR, appendices, comments, responses, and revisions, and on June 26, 2012, the City certified the FEIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations under CEQA, and approved the General Plan 2030 (collectively, the "General Plan 2030 EIR"). d. The Project is in the Downtown Plan area, which was adopted as a specific plan under the California Government Code to implement General Plan policies for the downtown, and in November 2017, the Santa Cruz City Council approved amendments to the Downtown Plan after certifying the Environmental Impact Report, which included the Draft EIR (July 2017) and Final EIR (October 2017), and this EIR addressed impacts from future development in the downtown area, such as aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology, public services, transportation, utilities, land use, and cumulative impacts (collectively, the "Downtown Plan Amendments EIR").
e. The City Council, at its agendized public meeting on March 14, 2023, adopted the Prior Project Approvals after it independently reviewed and considered whether the Project is consistent with the General Plan 2030 EIR, the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and all other related documents in the record before it. f. The City's Prior Project Approvals determined there are no environmental effects of the Project peculiar to the parcel(s) on which the Project would be located, because: (i) there is nothing unique or peculiar about the parcel(s) which would distinguish such impacts from other parcels in the Downtown Plan area upon which similar uses are located; and (ii) all effects of the Project on the environment will be substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development policies or standards previously adopted by the City.
g. All environmental effects of the Project were analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and the proposed Project, as part of adopting the Prior Project Approvals.
h. The approval of the Relocation Plan is limited to activities that are substantially similar to, and no more intense than, the development previously approved and analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR as previously determined by the City Council.
i. All of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution. j. Substantial Evidence.
i. There is substantial evidence that approval of the Relocation Plan is consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City's prior findings that the Project is a necessary and carefully planned initiative aimed at addressing the community’s needs by providing a new public library,

13.18 affordable housing, childcare facilities, and commercial space within a mixed-use development in the downtown area, thereby enhancing community resources and access to essential services while aligning with the City’s objectives for downtown development.
ii. The City Council, in adopting the Prior Project Approvals, reviewed the General Plan 2030 EIR and the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, both certified by the City Council in 2012 and 2017 respectively, which include extensive analysis of environmental impacts associated with development consistent with the City’s General Plan and Downtown Plan.
iii. Additionally, the staff report, oral testimony, and Environmental Checklist from the Prior Project Approvals confirm that the Project’s environmental impacts were comprehensively analyzed in the prior certified EIRs or are mitigated by existing policies, supporting the finding that the Project is statutorily exempt under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as a Consistent with Plan Exemption.
k. Categorical Exemptions. Based on these findings, the City Council concludes that approval of the Relocation Plan is consistent with and implements the Prior Project Approvals, and therefore this approval is categorically exempt under the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines.
i. Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). The Project involves a minor lot-line adjustment to merge two existing parcels into a single parcel, without creating a new parcel or altering land use density. The City Council finds this activity qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, as it involves minor alterations with no expansion of current use. The approval of the Relocation Plan is consistent with this prior determination.
ii. Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). The Project qualifies as an in-fill development within the City limits, meeting all criteria for exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The Project site is less than five acres, surrounded by urban development, and has no value as habitat for endangered species. The Project will not cause significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and is adequately served by utilities and public services. The City Council concludes the Project meets the requirements for a Class 32 categorical exemption. The approval of the Relocation Plan is consistent with this prior determination.
l. Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). The “common sense exemption” states that a lead agency may find a project exempt from CEQA if “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The declaration of exempt surplus land is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it will have no significant effect on the environment—it is limited to activities that are substantially similar to, and no more intense than, the Prior Project Approvals of the development previously approved and analyzed in the General Plan 2030

13.19 EIR, and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR as previously determined by the City Council.
m. No Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Apply to the Project. Consistent with the City's Prior Project Approvals, the City Council further finds that none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project by virtue of the approval of the Relocation Plan, specifically:
i. Location in Sensitive Environments. The Project site was assessed and determined to be outside environmentally sensitive areas. No new disturbances to sensitive environments will occur.
ii. Cumulative Impact. The City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that the Project does not contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts, based on the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Specific Plan EIR, certified by the City Council in 2012 and 2017 respectively, which together provide an extensive analysis of cumulative impacts on land use, transportation, air quality, noise, utilities, and public services, and further supported by the Environmental Checklist and Project-specific declarations, all of which affirm that the Project remains consistent with previously reviewed growth assumptions and environmental thresholds established by the certified EIRs, ensuring that cumulative impacts from this Project are within anticipated limits and mitigated by uniformly applied development standards.
iii. Unusual Circumstances. The Project uses—including a public library, affordable housing, and supporting commercial space—are consistent with established land uses and zoning within the downtown area and align with existing General Plan designations, thereby presenting no unusual circumstances that could lead to significant environmental effects; in light of Hilltop Properties, Inc. v. City of San Diego, the Project shall not be subject to additional environmental review, as it is consistent with applicable zoning and General Plan standards and presumed not to introduce unusual circumstances, aligns with typical downtown development patterns and does not introduce elements that would foreseeably result in unique or heightened environmental impacts.
iv. Scenic Highways and Historical Resources. The Project site is not located near state-designated scenic highways, nor does the Project affect any known historical resources. The City Council finds no significant visual or historical resources will be impacted by the Project.

13.20 SECTION 7, Notice of Exemption. The City Council hereby authorizes and instructs staff to prepare, execute, file and record a Notice of Exemption with the Santa Cruz County Recorder and the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 9, Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately following its adoption.

SECTION 11, Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

13.21 CERTIFICATION

DATED:

City Clerk

13.22 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1
113 Lincoln Street
Relocation Plan
Downtown Library & Affordable Housing Project
City of Santa Cruz
September 2024

13.23 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Project Area ........................................................................................................................ 1 Relocation Assessment of Needs..................................................................................... 4 Relocation Program ........................................................................................................... 5 Program Assurances and Standards ............................................................................ 5 Relocation Assistance.................................................................................................... 5 Payment of Relocation Benefits .................................................................................... 8 Last Resort Housing....................................................................................................... 8 Grievance and Appeal Procedure.................................................................................. 8 Projected Dates of Displacement .................................................................................. 9 Estimated Relocation Costs........................................................................................... 9 Citizen Participation ....................................................................................................... 9 EXHIBITS........................................................................................................................... 10

13.24 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 1
Introduction
The City of Santa Cruz (“City”) is the project sponsor for a proposed development that includes affordable housing, a childcare center, a modernized public library, and a public parking garage with bike parking(“Project”) located at 113-119 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (“Project Site”). The mixed-use Project will include approximately 124 studio, one, two, and three-bedroom units with 1 manager’s unit to be offered to tenants with a mix of affordability at or below 60% below area median income (“AMI”).

The entire Project Site is approximately 1.54 acres. A portion of the Project Site is improved with a +/- 5,280 square foot commercial building occupied by a single business tenant, Toadal Fitness, which is a membership-based fitness center. Until purchased by the City in April 2024, the site was owned by Christophe & Cecile Bellito Living Trust (“Seller”), who also owned Toadal Fitness. Seller requested a lease back of the Property for purposes of financing acquisition of another property. Prior to the execution of the purchase and sale agreement, the City hired RSG, Inc. as a relocation consultant and provided Seller with a General Information Notice on December 21, 2023, and a Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Benefits to Seller on February 20, 2024. Seller desired to proceed with a purchase and sale agreement because Seller had identified a property for relocation and Seller did not want to lose the opportunity to purchase the replacement property. Thus, on April 3, 2024, the City and Seller agreed on terms of a purchase and sale agreement that included compensation for the fair market value of the property and relocation benefits. As part of the negotiated purchase and sale agreement, Seller executed an agreement intended to resolve all claims and rights to relocation benefits.
1 The City engaged RSG, Inc. to assist with providing the required relocation benefits to Seller, and prepare and implement a relocation plan (“Plan”). This Plan includes a relocation needs assessment and details of the City’s proposed relocation assistance program. The displaced business owner has voluntarily selected a replacement location and began relocating the business to that new location, so a survey of replacement locations is not provided. This Plan also outlines the policies and procedures needed to comply California Governmental Code Section 7260 et. seq. (“Relocation Law”), Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq. ("Guidelines"), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (“URA”), as amended.

Project Area
The Project Site is in downtown Santa Cruz near Highway 1,Highway 9, and Highway 17 providing access to major routes. The project area contains a mix of commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings. Figure 1 below provides an area map showing the regional location of the Project. 1 The City had previously determined that a relocation plan was not necessary because the transaction involved only a single business and 25 C.C.R. § 6038 states that a relocation plan is not required for an "insignificant amount of non-residential displacement." The City was subsequently informed that the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") considers the displacement of a single business as "significant." Therefore, the City has prepared this Relocation Plan to comply with HCD's guidance.

13.25 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 2
Figure 1: Regional Location of the Project (north at top of image) The Seller's Property is +/- 0.16-acre of the Project Site, fronting Lincoln Street and is improved with one commercial building (hereafter, the "Subject Property"). The property is adjacent to a City-owned parking lot that is the remainder of the Project Site, as illustrated in Figures 2-5, below.

Figure 2: Area Map of Total Project site

13.26 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 3
Figure 3: 113 Lincoln Street Toadal Fitness Site
Figure 4: Subject Property at 113 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz

13.27 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 4
Figure 5: Rear of Subject Property and a Portion of the Rear Parking Relocation Assessment of Needs
RSG conducted an interview with the Seller in October 2023 to obtain information necessary to assess their relocation needs. RSG also toured the Project Site in December 2023. On February 20th, 2024, with approval from the City, RSG provided Seller with the Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Benefits.

The Seller is also the business owner of Toadal Fitness and is the only non-residential tenant occupying the Subject Property. The business owner is now leasing the +/- 5,406 square foot commercial building from the City. Pursuant to the lease agreement between the business owner and City, the current rent is $1 for the term of the lease which expires on October 1, 2024. The Seller may remain in occupancy until November 1, 2024 consistent with the Notice of Termination of Tenancy and Notice to Vacate served on July 22, 2024.

Seller indicated it would like to lease a replacement location within the downtown Santa Cruz area and expressed importance of sufficient space, correct zoning, and availability of parking. Ultimately, Seller voluntarily and independently secured a new location for their business in downtown Santa Cruz (within 1 mile of the Project Site) before the City could offer alternative sites. The City has issued special use, sign, and demolition permits and is in the process of issuing a building permit to allow the business owner to operate their business at the replacement location. The business owner will require assistance from a moving company to move personal property including fitness equipment and related office equipment.

Following completion of the planned Project, if the City has the right to leaseback a portion of the space for Seller to re-occupy the location, the Purchase and Sale Agreement requires the City to offer a space to Seller.

13.28 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 5
Relocation Program
Program Assurances and Standards
The City has adequate funds to relocate any affected households, though no residents are being relocated by the proposed Project.

The relocation program will ensure that displacement does not result in different or separate treatment based on race, nationality, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, disability or any other basis protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the California Fair Employment & Housing Act, and the Unruh Act, as well as any other unlawful discrimination. The relocation program also conforms with the standards and provisions set forth in Relocation Law, Guidelines, and URA as applicable, and all other applicable regulations and requirements.

The City authorized a General Information Notice and Informational Statement to Seller that was provided on December 21, 2023, and a Notice of Eligibility provided on February 20, 2024. Although Seller has already agreed to terms of relocation, the City served a formal 90-day notice to vacate on July 22, 2024. Seller has already located and secured a comparable replacement location, and agreed to the compensation for the acquisition of the Property and the moving expenses.

Relocation Assistance
The City engaged RSG, an experienced relocation consultant, to implement the relocation program.

A Relocation Coordinator with RSG has provided ongoing technical and advisory support. RSG staff can be reached at 714-541-4585 from 8:30am-5pm Monday through Friday. RSG has distributed all required notices as of the date of this Plan. This includes the General Information Notice and Informational Statement delivered on December 21, 2023 (Exhibit A), Notice of Eligibility delivered on February 20, 2024 (Exhibit B), and Notice of Termination of Tenancy and Notice to Vacate delivered on July 22, 2024 (Exhibit C).

Applicable monetary relocation benefits will be disbursed to the displaced business upon submission of the required claim forms and documentation, following the City’s approved procedures. Relocation benefits fall under 2 categories, as further detailed below:
• Payment for actual, reasonable moving and related expenses; and • Fixed payment in lieu of actual, reasonable moving and related expenses.

Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses
Compensation for actual reasonable and necessary moving and related expenses include:
• Transportation of personal property up to 50 miles, unless the City determines that relocation beyond 50 miles is justified.
• Packing, crating, unpacking, and uncrating of relocated property. • Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling relocated property. This includes machinery, equipment, substitute personal property, and connections to utilities available within the building. This also includes modifications to the personal property

13.29 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 6
necessary to adapt it to the replacement site or the utilities at the replacement site, and modifications necessary to adapt the utilities at the replacement site to the personal property. • Storage of the personal property for a period not to exceed 12 months, unless the City determines that a longer period is necessary.
• Insurance in connection with the move and necessary storage. • The replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving (not through the fault of the business owner) that is not covered by insurance. • Any license, permit, fees or certification required of the displaced person at the replacement location. However, the payment may be based on the remaining useful life of the existing license, permit, fees or certification.
• Re-lettering signs and replacing stationery on hand at the time of relocation that are made obsolete as a result of the move.
• The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that will not be relocated. • Professional services as the City determines to be actual, reasonable, and necessary for planning the more, moving property, and installing relocated property at the new business location.
• Other eligible moving-related expenses that the City determines to be reasonable and necessary.
• Actual Direct Loss of Tangible Personal Property: The displaced business owner may receive payment for actual loss of property incurred as a result of moving or discontinuing their business. The payment shall consist of the lesser of (a) fair market value in place of the item less the proceeds from its sale or (b) the estimated cost of relocating the item. o If personal tangible property is abandoned with no clear effort being made by the business to dispose of said property, then the business shall not be eligible for any reimbursement for moving expenses or losses for said items. Proceeds realized from any sale of all, or part of the property shall be deducted from the determination of loss.

The reasonable cost of an effort to sell the property shall be added to the determination of loss.
• Purchase of Substitute Property: If an item of personal property which is used as part of the business operation is not moved but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site, the displaced business is entitled to payment of the lesser of:
o The cost of the substitute item, including installation costs of the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced item; or o The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item but with no allowance for storage.

13.30 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 7
• Search Cost Benefit: The displaced business owner may be compensated for reasonable and actual expenses related to the process of searching and locating a replacement site, not to exceed $2,500 ($1,000 under California Relocation Law and Guidelines). Valid types of Search Cost Benefits may include but are not limited to food and lodging expenses incurred for searches away from the principal place of business, transportation costs, and reasonable value of time engaged in the process of searching or fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a replacement site.
• Reimbursement for High-Bulk Items with Low Value: When the personal property to be moved is of low value and high bulk (i.e. scrap metal, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar items) and the cost of moving the property would be disproportionate to its value in the judgement of the City, the allowable moving cost payment shall not exceed the lesser of (a) the amount which would be received if the property were sold at the site or (b) the replacement cost of a comparable quantity delivered to the new business location.
• Related Eligible Expenses: The following other expenses for moving personal property shall be provided if the City determines that they are actual, reasonable and necessary:
o Connection to available nearby utilities from the right-of-way to improvements at the replacement site.
o Professional services performed prior to the purchase or lease of a replacement site to determine its suitability for the business operation including but not limited to, soil testing, feasibility and marketing studies (excluding any fees or commissions directly related to the purchase or lease of such site).
o Impact fees or one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage, as determined necessary by the City.
• Reestablishment Expenses: Reestablishment allowance, not to exceed $25,000 ($10,000 under California Relocation Law and Guidelines), for expenses actually incurred in reestablishing the displaced business at a replacement site. Reestablishment expenses must be reasonable and necessary, as determined by the City.

Self-Moves
If the displaced business chooses to perform a self-move instead of utilizing the services of a professional moving company, the City will engage in negotiations to establish a moving payment that is typically the lesser of at least two (2) bids from qualified professional moving companies. The City may, at its discretion, approve payment on a single bid or estimate on a case-by-case basis.

Fixed Payment In Lieu of Actual Reasonable Moving Expenses The displaced business has the option to claim a fixed payment for relocation assistance in lieu of actual reasonable moving expenses. This payment amount is determined based on the average annual net earnings over a 2-year period and has a minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $40,000 ($20,000 under California Relocation Law and Guidelines). Income will be verified via certified copy of Federal or State income tax returns, certified or audited financial statements, or W-2 forms.

The City will make a determination as to whether the business is eligible for this payment based on the following criteria:

13.31 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 8
• The nature of the business cannot be solely for the purpose of renting the site or property to others;
• The business discontinues operations, or it will lose a substantial portion of its business due to the move;
• The business is not a subsidiary or branch location part of a larger enterprise that has at least three other locations under the same ownership that is engaged in the same line of work, operation, or production; and
• The business contributed materially to the income of the displaced business.

Payment of Relocation Benefits
Claims and supporting documentation for relocation benefits must be filed with the City within 18 months from:
• The date the claimant moves from the Property; or
• The date, on which final payment for the acquisition of real property is made, whichever is later.

The procedure for preparing and filing claims and processing and delivering payments are as follows:
1) Claimant(s) will provide all necessary documentation to substantiate eligibility of relocation assistance;
2) Benefit amount will be determined in accordance with the Guidelines and URA, as applicable; 3) Claim forms will be prepared by the Relocation Coordinator on behalf of the claimant(s).

Claims signed by the claimant(s) and supporting documentation will be submitted by the Relocation Coordinator to the City for review;
4) City will approve or request additional information. If claim is approved City will issue a benefit check or if applicable, a wire transfer will be made;
5) Issued benefit checks will be hand delivered to the claimant(s) by the Relocation Coordinator or City staff; and
6) Upon verifying that the claimant(s) has completely vacated the Property and has secured residency in a replacement property, final payments will be issued.

Last Resort Housing
There are no residential occupants or buildings on the site. Last resort housing does not apply.

Grievance and Appeal Procedure
The City’s grievance and appeals procedure align with the standards described in Article 5, Section 6150 et seq. of the Guidelines. Briefly stated, the displaced household will have the right to ask for a review when there is a complaint regarding any of its rights to relocation and relocation assistance, such as a determination as to eligibility, the amount of payment, failure to provide a replacement location referral, or the City’s property management practices.

13.32 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 9
Any request to have a claim reviewed and reconsidered will be considered by the Director of Economic Development and Housing. If needed, an informal hearing would be conducted at City Hall.

The City will provide written explanation of its determination within 3 weeks of the review request. If the appeal is denied during the informal review process, the appellant may file a written request for formal review and consideration by an authorized impartial designee or City department head.

Appellant does not have to exhaust administrative remedies first; the appeal/grievance can either go directly to the City, directly to HCD or directly to the Court. Any person and/or organization directly affected by the Plan may petition the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), located at 651 Bannon Street, SW Tower 9th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95811 to review the Plan.

Appellants will retain their rights for up to 18 months following the date of displacement from the Project or receipt of final payment for relocation benefits, whichever is later.

Projected Dates of Displacement
The City issued a Notice of Termination of Tenancy and Notice to Vacate on July 22, 2024, with a vacate date of on or before November 1, 2024, providing more than 100 days’ notice to vacate.

Estimated Relocation Costs
The City will use its Capital (CIP) Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project Fund to provide relocation benefits to the displaced business.

The total estimated cost to relocate the commercial displaced business is $97,000. The estimate is presented for budgeting purposes only. The estimate should not be interpreted as firm, “not to exceed”, or actual entitlement costs. The estimates are based on the data obtained through interviews, estimated moving-costs, local quotes, and the judgment of City and RSG staff. The estimated costs do not include costs for the relocation consultant or other contractors.

While the URA benefit maximums increased on June 3, 2024, the purchase and sale agreement was negotiated under the stipulation of the previous benefit maximums. Therefore, the relocation benefit maximums in effect prior to June 3, 2024, and detailed in the General Information Notice and Informational Statement included as Exhibit A will be applied.

Citizen Participation
A limited amount of non-residential displacement and no residential displacement will take place because of the acquisition.2 Therefore, formation of a relocation committee is not required. RSG and the business owner had an initial meeting in October 2023 and have maintained ongoing communication related to the relocation process.

The City will issue a general notice concerning the availability of this Plan to the business owner 30 days prior to its proposed approval by the City Council, as required by the Relocation Guidelines. The displaced business owner will receive a copy of the Plan with the notice and be advised on the 30- day comment period.

A copy of the Plan will also be available to the public, upon request. Comments to the Plan will be included as an addendum to the Plan and will be submitted to HCD for approval. The business owner and members of the public will also have timely and full access to all other documents relevant to the relocation program.
2 Subdivision (b) of Section 6012 of Section 25 of the California Code of Regulations indicates that a relocation committee is required only for residential displacement.

13.33 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 10

EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – General Information Notice & Informational Statement Exhibit B – Notice of Eligibility
Exhibit C – Notice of Termination of Tenancy and Notice to Vacate

13.34 113 LINCOLN STREET DRAFT RELOCATION PLAN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
V.1 11

13.35 Page | 1
City of Santa Cruz

GENERAL INFORMATION NOTICE AND

INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT
Propos ed Development Project: 113 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The City of Santa Cruz (“City”) is interested in acquiring 113 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (“Property”) for the purpose of developing an affordable housing and public library project (“Project”).

The City’s future actions on the Project may require the businesses residing on the property to be relocated.

The City will provide adequate notice in the event of relocation and provide assistance pursuant to State and/or Federal law, as applicable. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE NOW! This notice is meant to explain what the City is interested in doing and explain relocation assistance available to you under the California Relocation Assistance Law (California Government Code Section 7260 et seq.), the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq.), and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (“URA” found at 49 CFR Part 24).

Notice of Relocation and Introduction
You are receiving this notice because you conduct business on the Property and may be eligible for relocation benefits. The City is seeking to provide you with relocation information and inform you of your rights.

Projects of the City may result in unavoidable displacement of businesses or non-profit organizations. The policy of the City is to minimize the impact caused by displacement. The following information is being provided to you by your Relocation Coordinator to help guide you through the relocation process.

This is not a notice to move. This is not a notice to vacate the Property.

This is not a notice of relocation eligibility.

The information in this packet is meant to help you in determining your eligibility for relocation benefits under State and/or Federal law, as applicable. This packet summarizes the programs available to displaced tenants or businesses and describes the principal provisions of the law and regulations concerning where and how to get assistance, eligibility requirements, payments available, and requirements for payment.

In the event that you are notified to move, it is important not to move before you learn what you must do to receive relocation payments and other assistance to which you may be entitled. Every business owneroperator, or business tenant-operator (including non-profit organizations) who is displaced from their place of business as a result of a public project of the City is protected under State, Federal, and/or local laws and policies, if applicable, pertaining to relocation. Though you are protected, premature action may jeopardize your eligibility for a relocation payment.

Exhibit A

13.36 Page | 2
If you are required to move as a result of the City’s project, a Relocation Coordinator will contact you.

Your coordinator will be able to answer your specific questions, provide additional information, and help you fill out reimbursement claim forms.

General Information
In most relocation cases, the business or non-profit that is eligible for relocation payments and is lawfully occupying the property will NOT be asked to move until receiving notice at least ninety (90) days in advance provided in writing.

Displaced businesses and non-profits should consult with a tax advisor concerning the tax consequences of relocation payments.

THIS GUIDE IS TO SERVE AS A GUIDE ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS. UPON RECEIPT OF THIS

GUIDE, THE FIRST STEP SHOULD BE TO CONTACT YOUR RELOCATION COORDINATOR. IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO AND COMPLETE A MOVE OR INCUR AN

EXPENSE RELATED TO RELOCATION, YOU MAY FORFEIT SOME OR ALL OF YOUR ELIGIBLE BENEFITS. PLEASE REFER TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7260 ET SEQ.

AND SECTIONS 6000 ET SEQ. OF TITLE 25 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS,

AND THE UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED (“URA”) FOUND AT 49 CFR PART 24 FOR A FULL LISTING OF BENEFITS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY DIFFERENCES IN FEDERAL AND/OR

STATE LAW AND THIS GUIDE, THEN FEDERAL AND/OR STATE LAW SHALL PREVAIL, AS APPLICABLE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR RELOCATION COORDINATOR LISTED IN THIS GUIDE.

If you are determined to be eligible for relocation assistance under Federal and/or State law you may be eligible for:

1. Business relocation assistance, including help to find you a replacement location;

2. At least 90 days advance written notice of the date you will be required to move;

3. Payment for your moving and reestablishment expenses.

What is Bus iness Relocation Ass is tance?
Business Relocation Advisory Assistance means the City will assist you in finding a new business property.

Relocation Coordinator:

Alex Lawrence
RSG, Inc.
170 Eucalyptus Avenue
Vista, CA 92084
Direct: (714) 316-2104
[email protected]

13.37 Page | 3
A Relocation Coordinator is assigned for this purpose. The Relocation Coordinator will assist you in finding properties being offered for sale or rent that are suitable in condition and in price or rental range. However, the City cannot guarantee that you will find an identical or similar property at the same rent or payment you are currently paying.

Also available is information concerning the services offered by other County, State, and Federal agencies. The Relocation Coordinator is your principal contact in all matters concerning relocation payments, programs, and procedures.

These are some examples of how your Relocation Coordinator can assist you:

1. Provide information relative to zoning ordinances, general plan information, and other economic and general information which may assist the business owner or tenant operator.

2. Assist and/or refer you to the Small Business Administration or other organization(s) designed to assist businesses.

3. Assist in filing claim forms for the various types of relocation payments.

4. Provide information on the availability, size, prices, and locations of comparable commercial or industrial property, including referrals to real estate brokers who may be able to assist in obtaining suitable property.

5. Serve as a source of information during the relocation process, referring you to outside sources as necessary.

You will be contacted at an early date and personally interviewed by a Relocation Coordinator to determine your needs and preferences for a replacement location and other services. The Relocation Coordinator will ask questions concerning matters such as your space requirements, location preferences, etc. It is to your advantage to provide this information to the Relocation Coordinator so the City can assist you in moving with minimal hardship. The information you give will be kept in strict confidence.

Requirements to Obtain Business Benefits
The major requirements for each relocation benefit are listed below, however these are not all-inclusive.

Please consult your Relocation Coordinator about additional requirements before you vacate to ensure compliance before you incur any moving costs or other related obligations.

For relocation assistance, you must operate a business or non-profit organization on property that is acquired by the City or acquired by a private party having an agreement with, or acting on behalf of, the City.

Requirements:

1. Be in lawful occupancy and operating a business on the property being acquired by the City or for a City Project as of the date of the initiation of negotiations by the City acquiring such property.

2. Prepare a certified inventory of personal property to be moved.

3. Assist the City in obtaining at least two (2) written moving bids, and a. Accept a move by the low bidder.
-OR13.38
Page | 4
b. Negotiate a self-move on the basis of the low bid.

4. Give the City reasonable notice of your move date.

5. Vacate the property.

6. File a claim for relocation assistance on City forms with proper documentation.

If Federal law is applicable, pursuant to Public Law 105-117, aliens not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible for relocation assistance, unless such ineligibility would result in exceptional hardship to a qualifying spouse, parent, or child. All persons seeking relocation assistance will be required to certify that they are a United States citizen or national, or an alien lawfully present in the United States.

Relocation law establishes strict eligibility requirements for owners and tenants. To receive payment for a particular benefit as either an owner or tenant, you must satisfy ALL requirements for that particular benefit payment. Contact your Relocation Coordinator BEFORE you incur moving expenses to verify which expenses will qualify for reimbursement and that you have followed proper procedures.

What is the Business Relocation Payment Program?
Relocation payments to businesses and non-profit organizations consist of moving and related costs, or an in-lieu payment. In general, moving expense benefit payments include all regular and normal costs associated with moving, such as the following:
• Dismantling equipment and machines
• Crating and uncrating machines or business equipment
• Loading and unloading
• Insurance during the move
• Reasonable replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged (through no fault of the displaced business owner) and not covered by insurance • Temporary storage as determined necessary by the City • Disconnecting and reconnecting machinery and equipment • Packing and unpacking
• Transportation and cartage
Moving expenses do not include any additions, improvements, alterations, or structural changes in connection with moving personal property, except when they are necessary in connection with the reassembling, reconnection, or reinstallation of machinery, equipment, or other personal property to adapt it to the replacement location. However, they do include payment for such items as telephone reinstallation, burglar and fire alarm system reinstallation (if these items are not purchased by the City), and moving and reconnection costs of other specialty equipment or systems not purchased by the City.

Other expenses such as professional services necessary for planning and carrying out the move and the

13.39 Page | 5
cost of licenses, permits, and certifications necessary for the reestablishment of the operation at a new location may also be reimbursable.

Moving payments are generally made after the move is completed and the premises are left clean and orderly. Please keep in mind that transportation payments are limited to moves of fifty (50) miles or less. Charges for additional mileage are the responsibility of the business or nonprofit being moved.

Options for Moving
Again, this is not a notice to vacate the premises and does not establish your eligibility for relocation payments or assistance at this time. If you are determined to be displaced and are required to vacate the premises in the future, you will be informed in writing. In the event the proposed project does not proceed or if you are determined not to be displaced, you will also be notified in writing. Using the following options as a guide, the business or non-profit organization may choose one of the methodologies to seek payment of moving expenses:

Option 1: Bids Used as Basis for Self-Move
The business or non-profit may choose to perform a self-move instead of utilizing the services of a professional moving company. If this is the methodology desired by the business or non-profit, then the City will engage in negotiations to establish a moving payment that is normally the lesser of at least two (2) bids from professional moving companies. Please note, the City may, at its own discretion, choose to accept a bid that is not the lowest on a case by case basis.

Option 2: Commercial Mover Used and Actual Costs Utilized The business or non-profit can also choose to have the move completed by a professional moving company. In this scenario, the City will work directly with the business or non-profit in obtaining moving bids and making all the needed arrangements. The City can pay the moving company directly.

Alternative Business Relocation Benefits
In addition to the benefits listed on the previous pages, the business or non-profit may be compensated for moving expenses for certain types of personal property determined by alternative methods that are described below.

Reimbursement for High-Bulk Items with Low Value
If a business or non-profit chooses to keep or transfer personal property that is kept in bulk and has a relatively low value (scrap metal, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar items), reimbursement for actual reasonable moving expenses will not exceed the price of replacing the item(s) at the new location less the value for which it might be sold at the original location.

The City may elect to acquire the personal property of low value through an escrow. Should this methodology be chosen, please allow 60 days for escrow to close.

Reimbursement for Loss of Tangible Personal Property
A business or non-profit may be eligible for reimbursement for actual direct loss of tangible personal property as a direct result of moving or a close-of-business action as a result of activity by the City. This amount will not exceed the reasonable cost that would have been incurred to relocate the personal property, as determined by the City.

13.40 Page | 6
Direct loss of tangible property is allowed when the business or non-profit to be displaced from their place of business is entitled to relocate such personal property in part or in whole but choose not to relocate such property. To be eligible for this payment, the business or non-profit of the personal property must:
• Be eligible to receive relocation benefits for actual and reasonable relocation costs. • Enter into a written agreement with the City clearly outlining the desire to select this methodology of relocation reimbursement for the property not being relocated, under which the business or nonprofit shall agree that the personal property for which they are receiving this benefit will not be moved under any circumstances.

If personal tangible property is abandoned with no clear effort being made by the business or non-profit to dispose of said property, then the business or non-profit shall not be eligible for any reimbursement for moving expenses or losses for said items. Proceeds realized from any sale of all or part of the property shall be deducted from the determination of loss. The reasonable cost of an effort to sell the property shall be added to the determination of loss.

Reestablishment Expenses
A business or non-profit may be eligible to receive a payment for expenses that are actually incurred to reestablish the business or non-profit at the new location. This amount may not exceed $25,000. To be eligible for this payment, the entity being displaced by the City action must have not more than five hundred (500) employees at the current location that is affected by the relocation.

The entity may receive payment for the following general examples of costs incurred as a result of moving, subject to applicable regulations and cost limits. (This list is not to be considered all-encompassing but should serve as a general guide. Please contact your Relocation Coordinator for further questions.) • Feasibility, Marketing, Stationary Reprinting, Soil, Environmental or other Studies • Construction and/or installation of external advertising signs • Assessments and impact fees
• Costs associated with advertising the new business address • Modifications, improvements, and repairs to new location that are required by ordinance, law or code
• If conditions warrant, carpeting, paneling, wallpapering and painting • Permits, license fees or other fees that are not provided for in the moving expense payment • Professional real estate agents, relocation specialists, or brokers utilized in the completion of the purchase or lease of the new location, or feasibility surveys, soil testing, or market studies • Structural improvements or other modifications to the new site to make it more suitable for the operation of the business or non-profit
• The first two years of estimated increased costs at the new site including but not limited to personal or property taxes, increased rent or lease payments, utility fees, and insurance premiums • Costs associated with the modification, update, or installation of utilities from the right-of-way to the building or improvement at the new site
• Other reestablishment expenses as determined by the City to be essential to reestablishment.

It is important to note that these costs are subject to further review and may be subject to limitation,

13.41 Page | 7
even if the amount does not exceed $25,000.

Search Cost Benefit
A business or non-profit may claim reasonable and actual expenses related to the process of searching and locating a replacement site. This type of payment may not exceed $2,500.

Valid types of Search Cost Benefits may include but are not limited to food and lodging expenses incurred for searches away from the principal place of business, transportation costs, and reasonable value of time engaged in the process of searching or fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a replacement site. Please note, to be eligible for this payment, all expenses claimed must be accompanied by original receipts and other appropriate documentation. The value of time spent engaged in the searching process must be estimated and documented where possible when a value is assigned to the person’s time who is actively conducting the search and their time must be accurately documented as well.

Fixed Payment
Instead of receiving relocation payments as outlined in the above sections, if the City determines that the business being relocated meets eligibility, the business may elect to claim a fixed payment equivalent to the AVERAGE ANNUAL NET EARNINGS OF THE BUSINESS OVER A TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD. It is important to note, however, that this payment may not be less than $1,000 and no more than $40,000.

The City will make a determination as to whether the business is eligible for this payment based on the following criteria:
• The nature of the business cannot be solely for the purpose of renting the site or property to others; • The business discontinues operations or it will lose a substantial portion of its business due to the move;
• The business is not a subsidiary or branch location part of a larger enterprise that has at least three other location under the same ownership that is engaged in the same line of work, operation, or production; and
• The business contributed materially to the income of the displaced business.

Average annual net earnings means one-half of any net earnings of the business, before Federal, State, or local income taxes during the two (2) taxable years immediately preceding the tax year in which the business will be relocated, and includes any compensation paid by the business to the owner, the owner’s spouse, or dependents during that period.

It is important to note that this information shall be provided via certified copy of Federal or State income tax returns, certified or audited financial statements, or W-2 forms. The City may require other proof of net earnings at its sole discretion.

Eviction Policy
There are cases in which a business or non-profit tenant can be evicted WITHOUT A 90 DAY NOTICE.

Eviction shall be undertaken only for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Failure to pay rent, except in those cases where the failure to pay is due to the lessor's failure to keep the premises in habitable condition, is the result of harassment or retaliatory action or

13.42 Page | 8
is the result of discontinuation or substantial interruption of services.

2. Performance of a dangerous, illegal act in the unit.

3. Material breach of the rental agreement and failure to correct breach within 30 days of notice.

4. Maintenance of a nuisance and failure to abate within a reasonable time following notice.

5. Refusal to accept one of a reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings.

6. The eviction is required by State or local law and cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the public entity.

Appeal/Grievance Procedures
Under Federal and State law, if applicable, you also have the right to appeal the agency’s determination, if you feel that your application for assistance was not properly considered. If you disagree with the type of assistance you receive from the City, State law also gives you the right to ask for a review of your claim. This is called a “grievance.” For example, you may ask for a review of your claim if you disagree with the amount of your relocation assistance, our failure to provide you with “comparable replacement” property, or any other disagreement you may have with the services offered to you.

If you want to file a “grievance, you must file it within 18 months of the date you move or the date you receive a final relocation payment, whichever is later. You may file a “grievance” and obtain a copy of the “Grievance Procedures” by contacting the Relocation Coordinator, Alex Lawrence at RSG, 170 Eucalyptus Avenue, Suite 200, Vista, California 92084, or 714-316-2104, or [email protected].

The Relocation Coordinator will be contacting you shortly to discuss the relocation process, and will be able to address any concerns, problems, or questions you may have. They are here to assist you with the relocation process.

Additional Resources
The enclosed HUD brochure, “Relocation Assistance to Displaced Businesses, Nonprofit Organizations, and Farms” provides an explanation of this assistance and other helpful information should Federal relocation law apply.

13.43 NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
February 20, 2024
Dear Christophe Bellito,
As you know, the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) is moving forward with the Downtown Affordable Housing and Library project where you conduct business at 113 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. If you choose to sell your property to the City for the project, you will need to relocate your business. Based upon the current circumstances, you are eligible for relocation assistance including relocation advisory services and payment for moving and business reestablishment expenses. As such, this is your official Notice of Eligibility for relocation assistance.

I am your Relocation Coordinator and am here to assist you with your move and help ensure that you preserve your eligibility for relocation assistance. I can assist you in finding properties being offered for sale or rent that are suitable in condition and in price or rental range. However, I cannot guarantee that you will find an identical or similar property at the same rent or payment you are currently paying.

I will also assist you with submitting claims for the relocation payments that you are eligible for. A detailed description of eligible moving and reestablishment expenses that you are entitled payment for is included in Exhibit 1 of this Notice of Eligibility.

You do not need to move now and you will not be required to move without at least 90 days advance written notice of the day you must vacate. We understand that you have identified a replacement location. Please do not move before we have a chance to further discuss your eligibility for relocation assistance.

I am also your principal contact in all matters concerning relocation payments, programs, and procedures. If you have any questions about this Notice, your eligibility for relocation assistance and payments, or the relocation process, please contact me:

Alex Lawrence
RSG, Inc.
170 Eucalyptus Avenue
Vista, CA 92084
Direct: (714) 316-2104
alawrence@webrsg,com
Sincerely,
Alex Lawrence
RSG, Inc.

Enclosures –
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses Exhibit B

13.44 1
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses Provided you meet certain criteria, you will be eligible for relocation payments for moving and reestablishment expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA), California Relocation Assistance Law (California Government Code Section 7260 et seq.), and the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6000 et seq.).

You may choose to have the move completed by a commercial moving company or perform a selfmove. Payment will be based on the lower of two bids prepared by a commercial mover (at the City’s discretion, payment for a low cost or uncomplicated move may be based on a single bid or estimate) and you must assist the City in obtaining the two written moving bids.

You may choose one of the following methodologies to seek payment:

Option 1: Payment for Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses:

You are eligible for payment for the following actual moving and related expenses:
1) Transportation of personal property up to 50 miles, unless the City determines that relocation beyond 50 miles is justified.
2) Packing, crating, unpacking, and uncrating of relocated property. 3) Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling relocated property. This includes machinery, equipment, substitute personal property, and connections to utilities available within the building. This also includes modifications to the personal property necessary to adapt it to the replacement site or the utilities at the replacement site, and modifications necessary to adapt the utilities at the replacement site to the personal property.
4) Storage of the personal property for a period not to exceed 12 months, unless the City determines that a longer period is necessary.
5) Insurance in connection with the move and necessary storage. 6) The replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving (not through the fault of the business owner) that is not covered by insurance. 7) Any license, permit, fees or certification required of the displaced person at the replacement location. However, the payment may be based on the remaining useful life of the existing license, permit, fees or certification. 8) Re-lettering signs and replacing stationery on hand at the time of relocation that are made obsolete as a result of the move.
9) The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that will not be relocated.

13.45 Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses 2 10) Professional services as the City determines to be actual, reasonable, and necessary for planning the more, moving property, and installing relocated property at the new business location.
11) Other eligible moving-related expenses that the City determines to be reasonable and necessary.
12) Actual Direct Loss of Tangible Personal Property: You may receive payment for actual loss of property incurred as a result of moving or discontinuing your business. The payment shall consist of the lesser of (a) fair market value in place of the item less the proceeds from its sale or (b) the estimated cost of relocating the item.

To be eligible for this payment, you must enter into a written agreement with the City clearly outlining the desire to select this methodology of relocation reimbursement for the property not being relocated and shall agree that the personal property for which they are receiving this benefit will not be moved under any circumstances.

If personal tangible property is abandoned with no clear effort being made by the business to dispose of said property, then the business shall not be eligible for any reimbursement for moving expenses or losses for said items. Proceeds realized from any sale of all or part of the property shall be deducted from the determination of loss.

The reasonable cost of an effort to sell the property shall be added to the determination of loss.
13) Purchase of Substitute Property: If an item of personal property which is used as part of your business operation is not moved but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site, you are entitled to payment of the lesser of:
a. The cost of the substitute item, including installation costs of the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced item; or b. The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item but with no allowance for storage.
14) Search Cost Benefit: You may be compensated for reasonable and actual expenses related to the process of searching and locating a replacement site, not to exceed $2,500 ($1,000 under California Relocation Assistance Law). Valid types of Search Cost Benefits may include but are not limited to food and lodging expenses incurred for searches away from the principal place of business, transportation costs, and reasonable value of time engaged in the process of searching or fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a replacement site.

Please note, to be eligible for this payment, all expenses claimed must be accompanied by original receipts and other appropriate documentation. The value of time spent engaged in the searching process must be estimated and documented where possible when a value is assigned to the person’s time who is actively conducting the search and their time must be accurately documented as well. 15) Reimbursement for High-Bulk Items with Low Value: When the personal property to be moved is of low value and high bulk (i.e. scrap metal, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar items) and the cost of moving the property would be disproportionate to its value in

13.46 Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses 3 the judgement of the City, the allowable moving cost payment shall not exceed the lesser of (a) the amount which would be received if the property were sold at the site or (b) the replacement cost of a comparable quantity delivered to the new business location.
16) Related Eligible Expenses: The following other expenses for moving personal property shall be provided if the City determines that they are actual, reasonable and necessary:
a. Connection to available nearby utilities from the right-of-way to improvements at the replacement site.
b. Professional services performed prior to the purchase or lease of a replacement site to determine its suitability for the business operation including but not limited to, soil testing, feasibility and marketing studies (excluding any fees or commissions directly related to the purchase or lease of such site). c. Impact fees or one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage, as determined necessary by the City.
17) Reestablishment Expenses: In addition to the described moving payments, you are entitled to receive a payment, not to exceed $25,000 ($10,000 under California Relocation Assistance Law), for expenses actually incurred in reestablishing your business at a replacement site. Reestablishment expenses must be reasonable and necessary, as determined by the City. They include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Repairs or improvements to the replacement real property as required by Federal, State or local law, code or ordinance;
b. Modifications to the replacement property to accommodate the business operation or make replacement structures suitable for conducting the business;
c. Construction and installation costs for exterior signing to advertise the business;
d. Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces at the replacement site, such as paint, paneling, or carpeting;
e. Advertisement of replacement location;
f. Estimated increased costs of operation during the first 2 years at the replacement site for such items as lease or rental charges, personal or real property taxes, insurance premiums, and utility charges; and g. Other items that the City considers essential to the reestablishment of the business.

The following is a nonexclusive listing of reestablishment expenditures not considered to be reasonable, necessary, or eligible:
a. Purchase of capital assets, such as, office furniture, filing cabinets, machinery, or trade fixtures;
b. Purchase of manufacturing materials, production supplies, product inventory, or other items used in the normal course of the business operation; c. Interest on money borrowed to make the move or purchase the replacement property; and
d. Payment to a part-time business in the home which does not contribute materially to the household income.

13.47 Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses 4 NOTICE: Before you move, you must provide meet the following requirements:
• Provide a certified inventory of all personal property to be moved; • Provide the City 15 days’ notice of the date of the start of your move or disposition of the personal property;
• Allow the City to monitor the move; and
• Allow the City to make reasonable and timely inspections of the personal property at both the displacement and replacement sites.

Option 2: Fixed Moving Payment and Reestablishment Expenses:

You may elect to claim a fixed payment equivalent to the average annual net earnings of the business over a 2-year period instead of the payment for actual moving and reestablishment expenses. It is important to note, however, that this payment may not be less than $1,000 and no more than $40,000 ($20,000 under California Relocation Assistance Law).

In order to qualify for this payment based, your business must meet all of the following criteria:
1) The business owns or rents personal property which must be moved in connection with such move and the business vacates or relocates from its displacement site; 2) The business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage (clientele or net earnings). A business is assumed to meet this test unless the City determines that it will not suffer a substantial loss of its existing patronage; 3) The business is not part of a commercial enterprise having more than three other entities which are not being acquired by the City, and which are under the same ownership and engaged in the same or similar business activities; 4) The business is not operated at a displacement dwelling solely for the purpose of renting such dwelling to others;
5) The business is not operated at the displacement site solely for the purpose of renting the site to others; and
6) The business contributed materially to the income of the displaced person during the 2 taxable years prior to displacement.

As the property owner, you must file your claim for relocation payment within 18 months after the date that you move, or the date you receive final acquisition payment, whichever is later. All claims must be filed on City forms with proper documentation.

13.48 Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance
Exhibit 1: Eligible Moving and Reestablishment Expenses 5 Pursuant to Public Law 105-117, aliens not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible for relocation assistance, unless such ineligibility would result in exceptional hardship to a qualifying spouse, parent, or child. All persons seeking relocation assistance will be required to certify that they are a United States citizen or national, or an alien lawfully present in the United States.

13.49 NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY
and
NOTICE TO VACATE BY November 1, 2024
at 113 Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, California
Via Electronic Mail
July 22, 2024
Christophe Bellito
113 Lincoln Street
Santa Cruz, CA, 95060
Dear Mr. Bellito:

The City of Santa Cruz (“City”) acquired the improved real property located at 113 Lincoln Street (“Property”) from you for the purpose of developing the Downtown Affordable Housing and Library project (“Project”) on the Property. Following the closing of escrow, the City entered into a Commercial Lease Agreement dated April 18, 2024, covering the Property with you, Christophe Bellito, as lessee. You are currently operating Toadal Fitness (“Business”) at the Property.

To carry out the Project, it is necessary for your Business to relocate. As explained in the General Information Notice delivered to you by the City on December 21, 2023 and Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance delivered to you on February 20, 2024, the City is obligated to provide you written notice to vacate the Property at least 90-days prior to the required move-out date. This letter serves as written notice of termination of your tenancy and notice to vacate.

YOU MUST PEACEABLY VACATE THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE ALL PERSONAL POSSESSIONS FROM 113 Lincoln Street ON OR BEFORE November 1, 2024. In the meantime, you must continue to honor the terms of your lease agreement covering the Property including, but not limited to, making timely rent payments.

On behalf of the City, RSG is the professional relocation consultant administering relocation assistance and benefits to you as a nonresidential business tenant. The City and RSG understand that you entered into a lease agreement for a comparable replacement location at 716 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz on November 21, 2023. We are available to assist you in selecting a moving company, processing relocation claims, and other tasks you may be eligible to receive to facilitate the move-out and relocation of the Business from the Property to the selected comparable replacement location. We will be in contact with you to follow up and see how we can assist.

Exhibit C

13.50 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alex Lawrence at 714-316-2104 or [email protected]. You may also contact Brian Borguno at the City of Santa Cruz at (831) 420-5316.

Sincerely,

RSG, INC
Alex Lawrence
Relocation Coordinator
170 Eucalyptus Ave, Suite 200
Vista, CA 92084
714-316-2104
_________________________
Received By
X________________________
Recipient’s Signature
_________________________
Date

13.51 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -1- March 2023
City of Santa Cruz

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

FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. BACKGROUND

1. Application No: CP22-00128

2. Project Title: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP)

3. Lead Agency Name and Address:

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

4. Contact Person and Contact Information:

Timothy Maier, Senior Planner
(831) 420-5129; [email protected]

5. Project Location: 113 and 119 Lincoln Street (005-141-11, -21); see Figure 1.

6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:

Jim Rendler, For The Future Housing Inc., 945 W Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95126; Dixie Baus, Eden Housing, 22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541 Owner: City of Santa Cruz

7. General Plan Designation: Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC)

8. Zoning: Central Business District (CBD), Cedar Street Village Corridor subdistrict

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

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.31? Yes
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Project Uses. The project consists of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, Sign Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to demolish one existing commercial building and surface parking lot and construct the DLAHP, consisting of a new public library, affordable housing units, a parking garage, ground-floor commercial tenant space, and a commercial childcare facility, with associated site improvements.

13.52 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -2- March 2023
An application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove nine heritage trees in conjunction with the proposed project, was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation and was approved by the City’s Urban Forester on October 18, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and denied an appeal to the approval on December 10, 2022.

Subsequently, the City Council on January 10, 2023, per applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, “called up” the heritage tree permits so as to assure that all heritage tree issues would be considered by the City Council at the same time the Council considers the other applications for the permits required by the DLAHP.

The proposed project uses would be integrated within a new 273,194-square-foot building, which would range in height from three to eight stories at 50 to 84 feet tall, respectively. The proposed lot-line adjustment would merge the two existing site parcels into one lot. The project also includes a density bonus request as permitted pursuant to state and local regulations with requested waivers and concessions to some development standards as explained in Section II.C. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2, and the proposed uses are further described below. Figures 3A and 3B show the proposed project building elevations. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed building heights. • Public Library. The proposed facility is an approximately 38,000-square-foot public library that would replace the existing downtown library located on Church Street across the street from City Hall. The library would be three stories, featuring two floors with elevated ceilings. The main library entrance is proposed at the mid-block point on Cedar Street, and includes a roof deck at the southwest corner of Cedar and Cathcart Streets. • Affordable Housing. The proposed 100-percent-affordable-housing component includes 124 units located on five stories above the proposed parking garage. The proposed units include 13 studio units of about 450 square feet each, 48 one-bedroom units of approximately 500 square feet each, 31 two-bedroom units of approximately 730 to 840 square feet each, 31 three-bedroom units of approximately 900 to 950 square feet each, and 1 two-bedroom manager’s unit. The units are proposed as affordable to extremely low, very-low, and low income households.
• Parking Garage. The eastern side of the project site would contain a 243-stall, three-story, above-grade public parking garage with minimal frontage on the street façades on Cathcart and Lincoln Streets. The parking garage would be a Public City Parking Facility with 24-hour access. The City has also considered one level of subterranean parking that would increase the on-site parking by approximately 90 spaces to 336 spaces, and the proposed site plan may be revised to include this option at a later date if directed by the City Council. It is noted that all project technical studies have considered inclusion of one subterranean level of parking, as does this review. The public parking component of the proposed project is intended to replace the existing public parking on the project site and to offset deficits in available downtown parking capacity resulting from approved and anticipated future development projects.
• Childcare Facility. A one-story, approximately 1,500-square-foot daycare facility is proposed immediately adjacent to the proposed library. The daycare facility would have

13.53 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -3- March 2023
a capacity for a minimum of 16 children. An outdoor play area would be located adjacent to the facility and would be used by children at the facility as well as on-site residents. • Commercial Space. Approximately 11,950 square feet of commercial use is programmed for three stories at the southwest corner below the library roof deck. With demolition of the existing on-site commercial building, the project would result in a net increase of approximately 6,550 square feet of commercial space.

The project includes a density bonus request pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 – 65918, which was enacted in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units in the state by offering a combination of benefits to developers. The amount of the density bonus is based on the number of affordable units at each income level that are included in a project. To determine whether a project qualifies for a density bonus, the percentage of affordable units is based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). The City determined that the base density for the project site is 46 units per acre, which would allow for 72 residential units on the 1.55-acre project site.

Because all of the proposed housing units would be affordable to lower income households, with a base density of 72 units, an 80-percent density bonus over the base density, or up to 130 units, are permitted. (Gov. Code, § 65915(f)(3)(D)(i).) With a base density of 72 units, 14 units (20 percent) of the residential units would be required to be provided as affordable housing units at the low or very-low income level to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. However, the project proposes 124 affordable units, of which 19 units (or 26 percent of the base density) would be for extremely low-income households, 59 units (or 82 percent of the base density) would be for very-low-income households, 45 (or 62 percent of the base density) would be for low-income households, and 1 unit would be the manager’s unit. Additionally, according to Government Code section 65915(f)(3)(D)(ii), there are no maximum controls on density for projects where all units are affordable to lower income households and that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

One waiver and one incentive/concession have been requested related to building height and the above-ground parking garage that would be required with the requested density bonus.

A waiver and incentive/concession are being requested for building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan resulting from placement of the proposed housing component atop the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The project is requesting an exception from the Downtown Plan’s maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Downtown Plan. The exceedance of the 50-foot height limit is requested as both a waiver and an incentive/concession as explained below.

The Downtown Plan establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet above the allowed 35- foot limit in the Cedar Street Village Corridor on the east side of Cedar Street, and allows for an increase of up to 75 feet in the eastern portion of the site that is designated as “Additional Height Zone A,” subject to approval of a Design Permit by the City Council. As proposed, the residential component of the project has been sited partially within Additional Height Zone A. An incentive/concession is being requested for exceedance of the 50-foot height limit that

13.54 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -4- March 2023
would result from placement of the parking facility at surface level, which is proposed due to the high costs of construction of underground parking. Placement of the parking structure at surface level would cause the height of the building to exceed 50 feet.

The waiver is requested as an additional increase in height beyond 50 feet due to inclusion of the density bonus units; the height would further increase above that resulting from the additional height induced by placement of the parking garage at grade. The residential component is partially placed within the Downtown Plan’s Additional Height Zone A, which allows for a request for height of up to 75 feet with approval by the City Council; however, about half of the residential component would encroach into the area outside of Additional Height Zone A, in which the maximum allowable height per the Downtown Plan is 50 feet.

The waiver is being requested to allow building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan as a result of placement of the proposed housing component above the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The residential component of the site, which covers approximately the eastern half of the project site, would reach 84 feet in height and 91 feet at the building edges including parapets. Compliance with the maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Downtown Plan would require a reduction in the number of stories of the building, and consequently, would: 1) diminish parking capacity necessary to support existing and future downtown development, and 2) eliminate a significant number of housing units, which would physically preclude construction of the number of residential units allowed under state density bonus law. Due to the elevated costs associated with subterranean construction, an incentive/concession has been requested for placement of the parking structure above grade. Reasonable financial documentation has been prepared to justify the request. As proposed, the parking structure’s height of approximately 33 feet is less than the 35-foot height as identified in the Downtown Plan, demonstrates consistency with the Downtown Plan.

Access and Parking. Primary vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided along the southeastern portion of the site, from Cathcart Street, via a new one-way alley and parking garage entrance. The new alley would allow one-way access only in the northerly direction on the eastern edge of the project site, from Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street. The parking garage access is off of Cathcart Street, immediately west of the alley, and would allow both ingress and egress. Both access points would be improved with a new driveway approach.

As indicated above, a total of 243 parking spaces are proposed within the public parking garage. The project would also include 258 bicycle parking spaces located throughout the project site, of 140 are proposed Class I spaces that consist of individually enclosed, locked spaces. Class II bike spaces (i.e., bike racks) would be located along the sidewalk building entries and within the public parking garage along the pedestrian entry corridor. In addition, there would be separate, secured bike parking locations inside the parking garage for residential tenants and staff as well as library, daycare, and commercial employees.

The project includes frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street per City standards, including curbs, gutters, and expanded sidewalks. The proposed

13.55 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -5- March 2023
sidewalks would be built 10 to 12 feet wide. The project also includes four loading/unloading parking spaces along Cedar Street and five on-street parking spaces along Lincoln Street. A bus stop would be provided on Cedar Street just north of the Cathcart Street.

Utilities and Stormwater Management. The project would connect to existing City water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain infrastructure and would be served by other City public services and private utilities for electricity and natural gas. The project would connect to existing sanitary sewer main within Cathcart Street and Cedar Street and to an existing water main in Cathcart Street. Stormwater would be treated on site through a biofiltration area and planters prior to conveyance into existing storm drains on Lincoln, Cedar, and Cathcart Streets.

Landscaping. The project would involve the removal of nine heritage trees, as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project proposes to plant an 14 new 24-inch-box-sized, canopy street trees along the perimeter of the site. On the ground-level, the landscape plan includes new street plantings and raised steel planters which would support various landscape plants and ground cover. The project would be landscaped on the podium level (4th floor), with a garden area, gathering space, raise steel planters, and green roof above the library; these areas would be landscaped with various plants and groundcover. The project would be subject to provisions of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Construction Schedule. The project involves demolition of a single-story commercial building (totaling approximately 5,400 square feet), asphalt pavement throughout the site, and frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street. Construction is expected to occur over approximately 2.5 years, commencing in the year 2024.

Reuse of the Existing Library. The proposed project would replace the existing library on Church Street, which is located on an approximate 59,000-square-foot site that includes public parking lots in addition to the existing downtown library. In 2020, the city initiated a reuse visioning process for the existing library that included an extensive public and stakeholder engagement process. Several potential public uses and components were considered and discussed for the existing library site, including parks, plazas, the farmers market, parking, and mixed-use and affordable housing. With input from approximately 550 participants, a “Mixed-Use Housing with Civic Plaza” option received the highest score, followed by a “Plaza + Park” with housing as the second choice. A “Library Structure Repurposed with Parking” option, which proposed to adaptively re-use the library structure for community or commercial uses, received the lowest score, and ranked lowest amongst the options (SOURCE V.3h
1 ).

At this time, there is no City Council-approved direction for the existing library if the proposed project is approved and constructed. While mixed-use housing with a public plaza received the highest ranking in the public visioning process, no option was selected as a preferred 1 All cited sources/references are identified in Section V at the end of this document.

13.56 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -6- March 2023
option, and other uses, such as community, institutional, or commercial uses, could be also be proposed as a part of a future project. Therefore, future uses at the existing library are speculative and cannot be reviewed at this time. When specific plans are developed and proposed for the existing library, separate environmental review and permit approvals would be required.

Relocation of the Farmers Market. The existing parking lot at the project site is the location of a weekly farmers Market sponsored by the Santa Cruz Community Farmers Markets (SCCFM). The City has been in ongoing discussions with SCCFM since late summer of 2017, working to establish a new permanent location for the Downtown Farmers Market with an improved site, enhanced community space, and opportunity for year-round operations and expansion with special events. One site has been identified that is located one block away from the existing site at City Parking Lot 7 at the corner of Cathcart and Front Streets (City of Santa Cruz 2023).

In October 2022, the City and SCCFM jointly agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to further define the next steps involved in establishing ongoing temporary and permanent operations of the SCCFM Downtown Farmers Market in downtown Santa Cruz. In a joint statement, both parties acknowledged temporary market locations, developing plans for a market on Lot 7, continuing to identify other locations and funding for a permanent market in downtown, and continued operation of the market at the existing downtown location for the foreseeable future until SCCFM determines that surrounding construction impacts necessitate a relocation to a suitable alternative downtown site identified by SCCFM and the City. Appropriate environmental review and permitting would be conducted at the time a preferred permanent location for the weekly Downtown Farmers Market is selected.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street in the City of Santa Cruz (City) on an 1.55- acre (67,921-square-foot) site. The project site is located on the eastern side of Cedar Street, immediately south of Lincoln Street and north of Cathcart Street. The site is bounded by Lincoln Street on the north, commercial development along Pacific Avenue on the east, Cathcart Street on the south, and Cedar Street on the west. The project site spans the full block between Lincoln and Cathcart Streets; see Figure 1.

The project site is located in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of Downtown Plan. The site is surrounded by primarily developed commercial uses and mixed-use developments within the City’s downtown area. An existing church is located to the west of the project site and Cedar Street.

Residential uses are located in mixed-used buildings to the east of the project site along Cathcart Street/Pacific Avenue, and several projects are currently under construction in the project vicinity, including a project to the west of the project site and Cedar Street, a project along Pacific Avenue south of Cathcart Street, and a project on Front Street to the east of the project site.

13.57 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -7- March 2023
The flat project site is paved and developed with a surface public parking lot that contains 134 parking spaces and one 5,400-square foot commercial building that is currently in use as a fitness gym. The parking lot is known as “Public Parking Lot 4.” The existing parking lot is the location of a weekly Farmers Market that is held year-round.

The project site contains 12 existing, non-native landscape trees throughout the subject property of varying condition. Of this total, nine trees are considered heritage trees pursuant to City regulations (SOURCE V.15c):
• 4 Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
• 2 Chinese Pistache (Pistachia chinensis)
• 2 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
• 1 Maidenhair (Ginkgo biloba)

13.58 Project Location
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022, County of Santa Cruz 2020, OpenStreetMap Date: 1/19/2023 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 200 400Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Los Gatos
Saratoga Campbell
Cupertino
Los
Altos Hills Santa
Clara
San Jose
Palo Alto
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Portola
Valley
Capitola
San Juan
Bautista
Sunnyvale

S A N T A C R U Z

C O U N T Y
S a n M a t e o
C o u n t y
S a n t a C l a r a
C o u n t y
M o n t e r e y
C o u n t y
101
1 152
1 82
85 84 130
17 236
9 680
280
Project Site

13.59 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]

DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.2

SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”
N
352326('1(:6758&785(
6$17$&58= /,%5$5<0,;('86(
5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,

5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,
%,.(6
&/$66,,

%,.(6
&/$66,,

/,%5$5<&200(5&,$/
'$<&$5(%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66 ,

&('$5675((7
&$7+&$57675((7
/,1&2/1675((7
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,

'$<&$5(
3/$<$5($
)/86+$&&(66

(
$'$

3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
6(59,&($5($
3$&,),&
$&&(66
/,1&2/1
6(59,&('225 3$&,),&
68,7( )$&&(66
3$&,),&
3$5.,1*$1'6(59,&(
$5($
5

(/(&
75$16)250(5
5(6,'(17,$/
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
),5(5,6(5
/,%5$5<(175$1&(
0$,1 /,%5$5<
(17(5$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
3('(675,$1
(175$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
9(+,&8/$5
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
&/5

RI

(;,67,1*675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6
725(0$,121
/,1&2/1
(;,67,1*

21675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6 72%(
5(029(' 72$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/. 1(:
:,'(6,'(:$/.:,7+

/2$',1*81/2$',1*3$5.,1*
63$&(6
1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17
3$&,),&&$7+&$57
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
(;,67,1*

21
675((73$5.,1*
63$&(672%(
5(029('21
&$7+&$5772
$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/.
&/5

723/

21(:$<$//(<
&
21(:$<$//(<
/5

1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17 /,1&2/1
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
%866723
3$5.,1**$5$*(
'$<&$5(
&200(5&,$/
/,%5$5<
0(&+$1,&$/

0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$

LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]

DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22

COMMERCIAL

LIBRARY

DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK

GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.1
1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N

6)
3$5.,1**$5$*(
6)
&200(5&,$/
6)
'$<&$5(

$

$
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
6833257
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
/2%%<
6)
3/$<
5(6
*$5%$*(
5$0383
0$,/
(/(&
75$16)250(5
/2%%<
(9 ),5(

/,%5$5<

6)
%,.(
6725$*(
%,.(
6725$*(

$

$
$

$
$

$

6725$*(

0(&+$1,&$/
(9 (9 (9
(9

0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$

LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$

29(5$//)/2253/$1 /(9(/
Project Site Plan
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 2 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD

13.60 LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"

ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"

ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis Ob
805.541.10
info@tenov
www.tenov
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]

DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 WE S T E LE VATIO N
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 S OUTH EL E V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”

K E YNO T E S

1. GLASS CURTAINWALL

2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH

RAINSCREEN SYSTEM

3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE
SIDING

4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH

5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY

6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLAC

FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AR

7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR ST

METAL TRIM

8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR
STUCCO

9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR A

WINDOWS

10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BAS

FORM TEXTURE

11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARA

12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE

13. GREEN ROOF

14. GLASS STOREFRONT

15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMIN
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
Project Elevations
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 3A
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022

13.61 LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"

ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01 0' - 0"
LEVEL 02 11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE 84' - 0"
LEVEL 03 22' - 0"
LEVEL 04 33' - 0"
LEVEL 05 44' - 0"
LEVEL 06 54' - 0"
LEVEL 07 64' - 0"
LEVEL 08 74' - 0"
539 Marsh St
San Luis Obis
805.541.1010
info@tenove
www.tenove
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET SANTA CRUZ

CALIFORNIA
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"

ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"

ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis O
805.541.10
info@teno
www.teno
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]

DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 EAST E LE V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 NOR TH E LEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”

K E YNO T E S

1. GLASS CURTAINWALL

2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH W

RAINSCREEN SYSTEM

3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE &
SIDING

4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH FR

5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY R

6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLACK

FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AREA

7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR STU

METAL TRIM

8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR IN
STUCCO

9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR AT

WINDOWS

10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BASE

FORM TEXTURE

11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARAG

12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE

13. GREEN ROOF

14. GLASS STOREFRONT

15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINU
Project Elevations
530 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing ProjectStreet FIGURE 3B
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022

13.62 7,21
785(
785(
5(
(17$*(

785(
',80
72
$7<3(,$
67<3(,$
57<3(,,,$
%07<3(,$
(7<3(,$6
)5217$*(,1&
$//2:$%/()5
%8,/',1*$5($
0,;('2&&83$
(48$7,2
5(65
),567)/225
6(&21')/22
6(3$5$7('2&
7+,5')/225 67<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
$7<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
07<3(,$6
81/,0,7('
727$/
727$/
5(4
'5$7,2 3(5)/225 3(5(17,5(%8,/',1*
&2'(6(&7,21
,)$33/,&$%/(

&%&

7+(0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7,1)((7
6+$//127(;&(('7+(/,0,766(7)257+,1
6(&7,21)257+(%8,/',1*+$9,1*7+(
60$//(5$//2:$%/(+(,*+7$60($685('
)520*5$'(3/$1(
$6287/,1('+(5(7+(60$//(67
$//2:$%/(+(,*+7)257+(9$5,28686(6,6
7+(57<3(,,,$

7$.,1*+(,*+7
,1&5($6(
727$/%8,/',1*+(,*+7:,//%(

)520),1,6+)/225727232)522)
'(&.
6+$)767$,5:$<5$03$1'(6&$/$725
(1&/2685(67+528*+7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//+$9(127/(667+$1$
+5),5(5$7,1*:,7+23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
$//67$,572:(56$1'6+$)76*2,1*
7+528*+7+(32',80&216758&7,21:,//
%(2)$+55$7('(1&/2685(:,7+
23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
7+(%8,/',1*$%29(7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(*5283$
,)/(667+$1
2&&83$176
25*5283%05256
7+(352326('%8,/',1*$%29(7+(32',80
,672%(5:,7+,1&,'(17$/86(6
3(57$,1,1*727+(586(
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(3527(&7('
7+528*+287%<$1$33529('$8720$7,&
635,1./(56<67(0,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+
6(&7,21
$1'&$1%($1<
2&&83$1&<(;&(37+
7+((17,5(6758&785(:,//%()8//<
635,1./(5(':,7+$11)3$6<67(0$1'
7+(5(:,//%(127<3(+2&&83$1&<
352326('
32',80&2'(5(9,(:
6(&7,21

$%8,/',1*6+$//%(&216,'(5('$6
6(3$5$7($1'',67,1&7%8,/',1*6)257+(
385326(2)'(7(50,1,1*$5($/,0,7$7,216
&217,18,7<2)),5(:$//6/,0,7$7,212)
180%(52)6725,(6$1'7<3(2)
&216758&7,21:+(5(7+()2//2:,1*$5(
0(7

+25,=721$/+285$66(0%/<9(57,&$/
2))6(76$//2:('%870867$/62%(+5
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:
,1&/8',1*7+(
+25,=217$/$66(0%/<
,62)7<3(,$
&216758&7,21
5(/$7,2172352326('6758&785(
5(6,'(17,$/72:(5,6&216,'(5('$
6(3$5$7(%8,/',1*&203/<,1*:,7+$5($

:,7+)5217$*(,1&5($6(

+5&21&5(7(32',80352326('
%(7:((15(6,'(17,$/72:(5$1'352*5$0
%(1($7+
*$5$*($1'&200(5&,$/
$//352*5$0(;&(377+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
%($&216758&7,21
7+,5')/225

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+
5(6,'(17,$/5
$6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*
5(6,'(17,$/5
$6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*

+532
3$5.

5(

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
5(6,'(17,$/5
$6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21

3$5

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
SECTION 0
SECTION 0
+(,*+7 6725,(6 352326('
$7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
67<3(,$6 8/ 8/
57<3(,,,$6
)520*5$'(

:,7+287$5($
,1&5($6(

%07<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
(7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725<
726758&785(
)5217$*(,1&5($6(48$/,),(5
3(5,0(7(5
3 :,'7+
:

/(1*7+
)

3(5&(17$*(
!

2)23(163$&(38%/,&:$<

2)%8,/',1*2138%/,&:$<2523(163$&(:0,1,080
:,'7+
5(48,5(' $&78$/
48$/,),(6 <(6
$//2:$%/()5217$*(,1&5($6(
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
) 3(5,0(7(57+$7)521762138%/,&:$<
3 3(5,0(7(52)(17,5(%8,/',1*
: :,'7+2)38%/,&:$<2523(163$&(
,I
)3
:
,I

,I

%8,/',1*$5($&$/&8/$7,216)/225
$D $//2:$%/($5($
$W 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725
16 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725)2516%8,/',1*
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
6D
'()$&72180%(52)6725,(6

0,;('2&&83$1&<08/7,6725<
(48$7,21 $D >$W
16[,I
@
5(65,,,$ $D >
[

@ $D
)/225
$//2:$%/()/5 /$5*(67352326
'
$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*+(,*+76725,(6 $5($6
0,;('86(2&&83$1&,(6$//2:$%/(+(,*+7
6725,(6
726758&785(
6725,(6$%29(32',80
72
6758&785(

*
1'6+$)76*2,1*
0&216758&7,21:,//
(1&/2685(:,7+
'6758&785(
6&216,'(5('$
&203/<,1*:,7+$5($
5($6(

80352326('
/72:(5$1'352*5$0
'&200(5&,$/
77+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
1

+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(

),5(6(3

0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$
&+$5($
(172)
6(&7,21

3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
+532',80

),5(6(3

0,1

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%

+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(

),5(6(3

0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$5($
2)
6(&7,21

3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
+532',80

),5(6(3

0,1

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%

+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(

),5(6(3

0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%

3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(

7232)
+532',80

),5(6(3

0,1

7232)6758&785(

127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
SECTION 01
SECTION 02
Project Building Heights
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 4 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD

13.63 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -13- March 2023
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. Introduction and Background
In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program environmental impact report (EIR), or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(1)(C)). If an earlier analysis is used, the Initial Study checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

13.64 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -14- March 2023
Section 15183 provides more detailed guidance than can be found in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 itself. Section 15183, subdivision (b), states that if a project is consistent with an agency’s General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15183(b).)
Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (c), further provides that “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” “[D]evelopment policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located….

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

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

13.65 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -15- March 2023
As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, certain (or potentially all) aspects of a development project that are consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR was certified may be exempt from additional CEQA analyses (i.e., negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR) of issues that were adequately covered in the General Plan EIR. The project site is designated Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) in the City’s General Plan 2030 and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. According to the General Plan, this designation “applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.” For the Downtown Santa Cruz Area, the General Plan indicates that the Regional Visitor Commercial designation “emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues,” and that “the Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.” The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) land use designation in the downtown area of up to 5.0. The project’s proposed FAR is 4.08, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan.

While the General Plan 2030 EIR considered the impacts of repurposing, intensifying, and redeveloping existing developed parcels in the City as a whole, specific future development of the project site was not noted or specifically evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and there were no site-specific impacts identified for the project site. However, as part of the overall estimated buildout, the EIR considered construction of new housing units and nonresidential uses in the City with an estimated buildout of 3,350 new residential units and approximately 1,088,000 and 1,273,910 square feet of commercial and office uses, respectively, throughout the City by the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume-page 3-13). Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,392 residential units and approximately 436,950 and 41,315 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively, have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the DLAHP’s proposed 124 residential units and 46,050 square feet of non-residential uses would be within the remaining residential and non-residential buildout estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.

It is noted that there are some pending development projects in the City, including in the downtown area that have not been approved, but are expected to be presented to City decision-makers in the near future, and thus, are considered reasonably foreseeable. If approved, these pending projects would include 570 residential units and a net increase of approximately 134,500 square feet of non-residential uses. Even with these pending projects that could be approved in the near future, total residential units (3,086 units) and nonresidential development (approximately 687,915 square feet) with the proposed project and other approved and under construction projects would not exceed development estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan EIR.

The proposed project is located within the “Downtown” neighborhood area that was identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR for the purposes of evaluating potential growth. The

13.66 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -16- March 2023
General Plan 2030 EIR identified additional development in the downtown neighborhood to include 299 residential units, approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space, approximately 4,500 square feet of office space, and 82 hotel rooms. However, it is noted that the “Downtown” neighborhood in the General Plan 2030 EIR encompasses a larger area than is included within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan as further described below. In addition, the downtown area located along the San Lorenzo River east of Front Street is located in the “River/Front” neighborhood in the General Plan 2030 EIR, for which potential future development was estimated at 337 residential units and approximately 70,000 and 91,600 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively. Additional potential future development within the area covered in the Downtown Plan also was considered with amendments to the Downtown Plan that were approved in 2017 as discussed below.

Downtown Plan. The Santa Cruz City Council approved amendments to the Downtown Plan (formerly Downtown Recovery Plan [DRP]) in November 2017. The DRP was originally adopted in 1991 to guide reconstruction of the downtown after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that destroyed significant portions of the downtown area. The intent of the DRP was to establish policies, development standards and guidelines to direct the recovery process toward the rebuilding after the earthquake. The DRP was adopted as a specific plan (pursuant to California Government Code requirements) to implement policies in the downtown area. Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, is incorporated by reference in Part 24 of the Zoning Code in the CBD zone.

A series of amendments to the DRP were proposed in 2017, including a change in the plan’s name to “Downtown Plan.” A program EIR was prepared pursuant to section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which evaluated effects of the 2017 Plan amendments. The amendments included additional height allowances under specified circumstances and other revised development standards that could lead to potential increased development in the downtown area. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR evaluated impacts of this level of potential future development and addressed aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services, transportation and traffic, water and wastewater utilities, land use, and cumulative impacts.

While the proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, it is not located in one of the development areas evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, although a new library at the project site was considered in the cumulative impact analysis in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR.

Potential future development in the downtown area considered in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs was estimated at approximately 636 residential units and 42,750 square feet of non-residential uses. Additional potential future development within the area covered in the Downtown Plan also was considered with amendments to the Downtown Plan that were approved in 2017 to include a net increase of 711 residential units, approximately 2,200 square feet of office space, and a decrease in commercial space of approximately 14,700 square feet as evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR;

13.67 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -17- March 2023
further discussion of the Downtown Plan is provided below. Taken together, approximately 1,347 housing units and approximately 205,053 square feet of non-residential commercial and office space were considered in the analyses in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. As indicated above, potential development estimates in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs were only estimates developed for the purpose of completing environmental analyses, but were not caps or development limits.

Since adoption of the General Plan 2030, approximately 1,200 residential units have been constructed or approved in the “Downtown” and “River/Front” neighborhoods, which include the General Plan neighborhoods included within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, and there has been a net reduction of approximately 3,300 square feet of non-residential space.

With the proposed project, cumulative residential units in the downtown area would total 1,324 units, which is slightly below the total number of residential units considered for development (1,347 units) in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs.

Additionally, with the proposed project, non-residential development would have result in a net increase of approximately 46,050 square feet, which is approximately one-quarter of the amount of non-residential space (205,000 square feet) considered in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Thus, the proposed 124 residential units and 46,050 square feet of non-residential uses are within the amount of development considered in the Downtown Plan areas.

It is noted that there is one pending mixed-use development project in the downtown area that has not been approved, but is expected to be presented to City decision-makers in the near future, and if approved, would include 276 residential units and a net decrease in commercial square footage. With this pending project, total residential units would exceed estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan EIRs by 250 units, but would still be within the overall development and growth projections considered in the General Plan EIR. In addition, there is one pending non-residential development project that may be considered by City decision makers within the next six months. Although not a mixed-use project like the proposed DLAHP, it would result in addition of approximately 133,600 square feet of commercial space as a new hotel. However, when added to other approved and constructed non-residential space, including the DLAHP, non-residential square footage would be less than the amount considered in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR.

C. Environmental Checklist Review
The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIRs or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR and/or Downtown Plan Amendments EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project involves new

13.68 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -18- March 2023
significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR and/or Downtown Plan Amendments EIR or new significant impacts peculiar to the site or project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or project if uniformly applied development policies or standards would substantially mitigate an environmental effect. Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and/or General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that would be applied to the project.

The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan 2030 EIR are on file at the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California from 7:30 to 11:30 AM, Monday through Thursday. The documents are also available for review on the City of Santa Cruz Planning Department’s website at:
• General Plan 2030 and EIR at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-andcommunity-development/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan • Downtown Plan Amendments EIR at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessD irectory/101/2849
D. Conclusion
Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics (scenic views, scenic resources, visual character); agricultural and forest resources; air quality (conflicts with Air Quality Management Plan, project emissions, sensitive receptors, odors); biological resources (special status species, riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitat, conflicts with plans); cultural resources (historical resources); energy; greenhouse gas emissions (conflict with plans); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, airport safety, emergency response, wildfire hazards); hydrology-water quality (groundwater, flood risk, conflicts with plans); land use; mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program, policy, design, emergency access); utilities (infrastructure, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and wildfire.

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

13.69 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -19- March 2023
with CEQA Guidelines); tribal cultural resources; utilities (water supply); and cumulative impacts. Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

E. Checklist and Discussion

1. AESTHETICS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
DEIR pp. 4.1-9
to 4.1-10
FEIR pp. 4-41,
43 DEIR pp. 4.3-2
to 4.3-7, 4.3-13
to 4.3-15
FEIR pp. 3-2
No No None
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
DEIR p. 4.1-11
FEIR pp. 4-41
DEIR pp. 4.3-14
to 4.3-17 No No None
c) In non-urbanized areas, Substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
DEIR pp. 4.1-11
to 4.1-16
FEIR pp. 4-41-
43, 4-74, 4-89
DEIR pp. 4.3-7
to 4.3-8, 4.3-15
to 4.3-19
FEIR pp. 3-2
No No
Design Review &
Permit
Requirements
Municipal Code
section

24.08.400-430,
Downtown Plan
development
standards
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
DEIR pp. 4.1-16
to 4.1-17
DEIR pp. 4.3-19
to 4.3-20 No No
Municipal Code
section

24.14.266
Standard
Condition of
Approval to
prevent offsite
lighting
(a) Scenic Views. The project site is located in the developed downtown area of the City of Santa Cruz.

The visual character of downtown is defined by existing development along tree-lined streets. The General Plan indicates that prominent scenic views mostly are those that are oriented toward Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean or toward the Santa Cruz Mountains that frame the northern boundary of Santa Cruz (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR (SOURCE V.1b-DEIR Figure 4.3-1), the project site is not located within any mapped panoramic view areas and is not located within proximity to identified

13.70 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -20- March 2023
visual landmarks. The project is located in a developed, urban area, and no scenic views are available from the project site. Urban views, including those of the downtown project area, are identified along the San Lorenzo levee, (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), further east of the project site.

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

The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic view as none have been identified, mapped or observed that include the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Scenic Resources. There are no designated state scenic highways or roads within the City. The project site is not located near a state scenic highway2. The project site is developed with one commercial building and a paved, public parking lot. There are no structures or features on the project site that would be considered scenic resources. As described above in Section IV.E.1(a), the project site is not in proximity to and would not impact any “visual landmarks” identified in the General Plan EIR.

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

4.3.3). The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR determined that development allowed under the Downtown Plan amendments would not have an adverse effect on scenic resources as none are present in the downtown area.

The project would result in the removal of 12 existing trees that are on the project site; nine of the trees to be removed are considered heritage trees under City regulations. Although nine to be removed are of heritage size as defined by City regulations, and several trees are larger trees that are visible along Cedar Street and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the trees are not visible from a wide-ranging area, are not visually prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. Thus, the project would not have an impact on scenic resources. For these reasons, the 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Scenic Highways. Accessed January 17, 2023 at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.

13.71 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -21- March 2023
proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Effects on Visual Character. The project site is developed and surrounded primarily by developed commercial uses and mixed-use developments within the City’s downtown area. An existing church is located to the west of the project site and Cedar Street. Residential uses are located in mixed-used buildings to the east of the project site along Cathcart Street/Pacific Avenue, and several projects are currently under construction in the project vicinity, including a project to the west of the project site and Cedar Street, a project along Pacific Avenue south of Cathcart Street, and a project on Front Street to the east of the project site.

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

As set forth in the General Plan, the Downtown Plan provides the detailed development requirements for the Downtown area. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR analyzed potential aesthetics impacts related to allowing increased heights in the downtown area, although no site-specific development plans for any particular parcel were available or reviewed, and the project site was not included in one of the “additional height” areas evaluated in the EIR. However, the Downtown Plan does allow development with taller buildings and standards such as building recesses, required upper floor stepbacks, and recessed breaks to promote the appearance of multiple buildings of varying heights, and to avoid the development of monolithic building. As a result, the Downtown Plan concluded that building mass of taller buildings would be broken up and there would not be full site area coverage where additional heights may be allowed. The Downtown Plan also includes design guidelines and standards that address architectural features, including building facades and windows, as well as building materials, colors, and lighting. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR indicated that the continued landscaping with street trees, specifically along Pacific Avenue and Front Street, would further screen upper floors, soften views of building mass from distant views, and maintain pedestrian-level building scale, which would be applicable to other downtown areas as well.

The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that with implementation of requirements to limit the footprint of taller building area, provision of recesses, implementation of design treatments to minimize building mass, and compliance with the Downtown Plan development standards and design guidelines, potential intensified development resulting from potential additional allowed heights would not significantly alter the visual character of the downtown area.

This conclusion also is consistent with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099), which provides that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations.

13.72 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -22- March 2023
“Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned.

The project qualifies as mixed-use project on an infill site in a transit priority area (approximately 350 feet northwest of the Santa Cruz Metro Center on Pacific Avenue).

The proposed project is located in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of the Downtown Plan. East of Cedar Street, where development may be allowed to exceed 35 feet on a discretionary basis to a maximum height of 50 feet (4 floors maximum). The granting of additional height above 35 feet is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Planning Director to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. In addition, approximately 50 feet on the eastern edge of the project site is located within “Additional Height Zone A,” which allows building heights to 75 feet with specified development standards. The granting of building height above the 55-foot base height limit in Additional Height Zone A is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Director of Planning to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. Projects that qualify for a density bonus as allowed under either State law or Cityadopted density bonus ordinance are eligible for the additional height increase. It also is noted that the Downtown Plan indicates that projects that closely conform to the development standards, but with slight variations may be considered upon demonstration that the resulting project will better achieve stated Plan and community objectives. Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Director, with final approval by the City Council (section J.1).

The three-story elements of the proposed project (parking garage and commercial space) have a height of 33 feet, which is below the 35-foot height limit established in the Downtown Plan. The proposed library also is generally under 35 feet in height except for one element that extends to 47 feet in height, but does not exceed 50 feet in height which is allowed with discretionary approval.

The 5-story residential component of the proposed project reaches a height of 84 feet (and 91 feet with parapets), which exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed building heights.

The proposed project is eligible for requesting additional height to 75 feet for the eastern portion of the site located within “Additional Height Zone A” if the City makes findings that the project is consistent with the following overarching City objectives (Downtown Plan, pages 72-73):
i. The additional height will help to achieve the First Principles of the Downtown Plan (e.g. form, housing, accessibility and open space).
ii. The additional height will contribute to an improved social and economic environment by including new housing.
iii. The form of the development promotes the appearance of a grouping of buildings rather than large, monolithic building masses.

13.73 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -23- March 2023
iv. The development receiving additional height will physically and/or financially contribute its fair share (through an Improvement District, Development Agreement or similar mechanisms) to the implementation of internal pedestrian connections between Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
v. The additional height will help to meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key community objectives, including but not limited to: Affordable Housing, Day Care Center, exceed Green Building minimums, Incubator Space for Small Business, Public Access Easements, Public Right-of-way Improvements, Publicly Accessible Open Space, Structured or Shared Parking, and Transportation Demand Management concepts.

The proposed project would result in a building height of 84 feet, which is higher than other buildings in the immediate vicinity due to the requested waiver required for qualifying projects that include density bonus units. The height also exceeds the additional 75-foot heights that could be allowed on the eastern portion of the project site. However, the proposed project is similar in height and scale as three approved mixed-use projects in the downtown area that are also designated RVC in the General Plan 2030, and which have approved heights of 81 to 85 feet. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan permits additional height to 85 feet in the area to the east of the project site between Pacific Avenue and Front Street on the west and east, and Cathcart Street and Laurel Street on the north and south, respectively. The additional 85-foot height can also be allowed on the west side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Soquel Avenue. In addition, there are two other buildings in the downtown area that exceed 80 feet in height, the Palomar Hotel and 110 Cooper Street (City of Santa Cruz 2017). Therefore, there are other existing, approved, and under construction projects with similar or slightly greater heights than the proposed project, and existing City plans allow for height up to 85 feet under specified conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed building height for the residential portion of the building, which exceeds the allowable additional building height, would not in and of itself be considered an unusual feature of the project because other buildings of similar size exist, are under construction, or could be constructed under existing city plans and regulations on similarly sized, infill sites as the proposed project.

The proposed project’s building height for the residential portion of the project would visually appear as a taller building with one or two stories visible behind existing buildings on Pacific Avenue. Given other buildings approved and being constructed in the downtown area and elsewhere in the city, the additional height would not, when viewed in proximity of other larger buildings, be considered an unusual circumstance. Additionally, the taller portion of the building is primarily confined to the eastern edge of the site, with lower building heights that are consistent with City standards being located along the Cedar Street frontage. This is consistent with the Downtown Plan’s standards call for horizontal and vertical variation to create the appearance of multiple buildings that are more in keeping with the surrounding area. The Plan states that “Additional height – even up to 85 feet in the Additional Height Zone A – can be absorbed appropriately if it is confined to a portion of a property, rather than as a massive block, terraced back from the street.” As indicated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, there is no required presumption under CEQA that taller buildings are necessarily a substantial adverse change in the existing visual environment.

Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis at a lead agency’s discretion and in consideration of the relevant environmental setting or context, which here, is a nearly fully developed

13.74 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -24- March 2023
urban area. Future proposed buildings with additional height would not be considered to be substantially out of scale with other existing buildings in the downtown area (City of Santa Cruz 2017).

The City has found that the proposed project is consistent with the overarching objectives of the Downtown Plan, although the 5-story residential component exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”.

As described in Section II, Project Description, the proposed project will be reviewed through the Design Permit process. Per section 24.08.400 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the City’s Design Permit review is to “promote the public health, safety and general welfare through the review of architectural and site development proposals and through application of recognized principles of design, planning and aesthetics and qualities typifying the Santa Cruz community.” To receive Design Permit approval, the project would require findings from the City’s approving body. Design Permit review and approval would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards, which would reduce potential visual character impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The City of Santa Cruz is an “urbanized area” under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section 15387. Per the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Appendix G) question that was amended subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City need not specifically consider existing visual character or the quality of the existing views and the project’s potential effect on them. Nonetheless, this analysis has considered these issues and concludes that the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings, nor the quality of the views to or from the site as described above. In an urbanized area, a project that conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality could be considered to result in a significant impact. However, there are no regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the project site. There are some regulations regarding scenic views in the coastal zone, but the project is not located in the coastal zone.

The additional height allowed by an approved waiver pursuant to the density bonus law would not be considered to conflict with zoning standards. The court decision in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley expressly held that the waivers a city was required to grant for a density-bonus-eligible project did not result in planning and zoning inconsistencies that disqualified the project from the categorical exemption for in-fill development, because the mandatory nature of the waivers meant that those waived standards were inapplicable to the project. The Court found that “taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not “applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) were met.” Therefore, based on the City’s analyses and the Wollmer decision, the project with density bonus units and the requested height waiver is consistent with the zone district designation and all applicable zoning regulations.

Furthermore, as previously indicated, CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099) states that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an in-fill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations.

13.75 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -25- March 2023
The project site is considered an in-fill site and also is located within a transit priority area. City staff has reviewed the project and made the required findings for issuance of a Design Permit.

There are no other applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in aesthetic impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or area, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Light and Glare. The project would not result in introduction of a major new source of light or glare, although there would be introduction of windows and typical exterior building lighting. This type of lighting would be oriented so as to not create off-site light. Exterior building lighting would be further reviewed by City staff as part of the Design Permit review.

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

The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR indicated that exterior building lighting would be further reviewed as part of the Design Permit review for future site-specific developments, which would be conditioned to install lighting such that it is directed downward and would not create light onto adjacent properties. The Downtown Recovery Plan requires buildings to provide low-level lighting in the building façade. Therefore, the EIR concluded that the Plan amendments and future development would not result in a significant impact related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe light and glare impacts than evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and the General Plan 2030 EIR.

Details of lighting would be reviewed by City staff as part of the Design Permit. A standard condition of approval requires all exterior lighting required to be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties. An approved Design Permit, including findings pursuant to Municipal Code section 24.08.430 and inclusion of a standard condition of approval regarding shielding of exterior lighting would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards that would substantially reduce light and glare impacts.

There would be no light and glare impacts peculiar to the project or the site with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process. Thus, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.76 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -26- March 2023

2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES3
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
DEIR Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-6 to 4.15-8
No No None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
DEIR Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-6 to 4.15-8
No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
DEIR Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-6
No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
DEIR Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-6
No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DEIR Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-8
No No None
The project site is located within the developed urban area of the City of Santa Cruz. The project site does not contain prime farmland or other agricultural lands as mapped on the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.15-1). The site is not designated for 3 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

13.77 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -27- March 2023
agricultural uses in the City’s General Plan and is not located adjacent to agricultural lands. The project site is not zoned Timberland Preserve.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General Plan 2030 would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest or timber resource lands or conflict with agricultural or timberland zoning within the City or its Sphere of Influence. The General Plan EIR further concluded that potential future development accommodated by the General Plan could be sited adjacent to agricultural lands in two limited areas outside City limits, and that with implementation of the General Plan 2030 goals, policies and actions aimed at preventing conversion of agricultural lands and the maintenance and establishment of adequate buffers between adjacent land uses, there would be no conflicts between future development and agricultural uses. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR noted that no agricultural lands or timber resources are located in the downtown area. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to agriculture and forest resources would not occur or would be less than significant as a result of future development accommodated by the General Plan.

The project site is not located in the areas adjacent to agricultural lands or timber resources. The proposed project would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are not present on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts on agriculture and forest resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

3. AIR QUALITY4
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
DEIR pp. 4.2-17
to 4.2-18
DEIR pp.

4.11-11 to

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

4.11-1
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
DEIR pp. 4.2-19
to 4.2-21DEIR p.
5-8
DEIR pp. 4.11-6
to 4.11-7,

4.11-9 to

4.11-10, 4.11-18
to 4.11-34
FEIR pp. 3-24 to
3-26
No No
GP Policies &
Actions HZ 2.2,
HZ2.2.1,
HZ2.2.2, LU1.2,
LU1.2.1 that
require project
level reviews
4 Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

13.78 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -28- March 2023

3. AIR QUALITY4
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 25 to 26
DEIR pp. 4.11-7
to 4.11-8,

4.11-10 to

4.11-11,

4.11-18, 4.11-24
to 4.11-26
No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 26
DEIR pp.

4.11-26 to

4.11-27
No No
Municipal Code
section

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

The California Clean Air Act requires that AQMPs be updated every three years. The MBARD has updated the AQMP seven times. The most recent update, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), was adopted in 2017. The 2016 AQMP relies on a multilevel partnership of federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. The 2016 AQMP documents the MBARD’s progress toward attaining the state 8-hour ozone standard, which is more stringent than the state 1-hour ozone standard. The 2016 AQMP builds on information developed in past AQMPs and updates the 2012 AQMP. The primary elements from the 2012 AQMP that were updated in the 2016 revision include the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs (SOURCE V.10a).

For population-related projects, the MBARD developed a procedure that compares existing, underconstruction, and approved residential dwelling units with AMBAG’s housing unit forecast for a jurisdiction, as dwelling units are closely related to population and can be tracked within local jurisdictions; therefore, the number of dwelling units is used as the method for determining consistency with the AQMP. Consistency of indirect emissions associated with commercial, industrial, or institutional projects intended to meet the needs of the population as forecast in the AQMP is determined by comparing the estimated current population of the county in which the project is to be located with the applicable population forecast in the AQMP. If the estimated current population does not exceed the forecasts, indirect emissions associated with the project are deemed to be consistent with the AQMP. Projects which are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts have been accommodated in the AQMP and are therefore consistent with the AQMP (SOURCE 8a and 8b).

The MBARD’s most recent 2015 AQMP utilized AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast. The City had 24,250 existing dwelling units as of January 1, 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022), and

13.79 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -29- March 2023
approximately 1,711 residential units are under construction or have been approved throughout the City, including residential development at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC)5. With the addition of these units, the City’s housing units would total 25,961dwelling units. That number would increase to 26,085 dwelling units with the addition of the proposed project, which is below the AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast of 28,297 dwelling units for the year 2030 that were factored into the AQMP. Similarly, City population with the proposed project and other approved and underconstruction housing units would total 70,607, which is below the AQMP forecast of 73,375 in the year 2030, and thus, the non-residential components of the proposed project, which are intended to serve the local population, would be consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could result in development of dwelling units that exceed regional projections, which could result in conflicts with the AQMP according to the MBARD’s methodology for determining consistency. The General Plan EIR includes a mitigation measure (Mitigation 4.11-1) that directs City staff to work with AMBAG staff in future updates of population and housing forecasts and indicates that the potential population growth and housing unit increase exceedance would not occur for at least 10+ years, if it occurs at all. Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan, AMBAG updated and adopted regional population and housing forecasts in June 2014, June 2018 and June 2022. At this time, the City’s residential population and existing and approved housing units, including those under construction, do not exceed adopted regional housing forecasts upon which the existing AQMP as explained above.

Thus, there would be no impact related to conflicts with the current adopted AQMP. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also determined that growth that could be accommodated by the Downtown Plan amendments would be within the AMBAG forecast at the time and, thus, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP (based on the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast).

Given the foregoing, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with the AQMP that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards that are the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulates (PM10), fine particulates (PM2.5), and lead. High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which react under certain meteorological conditions to form O3. In 5 Residential projects at UCSC are primarily student housing projects, and there is one approved employee housing project.

In general, part-year student housing is considered group quarters and year-round faculty / student family housing is counted as housing units (SOURCE V.4a). For the 2014 forecast used in the AQMP, University population and housing projections were completed separately from jurisdiction population projections (SOURCE V.4c). For the purpose of this review and in accordance with current AMBAG guidance, approved employee housing is considered as housing units, and student housing is considered group quarters and is not included as housing units, but the population accommodated by new student housing is included in the population estimates.

13.80 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -30- March 2023
California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards, as further discussed below.

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

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

The MBARD 2012-2015 AQMP, adopted March 15, 2017, identifies a continued trend of declining O3 emissions in the NCCAB primarily related to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), showing that the region is continuing to make progress toward meeting the state O3 standard during the three-year period reviewed (SOURCE V.10a).

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could result in air pollutant emissions, but overall future emissions of ozone precursor pollutants are projected to decrease or remain nearly unchanged over the next 20 years, and thus, project-level emissions would not contribute to existing or potential future violations of air quality standards related to O3. The General Plan EIR further concluded that, while PM10 emissions would increase, compliance with MBUAPCD significance criteria at a project level would ensure that emissions would not exceed daily standards. It was also found that vehicular emission rates are anticipated to lessen in future years due to continuing improvements in automobile and fuel efficiency and new regulations and programs adopted by the state of California that are scheduled to be phased in over the life of the proposed General Plan, and such reductions are factored into the air quality models used to estimate emissions.

Furthermore, the General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on air quality, including environmental review to address project-level emissions, requiring project-level mitigation measures, and reduction of vehicle trips and emissions. General Plan policies and actions LU1.2, LU1.2.1 and HZ2.2.1 (as modified by the General Plan EIR) are intended to ensure that new development does not result in creation of air pollution and implements measures set forth by the MBARD as part of future project-level review.

Specifically, Action HZ2.2.1 requires future development projects to implement applicable MBARD control measures and/ or air quality mitigations in the design of new projects as set forth in the District’s “CEQA Guidelines.” General Plan Action HZ2.2.2 permits major indirect sources of air pollution only if transportation measures are provided to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with applicable MBARD-recommended mitigation and control measures as set forth in the District’s CEQA Guidelines. The policies and actions require future project-level review and implementation of mitigation measures, if warranted, consistent with the adopted standards in the MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, compliance with MBARD requirements and air quality control measures, and adherence to MBARD permit requirements, contributions to air pollutant emissions and air quality impacts would be less than significant.

13.81 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -31- March 2023
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Downtown Plan amendments would result in construction-related emissions of air pollutants, but that the impact would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and MBARD-recommended measures to control construction emissions, as applicable. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR determined that operational emissions would not exceed emissions thresholds.

The proposed project would result in construction of a mixed-use development, consisting of a new public library, 124 affordable housing units, a net increase of approximately 6,550 square feet of commercial space, a childcare facility, and public parking. The project would indirectly generate air pollutant emissions through new regional vehicle trips. Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM10 emissions as a result of site excavation and grading. According to MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.10b), construction activity on 8.1 acres per day with minimal earthmoving or 2.2 acres per day with grading and excavation are assumed to be below the MBARD’s PM10 significance threshold of 82 pounds per day. The area of proposed development is approximately 1.55 acres in size, which is below the screening-level threshold.

However, project air emissions were modeled for operational and construction emissions to comply with MBARD CEQA Guidelines and also included modeling for operational emissions, using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and as shown, neither project construction nor operational emissions would exceed MBARD thresholds for criteria pollutant air emissions.

Table 1. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
2024 1.38 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84
2025 4.52 7.68 10.26 0.03 1.96 0.67
2026 4.52 9.23 10.96 0.02 0.68 0.52
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.52 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84
MBARD Threshold N/A N/A N/A N/A 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.

Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).

CalEEMod model results are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.

13.82 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -32- March 2023
Table 2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Project
Area 3.92 0.12 10.24 <0.01 0.06 0.06
Energy 0.06 0.3 0.34 <0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile 7.22 6.90 59.08 0.09 10.32 2.80
Total 11.20 7.56 69.66 0.10 10.42 2.90
Existing
Area 0.15 <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 1.22 1.34 9.88 0.01 1.25 0.35
Total 1.37 1.37 9.91 0.01 1.29 0.36
Net Change in Emissions
Net Change (Project – Existing) 9.83 6.19 59.74 0.09 9.13 2.54 MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.

Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).

CalEEMod model results are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.

Therefore, the project-level review required by the General Plan 2030, and as considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, finds that potential emissions would not exceed MBARD’s adopted CEQA significance thresholds, and the project would not violate current air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. General Plan Action HZ2.2.1 establishes a procedure for project-level reviews and requires site-specific mitigation measures if significant impacts are identified. These measures include applicable MBARD control measure and/ or air quality mitigation. The proposed project has complied with this requirement; no significant impacts were identified, and project emissions would be within the lessthan-significant impact evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

13.83 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -33- March 2023
of the AQMP, which takes into account cumulative development within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant increase. (c) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; and healthcare facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor includes long term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing (SOURCE V.10b). There are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site, however, a residential project is under construction across the street from the site, west of Cedar Street. The proposed residential project would not introduce a new source of stationary emissions, and thus, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Diesel Particulate Emissions. Diesel particulate matter was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the State of California in 1998. The General Plan 2030 EIR discusses construction-related impacts in which diesel particulate matter could be emitted from construction equipment. The impact was found to be less than significant due to the California Air Resources Board’s ongoing adoption of regulations for in-use, off-road diesel vehicles that will significantly reduce particulate matter emissions by requiring fleet owners to accelerate turnover to cleaner engines and install exhaust retrofits. The EIR also noted that the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2486(c)(1) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location, thereby further limiting particulate matter emissions. Additionally, emissions during construction are of a short-term duration in comparison to life-long exposure and health risks. Construction-related diesel emissions at the project site would be of limited duration (i.e., primarily during grading) and temporary. Thus, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks are considered a less-than-significant impact as evaluated and concluded in the General Plan EIR. Since the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site have been identified, no further environmental analysis regarding diesel particulate emissions is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Odors. According to the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.10b), land uses associated with odor complaints typically include landfills, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, and refineries. The General Plan EIR indicates that the General Plan 2030 does not specifically identify, designate or support any new stationary sources that would be considered likely significant odor-generating facilities and that the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 24.14.264 prohibits emission of odorous gases or matter in quantities readily detectable. Additionally, future proposed development will be subject to project-level environmental review (LU1.2, LU1.2.1) and mitigation (HZ2.2.1), if required, which would result in avoidance of potentially significant impacts related to odor. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would not be expected to result in generation of significant odors with implementation of proposed General Plan policies and with compliance with City regulations that prohibit odor emissions.

13.84 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -34- March 2023
The proposed residential project does not include any uses associated with odors and would not result in impacts related to odors. Since the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site have been identified, no further environmental analysis regarding diesel particulate emissions is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? DEIR pp. 4.3-17
to 4.3-18
DEIR pp. 4.8-13
to 4.8-14,

4.8-16 to

4.8-21, 4.8-41,

4.8-43 to

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

24.14.080
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
DEIR pp. 4.3-18
to 4.3-22
FEIR p. 2-4 to
2-5, 3-2
DEIR pp. 4.8-14
to 4.8-15,

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

4.8-22, 4.8-38
to 4.8-41,

4.8-48 to 4.8-51
FEIR p. 3-22
No No
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
DEIR p. 4.3-17
DEIR pp. 4.8-15,

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

4.8-48 to 4.8-51
No No
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat

13.85 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -35- March 2023

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? DEIR pp. 4.3-17,

4.3-22
DEIR pp. 4.8-22
to 4.8-25,

4.8-41, 4.8-44
to 4.8-45
No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
pre-construction
nesting bird
surveys
Condition of
Approval for
Pre-construction
bird nesting
surveys
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
DEIR p. 4.3-17 DEIR pp. 4.8-41,

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

6.1.2 Municipal Code
Chapter 9-6
Heritage Tree
Removal Permit,
required
replacement
trees, and
payment of inlieu fees
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
DEIR pp. 4.3-17
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12,

4.8-25 to

4.8-26, 4.8-37
FEIR p. 3-23
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
(a-c) Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitat. The project site is developed with a public parking lot and one commercial building with 12 existing non-native, landscape trees. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within or adjacent to a sensitive habitat area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.8-3), and there are no known endangered or threatened species on or adjacent to the site due to the site’s location within a developed urban area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). A data base search was conducted to further determine whether any rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to occur on or adjacent to the site or have the potential to occur on the site. The review included the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the

13.86 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -36- March 2023
federal Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) data base, and the California Native Plant Society’s Rare Plant Inventory. The review did not identify any special-status species occurring on or near the site, and concluded that there is no potential habitat to support special-status species on the project site (SOURCE V.16b). Therefore, the project site does not contain sensitive habitat or habitat for special-status species, and the project would result in no impact to sensitive habitat or special status species.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the plan would result in construction that could result in impacts to special status species and sensitive habitats. However, with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as future environmental review of specific development projects and compliance with local regulations and plans, indirect impacts on sensitive habitats resulting from development accommodated by the General Plan would be considered less than significant. The General Plan 2030 requires environmental impact analyses for development in the vicinity of sensitive habitats (General Plan NCR2.1.3, NCR2.4 and NCR2.4.1), but the project site is not located in the vicinity of sensitive habitats as explained above. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also concluded that future development would not result in indirect impacts to adjacent San Lorenzo River riparian or aquatic sensitive habitat with compliance with setbacks established in existing City plans, including the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, which references the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan as the guiding management plan for the area. The project site is not located adjacent to or near the San Lorenzo River.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to special-status species or sensitive habitat or impacts peculiar to the project or the site. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Wildlife Movement/Breeding. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the proposed General Plan 2030 goals, policies and actions, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, potential impacts related to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant.

The primary wildlife movement corridors are located along major watercourses and within Cityowned open space lands, which would be protected from future development impacts. Table 1, Assessment and Management Protocols for Sensitive Species and Habitat, that is included the General Plan 2030, prescribes protocols and recommended management measures in wildlife dispersal corridors, including buffers and compliance with the Citywide Creeks and Wetland Management Plan. Projects adjacent to watercourses would be subject to setback requirements set forth in the Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan. The project site is developed and located within a developed urban area. The site does not contain habitat, nor does it connect to other habitat areas and is not within or adjacent to a creek, riparian area, or wildlife dispersal area. The proposed project is not located adjacent to or within proximity to a watercourse. Thus, the project would have no effect on wildlife movement and would not interfere with native fish or wildlife movement. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site, and no further review regarding wildlife movement is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.87 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -37- March 2023
The project involves the removal of 12 trees. The trees on the project site could provide potential nesting habitat for migratory birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Tree removal during the breeding season (generally February 15 to August 31) has the potential to destroy bird nests, eggs or chicks if any are present during the removal. Compliance with the MBTA would require that either a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted to confirm that no nesting birds protected under the MBTA are present if trees or removed during the nesting season or to remove trees outside of the nesting season. Compliance with required regulations would not result in a significant impact. Furthermore, General Plan Action NCR2.4.1 and Table 1 establish biological survey protocols, including pre-construction nesting bird surveys with establishment of appropriate construction buffers if needed, if tree removal and/or construction were to commence during the nesting season. A project condition of approval requires implementation of a pre-construction nesting survey.

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts of future development that could directly or indirectly interfere with wildlife breeding/nesting would be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions for resource protection, which include a requirement to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 that requires a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist if construction, including tree removal, adjacent to the San Lorenzo River is scheduled to begin during the nesting season. As indicated above, the project site is not located adjacent to or near the San Lorenzo River. Therefore, potential project impacts would be considered less than significant with application of the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR Mitigation Measure

4.3.3 requiring a pre-construction nesting survey, as well as General Plan policies that establish protocols for pre-construction nesting surveys and compliance with state and federal laws. There would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e) Conflicts with Local Policies and Ordinances. The project would result in the removal of 12 nonnative trees due to the proposed construction footprint, nine of which qualify as heritage trees as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. Therefore, the project would require a heritage tree removal permit. The project plans show 14 new canopy 24-inch-box-sized street trees would be planted along the perimeter of the site. The heritage trees to be removed include four magnolia, two Chinese pistache, two liquid amber, and one ginkgo trees. The arborist report indicated that the physiological condition of the trees is typical of mature trees in restricted growing spaces surrounded by hardscape and overall decline and other conditions were observed (SOURCE V.15a,c).

Approval of a heritage tree removal permit automatically requires replacement trees or payment of an in-lieu fee. Removal of a heritage tree that is consistent with the criteria, provisions, and requirements set forth in City regulations would not result in a conflict with a local ordinance. City regulations require tree replacement for removal of a heritage tree to consist of replanting three 15- gallon or one 24-inch size specimen for each heritage tree approved for removal.

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the removal of heritage trees; however, with implementation of General Plan goals, policies,

13.88 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -38- March 2023
and actions, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, impacts would be less than significant. Removal of heritage trees that is consistent with City regulations and requirements would not be considered a significant impact of the project or an impact peculiar to the project. Approval of a heritage tree removal permit automatically requires replacement trees or payment of in-lieu fees as set forth above.

The proposed project includes replanting of 14 24-inch-box-sized street trees in accordance to city requirements. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards set forth in the heritage tree regulations, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

It is noted that on October 12, 2022, an application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the proposed project, in accordance with the City’s Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs. The application requested removal of nine non-native, heritage trees as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 9.56. The Heritage Tree Removal Permit was approved by the City’s Urban Forester on October 18, 2022, making the required findings in accordance with Municipal Code section

9.56.060(e). On October 27, 2022, an appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted; an appeal requires consideration by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and denied the appeal on December 10, 2022. Subsequently, the City Council on January 10, 2023, per applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, “called up” the heritage tree permits so as to assure that all heritage tree issues would be considered by the City Council at the same time the Council considers the other applications for the permits required by the DLAHP.

A Heritage Tree Removal Permit constitutes a discretionary permit reviewed through a process in parallel with the application for other entitlements for any project. The Municipal Code, including Chapter 9.56, contains no requirement for approval of use permits prior to, or concurrent with, granting of entitlement for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. However, as the Heritage Tree Removal Permit application has been submitted in conjunction with the proposed DLAHP, the application for Heritage Tree Removal Permit may also be considered as part of the overall DLAHP. (f) Habitat Conservation Plans. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the project vicinity. The City’s recently approved Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (O&M HCP) is not applicable to the proposed project or project site as it was developed for improvements or projects related to City facilities with the potential to take federally listed species and other non-listed special-status species.

13.89 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -39- March 2023

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.4-13
to 4.4-14
DEIR pp. 4.9-12
to 4.9-14,

4.9-15, 4.9-21,

4.9-23 to 4.9-24
Yes Yes None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

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

24.12.430
Objective
Standard to
require
compliance with
archaeological
report
recommenddations
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

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

24.12.430
(a) Historical Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a designated historic district (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-4). The project site includes a commercial building that was constructed in 1941 that is considered a simplified Streamline Modern style (SOURCE V.18).

A historical resources evaluation was conducted for the existing commercial building at 113 Lincoln Street that was constructed in 1941 to determine whether either structure is a historical resource under the definitions in CEQA. The building has been altered considerably with a 1980 storefront remodeling campaign, removal of the original entrance, and a 1986 rear addition. Given the changes made to what was a modest original design, the evaluation found that the building no longer possesses sufficient historic integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship feeling and association for it to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The evaluation also concluded that the existing building on the project site is not eligible for the Santa Cruz Historic Resources Inventory because the building does not meet City preservation criteria and has been altered substantially (SOURCE V.18).

Therefore, the existing structure on the project site is not a historical resource under the definition of CEQA.

13.90 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -40- March 2023
The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would result in construction that may result in impacts to historic resources. However, the EIR found that compliance with local regulations regarding protection of historic resources, and implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would not directly affect historical resources as a result of demolition of the existing building at the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to historical resources not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b-c) Archaeological Resources. According to a map developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR and updated in 2018, the project site is located in an area identified as sensitive for archaeological resources (SOURCE V.1c). A Cultural Resources Report was prepared for the project, which included a files records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University and field survey (SOURCE V.12). The NWIC records search indicated that no archaeological studies have been conducted on the project site and no resources have been previously identified on the project site. Ten resources have been recorded within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site, and five archaeological studies have been conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Visual inspection of the project site did not reveal evidence of precolonial or historic-era artifacts or intact archaeological deposits. However, an archaeological investigation for the project concluded that potentially significant cultural materials may be located in the project area and recommended an extended site evaluation to locate subsurface resources, consisting of trenches to the depths of impacts in locations where historic maps indicate potential resources (SOURCE V.12).

An extended testing program was undertaken that consisted of trenches throughout the project site.

The testing found five historical-period features in the west central portion of the project site, and the results indicate that much of the site contains intermittent, shallow, and thin sheet deposit of scattered historical period artifacts associated with the mid- to late nineteenth and early to midtwentieth century. The location and characteristics suggest these are examples of parcel-level dumping events indicative of residential refuse disposal behavior prior to centralized refuse collection that began in the mid-twentieth century. The testing did not reveal evidence of the existence of any archaeological resources or deposits. No prehistoric archaeological materials of any kind were found during the testing (SOURCE V.16a).

Evaluation of the five features concluded that they do not rise to a level where they could be found eligible for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria and integrity requirements or under local criteria. Specifically, the features cannot be associated with a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage or with the lives of persons important in our past. As relatively casual dumping events, there are no distinctive characteristics present, and the features clearly do not represent the work of an important creative individual, nor do they possess high artistic values. As numerous other examples of such deposits exist with greater integrity and historic associations, the features are not likely to yield information important to history. Therefore, these resources are not considered historic resources under CEQA (SOURCE V.16a). The project site was tested, except for the area covered by the existing building. There

13.91 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -41- March 2023
is a moderate potential for encountering additional similar artifacts during construction. While it is not expected that additional deposits would meet the definition of a historical resource, archaeological monitoring during grading is recommended. However, any artifacts found would be expected to be similar to those already recovered, which would not be considered historical resources.

Section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in the event that previously unknown prehistoric or cultural features are discovered during construction. Under provisions of this Code section, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the find and the Planning Director shall be immediately notified to determine the appropriate course of action, including implementation of potential mitigation measures. Additionally, the County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99 in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains are determined to be Native American.

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

A cultural resources report and field survey were conducted consistent with the requirements of the General Plan 2030 policies and actions (HA1.2.2) as set forth in the General Plan EIR. The project archaeological investigation did not identify sensitive resources, although monitoring during demolition and grading were recommended. The project would not result in archaeological impacts peculiar to the site or project. In addition, implementation of standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (section 24.12.430) related to potential discovery of unidentified archaeological resources during construction would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Discovery of unidentified (e.g., buried) cultural resources during any construction, including human burials, would be subject to this requirement as a standard condition of approval.

Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to archaeological resources not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.92 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -42- March 2023

6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pp. 5-1 to
5-3
DEIR pp. 4.6-27
to 4.6-29, 4.6-
45 to 4.6-46, 5-
4 to 5-6
No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
DEIR pp. 5-2 to
5-3
DEIR pp. 4.6-46;
5-5
No No None
(a) Energy Use. Construction of the project would require consumption of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline) for automobiles and construction equipment, and other resources including, but not limited to, lumber, sand, gravel, asphalt, metals, and water. Construction would include energy used by construction equipment and other activities at the project site (e.g., building demolition, excavation, paving), in addition to the energy used to manufacture the equipment, materials, and supplies and transport them to the project site. It is expected that nonrenewable energy resources would be used efficiently during future construction of residential units accommodated by the project. Therefore, the amount and rate of consumption of such resources during construction and maintenance activities would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources.

The proposed project avoids or reduces inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy in part through siting. The project site is in proximity to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area, which would provide incentives for non-automobile transportation modes. The project provides 258 bicycle parking stalls, which exceeds City standards by about 61 spaces and also provides 15 electric vehicle parking spaces that would be available to residents and visitors. The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the California Building Code (CBC) and City Green Building Code requirements, as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. Additionally, Santa Cruz residents are enrolled in the Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), formerly Monterey Bay Community Power electricity service, which supplies electricity generated from hydropower, solar and wind, which are renewable resources.

The General Plan EIR reviewed energy use associated with development accommodated by the General Plan. The estimated energy demand was found to be within state per capita projections for the planning area, and the EIR concluded that overall, the future consumption of electrical and natural gas resources would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources given the implementation of policies that address lighting and energy conservation measures. The proposed project would result in an increase of 124 dwelling units, a 38,000-square-foot public

13.93 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -43- March 2023
library, a childcare facility, and approximately a net increase of 6,550 square feet of commercial space. This level of development would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described in Section IV.B.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to inefficient or wasteful use of energy that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR. No further.
b) Conflicts with Plans. The proposed project would not result in conflicts with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project transportation features, design elements, and compliance with building code requirements described above are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan provisions related to energy efficiency. Therefore, no further review is necessary.

4.10-20
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
DEIR pp. 4.10-6
to 4.10-14,

4.10-21 to

4.10-23
No No
General Plan
Action HZ6.3.1
Municipal Code
section

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including
Seismic Design
Criteria)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
DEIR pp.

4.10-12 to

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

24.14.070
regarding
geotechnical

13.94 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -44- March 2023

4.10-13 to

4.10-14, 4.10-22
to 4.10-24
No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 33
DEIR pp.

4.10-17 to

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

24.14.060 and
Chapter 18.45
regarding
grading and
erosion control
plans
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
DEIR pp. 4.10-5
to 4.10-6,

4.10-15 to

4.10-16, 4.10-24
to 4.10-25
No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property? DEIR Appendix
A p. 33
DEIR pp.

4.10-16 to

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

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including
requirements
for Geotechnical
Reports
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 33 Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not
Applicable Not Applicable
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR pp. 4.4-14
DEIR pp. 4.9-14
to 4.9-16,

4.9-21, 4.9-24
to 4.9-25
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-2;
standard
Condition of
Approval for
Accidental

13.95 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -45- March 2023

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Discovery of
Paleontological
Resources
(a-i) Fault Rupture. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, which has the potential to be subject to very intense shaking during a seismic event. The City of Santa Cruz is situated between two major active faults: the San Andreas, approximately 11 miles to the northeast, and the San Gregorio, approximately 10 miles to the west. Other known active faults in the vicinity of the site include the Zayante – Vergeles (approximately 8 miles northeast of the site), the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos (approximately 6 southwest of the site), and the Sargent (approximately 12 miles northeast of the site) (SOURCE V.14). However, there are no active fault zones or risk of fault rupture within the City (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). The General Plan EIR found that there are no active faults within the City of Santa Cruz, and thus, fault rupture is not a hazard that required further evaluation.

Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to fault rupture not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (a-ii – iv, c) Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The project could be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake on regional faults. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area susceptible to liquefaction (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-4).

A Geotechnical Investigation Report (geotechnical report) was performed for the project that included subsurface borings and representative soil samples at the project site (SOURCE V.14). The soils consisted generally of 1 to 5.5 feet of undocumented fill, which consist of loose silty sand and loose poorly graded sand with silt. Below the undocumented fill, native alluvial soils consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt to a depth of approximately 16 feet; additional alluvial soils with dense to very dense poorly graded sand were found to a depth of 60 feet.

The geotechnical report noted that groundwater was encountered between 9 to 11 feet below grade during the exploratory borings.

The geotechnical report concludes that there is a potential for liquefaction of soils, which could cause liquefaction-induced settlement to the order of 5 ⅔ to 6 ½ inches, resulting in differential settlement up to 4 ¼ inches. To address this concern, the report recommends specific design parameters for the proposed building’s foundation and ground improvement. The report also states that there is the potential for ground deformation and surficial cracking and lateral spreading. To address these concerns, the report recommends that the mixed-use building be supported on shallow foundation overlying ground improvement. Furthermore, the report recommends that the ground floor slab be

13.96 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -46- March 2023
either underlain by ground improvement as well, or be designed as structural slab capable of spanning between footings. Implementation of these recommendations would be verified through design documents that would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of construction (grading or building) permits. The geotechnical report includes recommended design measures to ensure the project would not cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to potential existing geologic hazards. These measures address the safety of project residents and users, and thus involve reducing the effects of existing environmental hazards on the project itself, which does not exacerbate those hazards. For this reason, the measures to not address an environmental impact cognizable under CEQA. (See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378.) The project site is relatively level and is not in an area susceptible to landslides (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-3). The project site is not located in an area of steep slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-5).

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

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

The General Plan EIR concluded that with adherence to existing regulations and standards, including preparation of a project-specific geotechnical report and adherence to the CBC, as incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code, and various policies and actions established in the General Plan, harm to people and structures from adverse seismic events would be minimized (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). As noted above, a project-specific geotechnical investigation was performed and design recommendations would be implemented and be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Demonstration of project design adherence to geotechnical report recommendations will be required at the time of building permit application that demonstrates that the proposed buildings are designed to current seismic design standards. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards for required geological and geotechnical investigations and implementation of recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.97 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -47- March 2023
(b) Erosion. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site consists of Baywood loamy sand, with 0 to 2 percent slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-6). As described in the General Plan EIR, erosion potential for this soil profile is not high (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The project would result in grading and excavation of approximately 1,100 cubic yards (cy) of soil that would be removed with approximately 150 cy of fill provided. See subsection 10(a) below regarding potential water quality impacts due to grading and earthwork. The project site itself is generally flat, with less than one percent slopes from north to south. Project earthwork would include grading, trenching, and removing trees and other vegetation. These activities would include ground disturbance, which would potentially result in short-term soil erosion. Because the proposed project footprint is greater than 1 acre, it would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges and would comply with those requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be prepared and implemented under these requirements, which includes appropriate erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site preparation, grading, construction, and postconstruction. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed project would minimize short-term erosion impacts. Long-term impacts of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion, as the soils would be covered by buildings, pavement, vegetation, and landscaping.

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

18.45 would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the project would not result in new significant erosion impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(d) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils contain large amounts of clays that expand when wetted and contract when dried. Soils at the project site consist of Baywood loamy sand, which has a low expansive soil potential. As discussed above, a project geotechnical investigation assesses soil conditions and provides design recommendations based on soil characteristics at the project site. The geotechnical investigation did not identify soils that would be considered expansive during the field exploration and concluded that the site is suitable for development with implementation of recommendations in the geotechnical report. Implementation of recommendations set forth in the project geotechnical report is required by the CBC and City regulations and policies, which would ensure that potential exposure to geotechnical hazards associated with potentially expansive soils would be mitigated.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could be exposed to expansive soils, which would be addressed through compliance with state and local regulations, including the CBC requirements and section 24.14.070 of the City’s Municipal Code

13.98 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -48- March 2023
(requirement for geotechnical investigations), which would ensure that buildings are designed to prevent structural damages based on the project-specific geotechnical report. The requirement to implement the recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, with implementation of the foregoing uniformly applied development standards and regulations that require preparation of geotechnical report and implementation of recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site related to expansive soils. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Use of Septic Systems. The project would be connected to City sanitary sewers and would not use septic systems.
(f) Paleontological Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is within an area mapped as Late Pleistocene alluvium formations (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-5). Late Pleistocene alluvium is one of the four geologic units in the General Plan area known to contain paleontological resources (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

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

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

13.99 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -49- March 2023

8. GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
DEIR pp. 4.2-21
to 4.2-22
DEIR pp.

4.12-13 to

4.12-17, 4.12-21
to 4.12-28
FEIR pp. 3-26 to
3-27
No No
Climate Action
Plan GHG
Reduction
Measures
Municipal Code
Chapter 6.100
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
DEIR pp. 4.2-17
to 4.2-18
DEIR pp.

4.12-18 to

4.12-20, 4.12-29
to 4.12-31
No No
Climate Action
Plan GHG
Reduction
Measures
(a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. Climate change models predict changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, water availability, and rising sea levels, and these altered conditions can have impacts on natural and human systems in California that can affect California’s public health, habitats, ocean and coastal resources, water supplies, agriculture, forestry, and energy use (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

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

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

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

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

13.100
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -50- March 2023
In enacting both AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain Executive Orders issued by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Safety Code section 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

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

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

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

The current 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) was approved by CARB on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path not just to carbon neutrality by 2045, but also to the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target. The 2022 Scoping Plan analyzed four scenarios, with the objective of informing the most viable path to remain on track to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target. The scenario modeling indicates that, if the plan described in the Proposed Scenario is fully implemented, and done so on schedule, the State would cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, result in a 71 percent reduction in smog-forming air pollution, reduce fossil fuel consumption by 94 percent, and create 4 million new jobs, among other benefits (SOURCE V.5a).

The 2022 Scoping Plan details “Local Actions” in Appendix D, which includes recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under

13.101
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -51- March 2023
CEQA. The recommendations provided in Appendix D are non-binding and should not be interpreted as a directive to local governments, but rather as evidence-based analytical tools to assist local governments with their role as essential partners in achieving California’s climate goals. Appendix D recognizes consistency with a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan such as a Climate Action Plan as a preferred option for evaluating potential GHG emission impacts under CEQA (SOURCE V.5b).

The City’s General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies, and actions on climate change, including reducing communitywide GHG emissions 30 percent by 2020, reducing 80 percent by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), and for all new buildings to be emissions neutral by 2030.

In September 2022, the City adopted the 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) that updates the previous 2020 CAP that was adopted in 2012 and outlines measures and actions that are intended to reduce GHG emissions, per capita, by approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, meeting the California Senate Bill 32 target for 2030 to reduce total GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels.

The CAP also seeks to achieve a carbon neutrality goal by the year 2035 prior to the State’s target carbon neutrality goal by 2045.

The CAP includes 31 measures with 152 associated individual actions, intended to reduce GHG emissions throughout the City. The measures include those related building energy use and reduction, transportation, public infrastructure, and other climate restoration and sustainable government measures. Through implementation of its measures and actions, the CAP aims to reduce building energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, solid waste generation, and increase carbon sequestration.

The General Plan EIR estimated greenhouse emissions that could result from potential development and buildout accommodated by the plan that included 3,350 residential dwelling units with an associated population increase of 8,040 residents and approximately 3,140,000 additional square feet of new commercial, office, and industrial uses by the year 2030 with an estimated 8,665 new employees. The General Plan EIR analysis determined that the GHG emission levels associated with potential buildout that would be accommodated by the General Plan would not be considered substantial compared to long-term forecasts and state and regional targets, and would be less than forecast statewide per-capita emission rates. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2030 policies and actions, including the CAP, as well as planned implementation of statewide actions, would further reduce emissions. Therefore, the impact was considered less than significant.

The proposed project would result in an increase of 124 dwelling units and other non-residential uses within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential and nonresidential development and of the type of infill development desired and evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described in Section IV.B. Because the project size is within the total amount of potential residential development and level of GHG emissions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, it is of the type of denser infill development desired under the City’s plans, and it includes several of the emissions reducing features recommended in the City’s CAP (as explained further below), no impacts peculiar to the site or substantially more severe impacts would occur.

13.102
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -52- March 2023
As indicated above, the City updated its CAP in 2030, providing new emissions inventories, GHG emissions reductions targets and specific measures to reduce emissions. While, the proposed project is within the remaining buildout evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the updated CAP identifies a per capita GHG emissions level of 4.22 MT CO2e (Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the standard units to measure GHG emissions) for the year of 2019, which is slightly higher than the amount forecast in the 2008 baseline year in the General Plan 2030 EIR (3.82 MT CO2e per capita per year). The CAP also identifies a target of 2.74 MT CO2e per capita per year in the year 2030, which is slightly lower than the per capita amount forecast in the General Plan EIR (3.82 MT CO2e per capita per year). The 2030 CAP specifies reduction measures that can achieve this goal and indicates that the per capita emissions target can be met with implementation of the measures included in the CAP (SOURCE V.3e).

Emissions modeling conducted for the project shows that the proposed project could result in GHG emissions of approximately 4.5 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is higher than the level forecast in the General Plan EIR and the recently adopted 2030 CAP. However, the CAP targets are not thresholds under CEQA, and the MBARD does not have adopted thresholds for GHG emissions, except for stationary sources. The project includes or can include a number of GHG emission reduction measures presented in the CAP, including the following, which are all considered “high impact actions” in the CAP:
• Prohibition of natural gas in new construction with provision all electric power and appliances (BE-1.1), which is part of the enforcement of the City’s natural gas prohibition ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.100)
• Install charging stations for 20 percent of the parking spaces in new multi-family housing and commercial projects (T4.2)
• Reduce off-street parking requirements for new housing developments close to frequent transit service (T3.4)
• Provide secure bike parking in new developments (T1.3) The proposed project includes features that would reduce GHG emissions, consistent with these measures including in the 2030 CAP, including provision of 15 parking spaces for electric vehicles, provision of 258 bicycle parking spaces, which is approximately 60 more spaces than required by City regulations with nearly half of these spaces being locked, Class I facilities, prohibition of natural gas with an all-electric facility, and overall reduced parking in the downtown area. Inclusion of these measures in the project would reduce the project’s incremental and per capita GHG emissions and would comply with an adopted CAP, and thus, the project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and climate change would not be cumulatively considerable or significant.

The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing a GHG emissions assessment, establish specific thresholds of significance, or mandate specific mitigation measures.

Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance that are consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project’s potential impact results through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all

13.103
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -53- March 2023
other sources of GHGs (CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4 and 15183.5). There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of the proposed project would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The MBARD does not have an adopted GHG emissions threshold, except it does have an adopted guideline for stationary source projects in which a project would not have not a significant GHG emissions impact if the project emits less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year or complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (SOURCE V.10c). As indicated above, while the City’s CAP has a per capita emissions target, it is not a threshold for the purpose of CEQA analyses.

However, the City’s adopted CAP provides a quantification of emissions reductions that would result over time throughout the City through implementation of the measures and actions included in the CAP. For the purposes of CEQA, the City’s 2030 CAP serves as a “Qualified Climate Action Plan” that the City can streamline the environmental review process of future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(2), a lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with an adopted emissions reduction plan in determining significance of a project’s GHG emissions. The proposed project does implement some of these measures as explained above, which would reduce the project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and climate change, and are consistent with the GHG emissions reduction measures included in the City’s CAP. The GHG emissions reduction measures included in the City’s adopted CAP are considered uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development policies and standards, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.
(b) Conflicts with Applicable Plans. The project would not conflict with state plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR found no impacts related to conflicts with applicable plans related to GHG emissions and reduction strategies.

As described above, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the 2030 CAP which addresses citywide greenhouse emissions and reduction strategies. The CAP incorporates a variety of measures and actions that focus on continued effort to reduce GHG emissions.

The CAP provides City emissions inventories, identifies emissions reduction target for the year 2030 and beyond, and includes measures and actions that are categorized into the following sections with corresponding measures and actions: building energy; transportation; water, waste, and wastewater; climate restoration; climate economy; and sustainable municipal government. These measures address and cover topics related to building energy consumption, solar programs, building electrification, active/public transportation programs, including: ridesharing, electric vehicles, remote work policy and infrastructure, water consumption, solid waste reduction, wastewater treatment, urban forestry, green jobs, and municipal facilities. Each measure has supporting actions, states the GHG reduction potential, lists which City department is responsible for implementation, and explains the advantages and benefits of the specific action. The CAP also includes an Implementation chapter that outlines funding, implementation accountability, and monitoring / reporting procedures for the measures and actions.

13.104
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -54- March 2023
The proposed project includes features that further reduce GHG emissions, consistent with measures included in the 2030 CAP as described above. Furthermore, the project represents a unique mixeduse development consisting of a public library, affordable housing, commercial retail, and daycare that would be located in an accessible location to the community. By establishing these uses in close proximity to each other, and downtown Santa Cruz, the project encourages active transportation and could reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled within the City. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with provisions of the CAP.

In addition, AMBAG, as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), is required by state law (2008 Senate Bill (SB) 375) to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)—an integrated transportation, land use, and housing plan that addresses ways to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045 is the MTP/SCS for the three-county Monterey Bay Area (SOURCE V.4b). The MTP/SCS identifies Opportunity Areas with the highest chance for successful sustainable growth in the future.

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

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

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

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp. 4.14-9
to 4.14-10 No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7,

4.14-9 to

4.14-11
No No None

13.105
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -55- March 2023

9. HAZARDS AND

4.14-12 No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7
No No None
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35 Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not
Applicable Not Applicable
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 35 to 36
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-5, 4.6-33
to 4.6-37
No No None
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 36
DEIR pp. 4.6-3
to 4.6-4, 4.6-34
to 4.6-35
No No
General Plan
Actions HZ1.5.3,
HZ1.5.4
Standard Fire
Department
Conditions of
Approval
(a-b, c) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials or Creation of Hazard. The proposed project consists of a mixed-use project, consisting of residential, library, childcare facility, and commercial land uses, which would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes, and would not result in the creation of a public health hazard. The project site is not within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school, and would not result in stationary emission sources or hazardous emissions.

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

13.106
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -56- March 2023
state, and local laws to ensure proper transportation, handling, and disposal, and with adherence to local and state regulations, as well as implementation of policies and actions, impacts related to creation of hazards due to hazardous material transport, use, or disposal were considered less than significant. Policy HZ4.4 and its supporting actions call for reduction of the risk of exposure to hazardous materials, including regulating the siting and permitting of businesses that handle hazardous materials. Policies HZ4.1 and HZ4.2 call for regulation of hazardous wastes, and HZ4.3 calls for quick and proper response to emergencies. Furthermore, Policy NRC3.2 discourages the use of environmentally harmful pesticides and herbicides.

The proposed project would result in development and land uses that would be within the overall scope of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and would not result in industrial or other types of uses that would use and/or dispose of hazardous materials other than routine household and business cleaning supplies. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Exposure to Hazardous Materials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The following Cortese List online data resources (SOURCE V.9b) were reviewed during the preparation of this document: (1) the list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (SOURCE V.9a); (2) the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database (SOURCE V.9e); (3) the list of solid waste disposal sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (SOURCE V.9c); (4) the list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB (SOURCE V.9f); and (5) the list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC (SOURCE V.9d). In addition, an Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project found that the project site is not located on any of the DTSC lists of hazardous materials sites and was not listed in any of the regulatory databases (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022).

A combined Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for the project that evaluates the potential presence of environmental hazards and risks associated with the subject property. The ESA documents the investigation steps, regulatory records, site inspection, and interview with persons with knowledge of the site. The Phase I records search and historic document review did not reveal any environmental condition of concern for the project site (SOURCE V.20).

The Phase I/II ESA did indicate that there are a number of commercial properties with chemical releases in the vicinity of the project site; the majority of these chemical release sites have undergone case closure and obtain regulatory No Further Action status. However, the Phase I ESA indicates there is well-documented, widespread low-concentration solvent plume (TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, & Vinyl Chloride) present in downtown area groundwater that is upgradient of the project site. This dilute plume has some limited potential to encroach/flow beneath the project site, based on the southwesterly groundwater flow direction in the area. This relatively low-concentration contaminant

13.107
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -57- March 2023
groundwater plume, which remains an open agency case, and is considered a Controlled Recognized Condition (CREC). In addition to documenting the location of known groundwater plumes, the Phase I ESA also evaluated the potential for pollutant plume off-gassing. The upgradient, relatively lowconcentration solvent plume described above appears to be the only documented release having the potential for vapor encroachment (SOURCE V.20).

Historical land use records also document the presence of a long term of a dry cleaner to the north (upgradient) and one to the southwest (side/downgradient) of the project site. Dry cleaners are known to use relatively large quantities of chemicals, discharge dry cleaning solvent wastewater to drainage lines, and generate chemical wastes. Neither of the two cleaner businesses have any agencydocumented chemical releases. However, the Phase I ESA notes that dry cleaning businesses in general have a record of solvent-laden wash water releases to drainage sumps and drainage piping so there exists some elevated potential risk of undocumented chemical releases that could encroach beneath the project site (SOURCE V.20).

A Phase II ESA was performed, which included a soil vapor and groundwater sampling program. The Phase II ESA was implemented to evaluate subsurface project site conditions. Sampling for the Phase II ESA involved collecting five groundwater samples, nine soil vapor samples, and eighteen soil core samples. The testing found trace-to-low detection of two common urban contaminants – gasoline range total petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents in groundwater beneath the site that concentration levels were detected well below established water quality and environmental screening thresholds (SOURCE V.20).

The soil vapor sample results contained relatively low-concentration volatile concentrations that included fuel-based and solvent-based volatile contaminants; two sample locations were shown to have concentrations that slightly exceeded the land use threshold for Benzene (fuel-based contamination), which is considered a common urban contaminant. Two other sample locations were shown to have low concentrations of two common degreaser compounds historically used for dry cleaning and automotive repair operations, however; the results show low concentrations levels were reported as relatively low, however, exceeding residential land use thresholds. Neither of these contamination levels exceed the commercial land use screening thresholds (SOURCE V.20).

The Phase II sampling and testing program results showed that the bulk of the shallow soils (approximately one to three feet deep) across the project site were impacted with elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic that are from typical urban sources (lead-based paint and weed and rodent control). Most of the elevated metal concentrations are characterized as “non-hazardous” and can be disposed of at a local, municipal landfill. However, much of the shallow soils across the project site exceeded residential (unrestricted) or commercial land use screening threshold limits, but can be graded/removed and disposed of during development activities (SOURCE V.20).

The removal and disposal of these soils would be conducted in accordance and in compliance with applicable local and state regulations governing these activities. The Phase I/II ESA recommends that of the report be submitted the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services (SCC-EHS), as the overseeing agency, for their review and comment. The Phase I/II ESA also recommends that future earthworks and soil handling will need to be managed under an agency-approved Soil Management

13.108
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -58- March 2023
Plan and SCC-EHS for which the agency will likely require additional soil vapor evaluation to confirm vapor intrusion is not a concern. The Soil Management Plan would also likely include supplemental soil delineation testing to further define the limits of shallow soil contamination and to provide accepting landfills with required acceptance data.

The proposed project includes demolition of one existing commercial building, which may contain asbestos and lead-based paint that could expose workers to a hazardous material release. The General Plan EIR found that all demolition activities would be required to be undertaken according to OSHA standards to protect workers from asbestos and lead based paint. Any demolition of buildings containing asbestos also would be required to comply with the MBARD’s Rule 306 that requires reporting and investigation of certain buildings with asbestos as established under federal law. Under federal law, a building must be inspected for asbestos prior to demolition or renovation, and federal and state agencies must be notified prior to demolition. According to the State Air Resources Control board, removal and disposal of asbestos procedures and controls must be specified in the notification form. The federal government banned consumer use of lead-based paint (LBP) in 1978 and many, but not all, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were banned in construction products in 1989.

The commercial building to be demolished was constructed originally in 1941 (SOURCE V.18).

Therefore, it has the potential to include LBP and ACMs. Project construction, including demolition, would be required to comply with applicable state regulations regarding LBP work practices, including testing and abatement. The removal of ACMs would be subject to the Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Program administered by the MBARD, which protects the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos through enforcement of the Federal Asbestos Standard. The Program includes survey and notification requirements prior to beginning a project, as well as work practice standards and disposal requirements. Additionally, under California law, fluorescent lamps cannot be disposed as municipal waste. Fluorescent tubes and bulbs may be managed as universal wastes under Title 22, Chapter 23 of the California Code of Regulations and are typically recycled.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan could result in exposure to hazardous materials due to proximity to contaminated sites and/or with removal of hazardous building materials during demolition, but with adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, impacts would be less than significant. The preparation and implementation of Soil Management Plan for removal of contaminated soils during construction would be conducted with oversight from the County Environmental Health Department, and the City has designated as the County as the entity responsible for enforcing hazardous materials regulations. Thus, removal and disposal would be conducted in accordance with adopted regulations that would be considered uniformly applied development standards. In addition, a standard condition of approval is included in the project to require testing for asbestos and lead-based paint prior to demolition with approval from MBARD if hazardous materials are found and require removal. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in exposure to hazardous materials and would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site with compliance with applicable regulations and the application of uniformly applied development standards that will ensure the avoidance of any significant effects. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.109
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -59- March 2023
(e) Airport Safety. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or air strip and would not be subjected to potential aircraft hazards.
(f) Emergency Response. Existing access to the project site is provided via Cathcart Street. The vehicular entrance from Cathcart Street would allow for two-way access to the project’s parking garage. A 20-foot-wide alley along the eastern edge of the project site would provide one-way access from Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street for emergency vehicles to access the area in the event of an emergency. The project would not include any changes to exiting public roadways that provide emergency access to the site, except for access improvements into the site. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response or evaluation plan, and would not result in an impact. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (g) Wildland Fire Hazards. The General Plan EIR indicated that future growth could result in an indirect increased risk of wildfires in the urban-rural interface and adjacent to the City’s greenbelt areas, but none of the major vacant sites within the City are within identified fire hazard zones. The EIR indicates that areas targeted as “likely” to have a wildland fire include the Arroyo Seco/Meder Canyon, DeLaveaga, Pogonip, Moore Creek area and Arana Gulch, and future growth in these areas could result in an indirect increased risk of wildfires in the urban-rural interface and adjacent to the City’s greenbelt areas. The General Plan EIR found that the City’s adopted “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan” includes mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce potential wildfires and that General Plan actions also seek to ensure that new development is sited and designed to accommodate facility emergency access and response (HZ1.2.5, HZ1.2.6, HZ1.5.5) and that street widths are adequate to safely accommodate emergency vehicles (M3.2.3). With implementation of the General Plan policies and actions as well as implementation of the City’s “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan”, the General Plan EIR concluded that indirect impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Specifically, General Plan policies and actions related to future development include measures aimed are reducing wildfire hazards (HA1.5, HZ1.5.1) and regulating development siting/design to reduce wildland fires (HZ1.5.3 [setbacks], HZ1.5.4 [fire-resistant/retardant building materials]).

According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a fire hazard area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.6-1). The project site is not located within or adjacent to fire hazard areas identified in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.110
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -60- March 2023

10. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
DEIR pp. 4.5-12
to 4.5-13
DEIR pp. 4.6-22,

4.7-8 to 4.7-12,

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

24.14.060,
Chapters 16.19
and 18.45
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 36
DEIR pp. 4.5-6
to 4.5-7, 4.5-39
to 4.5-42,

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

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

DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No
City Municipal
Code section

24.14.050,
Chapter 16.19
and 18.45
regarding runoff
control, grading
and erosion
control
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
DEIR pp. 4.7-7
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No
General Plan
2030 Action
CC5.1.8 and
Municipal Code
Chapters 16.19
and 24.14
regarding
drainage and
BMPs
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
DEIR pp. 4.5-13
DEIR pp. 4.7-12
to 4.7-14,

4.7-25 to 4.7-27
No No
General Plan
2030 Actions
CC5.1.7,

13.111
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -61- March 2023

10. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
HZ6.4.6,
HZ6.4.10
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 4.5-13
DEIR pp. 4.7-15,

4.7-25 to

4.7-26, 4.10-14
No No
General Plan
Policy HZ6.6 and
actions
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 36 DEIR pp. 4.7-17 No No None
(a) Water Quality/Discharges. The proposed project does not involve any discharges that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

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

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

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

13.112
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -62- March 2023

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

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

The project would also be subject to the Central Coast Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs) that were enacted by the Central Coast RWQCB in July 2013. The PCRs are for projects that create and/or replace ≥2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces. Based on the amount of new/replaced impervious surface area created by the project (44,440 square feet), the project would be required to comply with Tiers 1 through 4 (Site Design, Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Management). However, the project is exempt from Tier 4 requirements because stormwater runoff from the project site discharges to a continuous underground storm drain system that discharges to the marine nearshore waters.

The project would include drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The project site is currently developed, and its impervious surface area would decrease from 65,560 square feet to 44,440 square feet with the proposed project. A stormwater control plan (SWCP) has been prepared for the project that details drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The project proposes to install a biofiltration area and mechanical filtration system. Stormwater would be collected and filtered by eight new bioretention basins surrounding the perimeter of the site; stormwater would also be collected at the project’s green roof (SOURCE V.13). Other measures also include provision of porous pavement on the perimeter of the site. Stormwater would be filtered through this system before it is discharged into existing City storm drains. Furthermore, the proposed project’s parking garage would eliminate the existing surface parking lot, which would reduce conveyance of urban pollutants typically found in parking lots into the City’s storm drain system.

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

13.113
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -63- March 2023
The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations to protect water quality, impacts from future development on water quality, including potential erosion, would be less than significant. Compliance with regulations contained in the City’s Municipal Code regarding implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of erosion control plans (Chapters 16.19 and 18.45 and section 24.14.060), as well as, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality and erosion impacts during earthwork and construction as discussed above and would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant with compliance with City stormwater regulations and BMPs and implementation of SWPPP and erosion control plans as may be required. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Groundwater. The City is primarily developed, and no groundwater recharge areas are identified or mapped in the City’s General Plan 2030 or General Plan EIR; groundwater resources utilized as part of the City’s water supply are obtained from aquifers outside of the City (SOURCE V.1b. DEIR volume).

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

The project site is located within a developed area. The project would be connected to the City’s public water system and does not include the use of a groundwater well. Therefore, the project would not affect groundwater supplies or recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c[i-iii]) Drainage. The project site is located within a developed urban area. The project site is currently developed with 65,096 square feet of impervious surface area; the project proposes a net decrease of 20,656 square feet impervious surface area through the construction of the new building, resulting in a total of 44,440 square feet of impervious surface on-site. The project site would connect to the City’s existing storm drain located in Cathcart Street and Lincoln Street. As described above in subsection (a), stormwater would be collected and treated onsite with a new storm drain system, including bioretention areas and green roof, before being discharged into the City’s storm drains. The proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns. The project’s stormwater system is

13.114
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -64- March 2023
designed so that the project stormwater flows would exceed the capacity of storm water facilities or result in substantial erosion.

The General Plan EIR and Downtown Amendments Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts related to increased stormwater runoff would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that require new development to maintain pre-development runoff levels (CC5.1.8). The project would not alter existing drainage patterns as it would lead to a net decrease in onsite impervious surface by approximately 20,650 square feet. Furthermore, section

24.14.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires preparation of a drainage plan. Drainage improvements, per this plan, would be required to be designed in accordance with City standards and Public Works requirements in order to meet water quality standards and maintain pre-project runoff levels. Implementation of measures identified in the Stormwater Control Plan in accordance with requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. The proposed project would not result in significant drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project with implementation of uniformly applied development standards related to stormwater management. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (c [iv], d) Flood Hazard Areas and Risk of Release of Pollutants. According to maps prepared for the General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is located within an A99 Flood Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure

4.7-1). This designation indicates that the project area is subject to inundation by a 1-percent-annualchance flood event that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. A99 Zones are areas where enough progress has been made on the construction of a protection system, such as dikes, dams, and levees, to consider it complete for insurance rating purposes, which in this case are improvements to the levee adjacent to San Lorenzo River (SOURCE V.1b). The project site also is within a mapped tsunami inundation zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-2). However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates a tsunami warning system that gives several hours’ notice to allow evacuation of threatened areas (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

With implementation of the proposed policies and actions related to flood control and adherence to other City plans and regulations, the General Plan EIR concluded that future development would not result in substantial risk of exposure of structures or people to flood hazards and impacts would be less than significant. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also concluded that compliance with federal flood requirements and implementation of City plans and programs, impacts resulting from future development would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan EIRs or peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

The EIR indicated that the City was in the process of drafting a “Climate Change Adaptation Plan” to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the City of Santa Cruz, analyze the

13.115
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -65- March 2023
severity of the hazards that the City faces, and develop potential adaptation responses to reduce the risk and exposure of the City to these hazards. The City prepared a “Climate Adaptation Plan” with funding from FEMA (SOURCE V.2b). The objectives of this Plan are to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the City of Santa Cruz, analyze the severity of the hazards that the City faces, and develop potential adaptation responses to reduce the risk and exposure of the City to these hazards. The potential risks were identified in a “Vulnerability Study” that identified potential facilities vulnerable to risks of sea level rise, including beaches, the City’s wastewater treatment facility, and the Santa Cruz Harbor (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The Climate Adaptation Plan Update 2018-2023, adopted by the City Council in October 2018, further addresses sea level rise. The project site is not located within an area identified as being subject to potential effects of sea level rise; it is located in the downtown area, away from zones along the coastal areas of the City, that are subject to sea level rise hazards. The project site also doesn’t contain any critical facilities, listed in the Climate Adaptation Plan, that provide essential services and protect life and property within the City. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to sea level rise not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR related to sea level rise, and the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e) Conflict with Plans. The project site is not located adjacent to a water course or water body. The proposed project would not result in new discharges or conflict with provisions in the Central Coast Basin Plan as all stormwater would be directed into the City’s storm drain system with pre-treatment in a bioretention basin to prevent water quality degradation in accordance with the City’s stormwater requirements. A sustainable groundwater management plan for the area in which the project is located has not yet been prepared. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an adopted water quality or groundwater plans.

11. LAND USE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Physically divide an established
community? DEIR p. 4.9-4
DEIR pp. 4.1-21
to 4.1-22 No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect?
DEIR pp. 4.9-5
to 4.9-8
FEIR pp. 3-5-37,

4.9-9 to 4.9-11
DEIR pp. 4.1-9
to 4.1-14,

4.1-25 to 4.1-27
No No None
(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located within the developed, downtown, urban area of the City, and the project would not physically divide an established

13.116
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -66- March 2023
community. The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General Plan would result in no impact because the City of Santa Cruz is primarily built out and as an established community, new development accommodated by the proposed General Plan 2030 would be considered infill development. Thus, new development would be within an established community and would not result in a physical division of an established community. Furthermore, proposed goals, policies and actions in the draft General Plan 2030 limit potential expansion of the City’s boundaries and seek to maintain the City’s urban development limits. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Conflict with Policies and Regulations. As indicated in Section IV.B., the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2030 land use designations. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan and zone district land use designations as discussed in section IV.B and C. Based on the analyses contained in this Environmental Checklist and City staff review of the General Plan 2030, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the project would not result in land use impacts peculiar to the site or project.

No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 16
DEIR pp. 4.15-3
to 4.15-4,

4.15-6
No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 16
DEIR pp. 4.15-3
to 4.15-4,

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

13.117
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -67- March 2023

13. NOISE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project result in: Standards
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 38 to 40
DEIR pp. 4.13-4
to 4.13-8,

4.13-10 to

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

24.14.260,
Municipal Code
section

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including Sound
Transmission
Control)
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels? DEIR Appendix
A pp. 39 to 40
DEIR pp.

4.13-10, 4.13-20
to 4.13-22
No No
GP Action
HZ3.1.3,
HZ3.1.5
Municipal Code
section

24.14.220
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 38 Not Applicable No No None
(a) Noise Increases. The primary existing noise source within the project area is traffic noise along area streets. The project site is not within a noise contour mapped per the General Plan; Front Street to the east of the project site is within a 60-dBA noise contour according to the General Plan 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figures 4.13-1 and 4.13-2).

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

Municipal Code section 18.040.030 adopts State of California building codes as part of the City’s

13.118
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -68- March 2023
Building Code, and section 18.36.010 refer to CBC sound transmission control. The General Plan indicates that exterior noise levels to 65 dBA are normally acceptable for new multi-family development; noise levels to 70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable and typically require an acoustical study to determine whether additional insulation or window treatments are required.

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

At the end of 2018, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted by the State of California that included changes to the Appendix G environmental checklist, including elimination of questions related to exposure to noise. The questions focus on the potential permanent and temporary noise generated by a project. The proposed project would include residential development, as well as a new library, a childcare facility, commercial space and a parking garage that would be enclosed. None of the project uses residential, library, commercial, or childcare facility)not typically associated with activities that would generate substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed parking garage would be enclosed, which would generally create a shield to vehicular noise, and would replace the existing surface public parking lot on the project site.

A project Noise Impact Analysis (SOURCE V.19) evaluated potential operational and construction noise associated with the project and found that the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in permanent noise levels. The analysis evaluated operational noise generated by mechanical equipment and indirect noise associated with project traffic. The project mechanical equipment would be limited to the roof and to the area between the library mezzanine and future residential community patio. The library will be fully air-conditioned, and heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning units could be located in areas exposed to adjacent property lines. Based on previous noise measurements near the project site , the lowest hourly Leq noise level is 43 dBA, which represents the ambient noise level (SOURCE V.19). Based on Municipal Code Section 24.14.260, the property line noise criterion for the project mechanical equipment is 48 dBA (i.e., ambient noise level plus five) (SOURCE V.19). The analysis found that the potential noise increases related to mechanical equipment is below the threshold considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR for potentially significant impacts, which is a permanent increase in noise level of five decibels in areas where ambient levels are below 60 dBA Ldn (SOURCE V.19).

An analysis of noise generated by mechanical equipment found that the increase in ambient noise levels would be below the threshold considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR for potentially significant impacts (Salter 2023). In addition, the analysis of noise levels with project traffic found that the increase in traffic resulting from the project would result in an increase in noise levels below City thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to permanent increases in noise (Salter 2023). In addition, Municipal Code section 9.36.010 prohibits offensive noise between the hours of 10 PM and 8 AM and section 9.36.020 prohibits unreasonably disturbing noises.

Furthermore, section 24.14.260 prohibits increases of sound levels above five decibels (dBA) above the local ambient noise level on a residential property. These regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels.

13.119
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -69- March 2023
The analysis found that the project traffic when added to existing traffic volumes as identified in the project traffic analysis (SOURCE V.17) would result in an increase in ambient noise levels of less than three decibels at the intersections studied, which would be a less-than-significant increase in noise as the increase would be less than the five-decibel threshold in the General Plan EIR.

There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during demolition, earthwork, and construction of the project. The nearest sensitive noise receptors are residential uses located on Cedar Street, approximately 155 feet to the south of the project site. A residential project is currently under construction on the west side of Cedar Street across the street from the proposed project.

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

There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during project grading and construction.

Noise levels resulting from construction would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, as well as existing ambient noise levels. Noise generated during construction would vary throughout the construction period and on any given day, depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Sensitive noise receptors, which are residential uses located approximately 155 feet west of the project site, would experience a temporary increase in noise levels. However, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as well as throughout the duration of project construction, and construction noise levels would decrease with distance from the construction site. Overall, construction noise levels would be temporary and short-term, and would fluctuate throughout the construction period with the construction activities producing higher noise levels occurring earlier in the construction phase. Therefore, construction noise would not result in substantial increases in temporary noise levels or result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors (SOURCE V.19).

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of increased noise resulting from construction or operation of development projects (HZ3.1.1,HZ3.1.2, HZ3.1.3, and HZ3.1.5). The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from future development would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the plan would result in construction of varying sound level and duration, but with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that set forth measures to minimize exposure construction noise levels, the increase in temporary noise levels from construction-related activities

13.120
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -70- March 2023
would be considered less than significant. General Plan policies seek to minimize and monitor construction noise (HZ3.1.3, HZ3.1.5). In particular, the General Plan seeks to ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses (HZ3.1.3). Development projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and typical conditions of approval include limiting the day and times of day during which construction and/or heavy construction can be conducted, provision of notification to neighbors regarding construction schedules, and implementation of a process to receive and respond to noise complaints. These are some of the types of measures that would be required by the City to manage and minimize construction noise impacts of development projects per proposed General Plan Actions HZ3.1.3 and HZ3.1.5 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), which would be considered uniformly applied development policies and standards. The project noise study recommends construction best management practices that would minimize construction noise, which will be a condition of project approval, and consistent with the General Plan, would be considered an uniformly applied development standard.

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

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

The proposed residential use would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration as the proposed uses are not known to be sources of vibration. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction-related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. To assess the

13.121
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -71- March 2023
potential for vibration to result in structural damage, Caltrans recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for historic buildings, 0.2 in/sec PPV for fragile buildings, and a conservative limit of 0.12 in/sec PPV for ancient buildings, ruins or extremely fragile buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened (Caltrans 20136).

The noise impact analysis considered vibration resulting from construction activities. Vibrationproducing construction activities are likely to occur during demolition and site preparation with the use of dozers and drilling to clear the site and prepare the foundation of the buildings. The analysis found that vibration levels are not expected to exceed the 0.1 in/sec PPV threshold for human annoyance or the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold for damage to “normal dwelling houses” at the nearest residential properties; the highest construction-related vibration level would be 0.012 (SOURCE V.19). Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding generation of excessive vibration. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e-f) Airport Noise. The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

14. POPULATION

AND HOUSING
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
DEIR pp. 5-3 to
5-4
DEIR pp. 4.2-2
to 4.2-6, 4.2-12
to 4.2-14
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 41
DEIR pp. 4.2-14
to 4.2-15
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
(a) Inducement of Substantial Population Growth. The General Plan 2030 EIR estimated population and housing increases that could result from potential development and buildout accommodated by the plan that included 3,350 residential dwelling units with an associated population increase of 8,040 residents by the year 2030. The project would include construction of 124 new dwelling units. The 6 California Department of Transportation. April 2020. “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.”

13.122
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -72- March 2023
project would not induce substantial population growth in the City as it would be consistent with population growth projections developed for the City and the amount of development described in the General Plan EIR as described below (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). It is also noted that the proposed project would not be inducing new population growth, but would serve existing households in the city or county that are on waiting lists for affordable housing. The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County has indicated to City staff that there are a total of 10,851 applicants on the waiting list for affordable housing.

The City had a population of 64,075 people as of January 1, 2022 (SOURCE V.6). The proposed project‘s 124 residential units would house approximately 290 residents based on the City’s existing average household size of 2.33. This is a conservatively high estimate as household sizes in the downtown area at about 1.9 persons per household are slightly lower than the Citywide average, based on Census information. With the additional conservative assumption that all of the project’s residents would be adding to the City’s population, rather than simply moving from other places in the City (as is most likely, given the waiting list for affordable housing), the City’s population would total 64,365.

This is within the adopted regional population forecast of 68,845 for the city of Santa Cruz for the year 2025 (SOURCE V.4a), and also within the population forecast of 64,649 residents in the City in 2025 that was considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially induce unplanned population growth. Since the potential population growth resulting from the proposed project would fall within the total level of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and is consistent with current regional forecasts, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Displacement of Existing Housing or People. No housing units exist on the project site. Existing uses on the project site include a small commercial building and paved public parking lot. Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of housing or residents and thus would not result in any impact peculiar to the parcel of the project with respect to this category of impact.

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

Fire protection? DEIR pp. 4.6-10
to 4.6-11
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-4, 4.6-33
to 4.6-36
FEIR pp. 3-19
No No None

13.123
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -73- March 2023

4.6-40 to 4.6-41
No No
Payment of
School Impact
Fees
Parks?
DEIR pp. 4.6-13
to 4.6-15
FEIR pp. 3-4 to
3-5
DEIR pp. 4.6-5
to 4.6-20,

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
FEIR pp. 3-20 to
3-22
No No None
Other public facilities? Not Applicable Not Applicable No No None Police and Fire Protection Services. As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b); the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units and commercial square footage. Thus, the project’s proposed 124 residential units and non-residential space would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for fire and police protection services, which was further supported by subsequent analyses in the Downtown Plan Amendment EIR. Thus, construction of any new public facilities to serve the project would not be warranted with General Plan buildout. Since the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in these EIRs, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

School Enrollments. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Downtown Plan and General Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to schools but, with required payment of school impact fees to fund necessary facility expansion and/or additions in conjunction with potential reuse of the former Natural Bridges Elementary School if needed, the impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR concluded that potential addition or expansion of school classroom facilities is not expected to result in significant physical impacts due to the location of existing facilities within developed footprints.

As the proposed project would be within the amount of development analyzed in the and General Plan EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and would be within the amount of development

13.124
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -74- March 2023
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no new or substantially worsened impacts to schools or impacts peculiar to the project or site would occur. No further environmental analysis is required regarding this public service pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. It is also noted that payment of school impact fees would be required.

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

16. RECREATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
DEIR pp. 4.6-13
to 4.6-15
FEIR pp. 3-4 to
3-5
DEIR pp. 4.6-5
to 4.6-20,

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
No No
Parks and
Recreation
Facilities Tax
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR p. 4.6-10 DEIR pp. 4.6-10
to 4.6-11 No No None
(a) Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. The City has responsibility for management, maintenance and operation of over 1,700 acres of parks and open space lands, and various community/recreational facilities, and oversees development of new parks and improvements within City-owned parks, open space, and community facilities. In the project area, the Santa Cruz Riverwalk provides pedestrian and bicycle access to the multi-use path on the river levee. Other nearby facilities include outdoor courtyards at City Hall and the Town Clock and adjacent mini-park. The project site also is less than one mile to Depot Park and the City’s Main Beach.

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

13.125
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -75- March 2023
Furthermore, the City imposes a “Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax” (pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the Municipal Code) on new residential development within the City, payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. The collected taxes are placed into a special fund, and “shall be used and expended solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public park, playground and recreational facilities in the city” (Municipal Code section 5.72.100). The required fees for park expansion and improvements would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards. (It is noted that projects that have dedicated land or fees in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 23.28 requirements for subdivisions are exempt from this tax). Thus, with implementation of uniformly applied development standards, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) New Recreational Facilities. The project does not include public recreational facilities. As indicated above, the General Plan concluded that potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities with growth accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

17. TRANSPORTATION

4.4-31 to 4.4-45
No No
GP Actions
M3.1.3, M3.1.4,
M2.3.2
regarding traffic
improvements
and Traffic
Impact Fee
Program
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

4.7-16, 4.7-19
to 4.17-20 Not Applicable No No
GP Policy LU4.2
GP Actions
M3.1.1, M3.1.1
regarding trip
reduction, high
occupant
vehicle travel,
and alternative
travel modes
City VMT
Implementation
Guidelines

13.126
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -76- March 2023

17. TRANSPORTATION

AND TRAFFIC
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Traffic Impact
Fee Program
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)?
DEIR p. 4.7-21 DEIR pp. 4.4-45
to 4.4-46 No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? DEIR p. 4.7-22 DEIR pp. 4.6-33
to 4.6-37 No No None
(a) Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy or Ordinance. The project site is bordered by commercial businesses and Pacific Avenue to the east, Cathcart Street to the south, Cedar Street to the west, and Lincoln Street to the north. Project access will be provided along the southeastern portion of the site, from Cathcart Street, via a new one-way alley and parking garage entrance. The new alley would allow one-way access only in the northerly direction, across the project site, exiting onto Lincoln Street. The parking garage access point would allow both ingress and egress to/from the three-story parking garage. Both access points would be improved with a new driveway approach.

The local roadway network serving the project site includes Pacific Avenue, Cedar Street, Front Street, and Soquel Avenue. The Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (METRO) has bus route service along Cedar Street. Local METRO bus stops are located along Cedar Street/Cathcart Street intersection (Routes 10, 40, 41, and 42) and along Cedar Street/Lincoln Street intersection (Routes 40, 41, and 42). The project site is also approximately 350 feet northwest of the Santa Cruz Metro Center, which provides routes to other locations in the county. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located in the area, including sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Pacific Avenue, Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street.

The project includes 243 parking spaces within the proposed parking garage to support the residential, library, and commercial uses and 258 bicycle parking spaces. The project includes 140 Class 1 (individually locked enclosure, weather and vandalism protected, supervised) bicycle parking spaces and 118 Class 2 (stand to lock to bike wheel or frame) bicycle spaces. The project includes frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street per City standards, including sidewalks.

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth comprehensive measures to reduce vehicle trips, increase vehicle occupancy, encourage use of alternative transportation modes, and promote alternative-sustainable land use patterns, all of which would help reduce vehicle trips, avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. The City’s General Plan strives to maintain the

13.127
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -77- March 2023
established “level of service” D or better at signalized intersections (M3.1.3). “Level of service” (LOS) is typically used to evaluate traffic operations, in which operating conditions range from LOS “A” (free-flowing) to LOS “F” (forced-flow). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities. Delays for signalized intersections are evaluated for the overall peak hour as an “average.” The methodologies for unsignalized intersections also evaluates the delays for the each “critical” movement (e.g. stop sign controlled approaches on the minor street and main line left turn). The City’s General Plan also accepts a lower level of service and higher congestion at major regional intersections if necessary improvements would be prohibitively costly or result in significant, unacceptable environmental impacts (M3.1.4).

According to a traffic study performed for the project, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 2,144 daily trips, including trips from the new library, with 82 new trips occurring the AM peak-hour and 269 trips occurring during the PM peak hour (SOURCE V.17). The study found that all intersections in the project vicinity currently operate under Level of Service (LOS) C or better. With addition of project traffic, all intersections would remain at LOS C or better, except Front Street and Soquel Avenue intersections would operate at LOS D during PM peak hour traffic (SOURCE V.17).

Therefore, because all intersections would operate at LOS D or better, the proposed project would continue to operate at acceptable City LOS levels and would not conflict with City policies regarding traffic congestion. The proposed project is also located in proximity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that could be used for some of the project’s daily trips.

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

The General Plan EIR did not identify intersections in the project vicinity that would operate at deficient LOS nor did the General Plan EIR did not identify any impacted intersections in the downtown area with development accommodated by the General Plan 2030. Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan, the City adopted a series of amendments to the Downtown Plan that could result in additional development in the downtown area beyond what was considered in the General Plan EIR. However, a traffic analysis conducted for the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR found that traffic associated with development resulting from the Downtown Plan amendments, would not result in degradation of LOS to below acceptable levels at the intersections studied in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR under the jurisdiction of the City.

Two regional Caltrans intersections (Highway 1 / Highway 9 and Chestnut Street / Mission Street) would continue operate at LOS E as a result of the Downtown Plan amendments. There are improvements identified for the Highway 1/Highway 9-River Street intersection, which are currently under construction, and the Chestnut Street / Mission Street intersection is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). These improvements were already required under existing conditions without development resulting from the General Plan or Downtown Plan. Traffic associated with future development in the downtown would not further degrade the LOS at the two Caltrans intersections and would not substantially increase delay (SOURCE V.2b, DEIR volume).

Therefore, the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that traffic associated with the growth resulting from Downtown Plan amendments would not cause existing or planned intersections to

13.128
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -78- March 2023
operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) or further degrade intersections that already operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

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

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

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

13.129
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -79- March 2023
CEQA all over the State. By its own terms, however, the section did not require agencies to begin using VMT as a new metric until July 1, 2020. LOS had ceased to be a valid significance criterion as of late 2018, however. (See Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626.)
For these reasons, the City could not find a significant transportation-related effect from the proposed project even if the project resulted in LOS worse than what was anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines at the end of 2018 added a new question of whether or not a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

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

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

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

The City’s guidelines to determine whether a land use project is within the VMT threshold includes a screening process in which situations are identified under which projects are determined to not have a significant impact and further VMT analysis is not required. The guidelines require that each distinct land use for a mixed-use project be analyzed separately unless they are determined to be insignificant to the total VMT. The guidelines also state that housing projects are expected to cause a less-thansignificant impact on VMT if a high percentage of the project is affordable, as determined by the City.

Furthermore, projects, or portions of a project, that meet the screening criteria do not require a CEQA transportation analysis, and such projects, or portions of a project, will have a non-significant CEQA transportation impact based on their project location and characteristics. According to the City’s guidelines, projects that would not be expected to result in a significant VMT impact and that are screened out from further transportation impact review include:
• Small projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day;

13.130
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -80- March 2023
• Projects near high quality transit: within a ½ mile of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor with a combined service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the AM and PM peak hours;
• Local-serving retail if a single store is less than 50,000 square feet or project is a localserving project as determined by the City; • Affordable housing projects that provide a high percentage of affordable housing as determined by the City;
• Local essential service, including day care center, public K-12 schools, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building, government offices, and supportive housing types (assisted living, permanent supportive housing, memory care, etc.); • Map based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT (SOURCE V.3f).

City staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the City’s adopted guidelines. The traffic study concluded that the proposed project meets the screening criteria because it is located in a VMT Efficient Area based on the Santa Cruz County Residential Screening Map, and, therefore, the project is located in an area that produces VMT per capita that is at least 15-percent below the Countywide average (SOURCE V.17). As described above in section (a), the project is also within ½ mile of a major transit stop that provides service at an interval of 15 minutes or less during AM and PM peak hours.

Thirdly, the project includes 124 new residential units that would be 100 percent affordable.

Additionally, each of the project elements can use the screening criteria in the City’s SB 743 Implementation Guidelines as follows.
• Projects near High-Quality Transit: This screening criterion is met as the proposed project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit stop as defined by California Public Resources Code section 21064 (Santa Cruz Metro Center).
• Local-Serving Retail: This screening criterion covers the net increase of approximate 6,500 square feet space for commercial uses that would be considered local-serving retail uses, which is substantially less than the screening level of 50,000 square feet. • Affordable Housing: This screening criterion is met as the proposed project provides 100- percent-affordable housing with the proposed 124 units of affordable housing, which would be considered a high proportion of affordable housing.
• Local Essential Service: this screening criterion covers the proposed daycare and government offices uses (library) (SOURCE V.3d).

For these reasons, according to the City’s guidelines, the project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT based on the City’s adopted threshold and guidelines would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth comprehensive measures to reduce vehicle trips, increase vehicle occupancy, encourage use of alternative transportation modes, and promote alternative-sustainable land use patterns, all of which would help reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. General Plan EIR indicates that

13.131
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -81- March 2023
Policies M3.1.1 and M3.1.2 direct the City to seek ways to reduce vehicle trip demand, reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips, and encourage high occupant vehicle travel. Implementation of General Plan policies that serve to reduce VMT would be considered uniformly applied development policies or standards. General Plan policies also encourage employment-related strategies (i.e., flextime, telecommuting, parking management, ridesharing) (M3.1.7, M3.1.8, M2.4.4) as ways to reduce vehicle trips, which would also reduce VMT.

Although no VMT standards have been developed within the City at the time the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR was prepared, a preliminary per capita VMT estimate included in the EIR showed that VMT resulting from downtown development would be below existing and projected county-wide estimates, which in large part is a reflection of the project’s location downtown and in proximity to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (SOURCE V.2b, DEIR volume).

While the General Plan EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR did not analyze VMT as the requirement to do so was not in place, the proposed project does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold, which was adopted after certification of the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Furthermore, the proposed services to support residents that are included in the project, such as commercial space, child-care, community gathering places, and the library, would serve to reduce VMT, consistent with General Plan policies and actions to reduce vehicle trips.

General Plan Policy LU4.2 encourages land use changes that reduce the need for automobiles. The project locates new residents to a downtown area that supports businesses, employment opportunities, and public transportation; therefore, the project would promote types of transportation other than automobiles.

As indicted above in subsection (a), the project would be subject to payment of traffic impact fees that are applied uniformly throughout the City to all new development as part of the city-wide TIF program. TIF fees are used to address needed traffic improvements at key intersections for circulation and also for alternative transportation improvements; 15 percent of the collected TIF fees are allocated to alternative transportation improvements. In addition, the City’s adopted SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Guidelines include potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to help achieve VMT reduction, which serve to reduce project VMT impacts and are considered uniformly applied development standards. The proposed project was designed pursuant to these guidelines and provides: a bus stop on Cedar Street in front of the proposed library, an onsite childcare facility, bicycle parking in excess of City requirements, secure bicycle parking, widened sidewalks, and reduced project parking, all of which are consistent with TDM measures included in the City’s Guidelines, and would serve to further reduce project-generated VMT. Therefore, with this design planned pursuant to the City’s VMT guidelines and payment of required traffic impact fees, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development policies and standards, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. (c, d) Design-Safety and Emergency Access. The project has been designed in accordance with standard City requirements, and there are no access designs that would substantially increase hazards; project access and design was reviewed as part of the project transportation study (SOURCE V.17). In particular, the entrance for the parking garage will be set back and an open-air design with

13.132
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -82- March 2023
support pillars will provide exiting vehicles with sight lines in both directions, including of the sidewalk for approaching directions. The project design will provide adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles of both oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. Fire truck access would be provided from the Cathcart Street and along the southern boundary of the property. The proposed alley connecting Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street is proposed to have a width of 20 feet with no overhead clearance restrictions.

Furthermore, the project would be designed in accordance with City police and fire department requirements and would provide for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards related to project design, would not provide inadequate emergency access, and would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site; no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13 Not Evaluated Not Applicable
Not
Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
c) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13 Not Evaluated Not Applicable
Not
Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015 after the City’s adoption of the General Plan 2030, recognizes that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities. The law establishes a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called “tribal cultural

13.133
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -83- March 2023
resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Public Resources Code section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of section 5024.1. (a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. The California Public Resources Code section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The requirements for review of impacts to tribal cultural resources were added after the certification of the General Plan EIR. In addition, the City provided notice of the proposed DLAHP to local Native American tribes in accordance with AB 52 and to determine whether tribal cultural resource(s) are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources would be significantly impacted by the project. Two responses were received recommending Native American monitoring during construction, but no information was provided regarding tribal cultural resources at the project site.

While there are no known tribal cultural resources meeting the above definition on the project site per the project archaeological report (SOURCE V.12 and V.16a), the project site is located within an area identified as being sensitive for archaeological resources (SOURCE V.1c). As described above in Section IV.E.5, Cultural Resources, the archaeology review and field survey conducted of the project site concluded that the site appears to have a very low potential for archaeological materials and that no prehistoric materials are anticipated to be encountered on the site from project construction or operation (SOURCE V.16a). Section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in the event that unknown archaeological materials are unearthed during construction, as described in Section IV.E.5 above, and implementation of these standards would be a standard condition of approval. Thus, the project would not result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13.134
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -84- March 2023

19. UTILITIES AND

SERVICE SYSTEMS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment
facilities, or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or which could cause
significant environmental effects?
DEIR p. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12;

4.8-15
DEIR pp. 4.6-21
to 4.6-25,

4.6-41 to

4.6-43, 4.5-29
to 4.5-38
FEIR pp. 3-2 to
3-19
No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
DEIR pp. 4.8-15
to 4.8-16
DEIR pp. 4.5-3
to 4.5-42
FEIR pp. 3-2 to
3-19
No No
Municipal Code
sections 16.02-
04 regarding
Water
Conservation,
Plumbing
Fixtures, &
Water Service
Charges
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
DEIR p. 4.8-16
DEIR pp. 4.6-21
to 4.6-25,

4.6-41 to 4.6-43
No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
DEIR p. 4.6-15
DEIR pp. 4.6-25
to 4.6-27,

4.6-43 to 4.6-44
FEIR p. 3-22
No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
DEIR p. 4.6-15 DEIR pp. 4.6-25
to 4.6-27 No No None
(a) Relocation or Construction of Utilities. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions were modified to include a new question regarding need for new, relocated, or expanded infrastructure systems. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth; see subsection (c) below.

13.135
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -85- March 2023
Because the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project does not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Water Supply. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, which serves an approximate 20-square-mile area. The service area includes the entire City of Santa Cruz, adjoining unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, a small part of the City of Capitola, and coastal agricultural lands north of the City. Water is treated at the City’s Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP), except for groundwater, which is treated as part of the Beltz well system.

The City’s General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of water demand within the City’s service area, including potential buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated growth within the City of Santa Cruz water service area, although the document acknowledges that the outcome of the pending Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for anadromous fisheries may affect supplies. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s water supply would be significant and unavoidable during times of prolonged drought and potentially significant during normal years by the year 2030. Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand and implement a desalination facility to provide a supplemental water supply during droughts. Subsequent to the adoption of the City’s General Plan 2030, the City adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and in November 2021, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP. The 2015 UWMP reported that water demand in the City’s water service area has ranged between nearly 3,800 million gallons per year (MGY) in 2006 to approximately 2,500 MGY in 2015 (SOURCE V.3j).

The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that intensified development in the downtown area as a result of the plan amendments represents less than one percent of the total estimated future water demand within the City’s service area, and the demand was within the amount of new multifamily dwellings considered in demand forecasts for the 2015 UWMP that was in effect at the time the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR was prepared. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that water supplies would be adequate during average and normal years to serve the estimated development in the downtown area. During periods of dry years and drought, water customers would be subject to water curtailment as enacted by the City. A multiple dry year scenario would require more substantial curtailment of all water customers. However, the EIR concluded that the water demand from additional development in the downtown area (less than one percent of the total water service area demand) would not have significant effects on the levels of water supply or curtailment that would be required throughout the service area. Therefore, Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that the impact of increased water demand on water supplies due to the future development in the downtown area would be less than significant (SOURCE V.2b, DEIR volume).

13.136
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -86- March 2023
The 2020 UWMP reported that annual water use has decreased since the early 2000s, but annual water use fell to a level of about 2.5 billion gallons, similar to the level experienced during the 1970s drought. However, in 2020, demand was still at a similar level as 2015, about 2.6 billion gallons, despite several years above long-term average rainfall from 2016 and 2020. Current projections forecast that water use over the next 25 years, including projected population growth, will increase at a very slow rate to reach approximately 2.8 billion gallons per year by 2045 (SOURCE V.3g).

With implementation of the City’s proposed water rights modifications and water supply augmentation strategies as summarized below, the City projects having sufficient water available in normal years and single dry years to serve anticipated demand throughout the 2020-2045 UWMP planning period. However, the City’s 2020 UWMP predicts that under multi-year drought conditions in the near term (2025) with proposed water rights modifications but before implementation of the planned aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities and planned infrastructure projects, available supplies would meet projected demand in years one through four of the multi-year drought scenario, but would fall short of demand by 27 percent in year five, although such a shortage could occur sooner and persist longer through a multiple dry year period. Under multi-year drought conditions after 2030, with implementation of the ASR and planned infrastructure projects, available supplies would meet projected demand in years one through four of the multi-year drought scenario, and the year-five shortage is anticipated to be substantially reduced with projected shortages no larger than a negligible two percent or five percent with consideration of climate change parameters in dry years (SOURCE V.3g).

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

However, the 2020 UWMP indicates that while the City is vulnerable to water shortages during later years of a multiple dry year period primarily due to the limitation in when and how much water is available to meet system demand, exacerbated by a lack of storage within the system, the City is actively planning and implementing a number of projects and major investments in the water system designed to secure future water supply reliability. Since 2015, the City of Santa Cruz has been pursuing a Water Supply Augmentation Strategy (WSAS) developed by the Water Supply Advisory Committee, a citizen committee, which was formed in 2014 by Santa Cruz City Council with the charge to analyze potential solutions to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable, affordable and environmentally

13.137
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -87- March 2023
sustainable water supply for the City of Santa Cruz. The WSAS portfolio elements, which are being pursued on a concurrent timeline, include:
• Element 0: Demand Management. Demand Management, or conservation, is not considered a water supply for the purposes of the UWMP, but is addressed in the UWMP 2020. • Element 1: Transfers and Exchanges. The City has been piloting water transfers to the Soquel Creek Water District since 2018, as water supplies are available, under a cooperative piloting agreement that extends through 2025. Potential water transfers and exchanges with local water districts in addition to the Soquel Creek Water District, include Central Water District, Scotts Valley Water District, and San Lorenzo Valley Water District, which would be facilitated by the City’s proposed water rights modifications to place of use as briefly summarized below. • Element 2: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). The City has been evaluating the feasibility of ASR in both the Santa Cruz Mid-County and in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basins, with current work primarily focused on the portion of Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin within the City of Santa Cruz service area. Pilot testing has been conducted at the existing Beltz 8 and Beltz 12 well facilities to better understand potential water quality and operational constraints.

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

The City is also pursuing the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project to support the implementation of the WSAS. The project involves the modification of the City’s existing water rights to increase the flexibility of the water system by improving the City’s ability to utilize surface water within existing allocations. This project also incorporates into the City’s water rights bypass flow requirements for all of the City’s surface water sources which are protective of local anadromous fisheries. The primary components of the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project include:
• Water rights modifications related to place of use, method of diversion, points of diversion and re-diversion, underground storage and purpose of use, extension of time, and stream bypass requirements for fish habitats;
• Water supply augmentation components, including new aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities at unidentified locations, ASR facilities at the existing Beltz Well facilities, water transfers and exchanges and intertie improvements; and
• Surface water diversion improvements, including the Felton Diversion fish passage improvements and the Tait Diversion and Coast Pump Station improvements (SOURCE V.3g).

13.138
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -88- March 2023
In addition, as required by California Water Code and to manage risks due to water supply shortages that can be expected in the future, the 2020 UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that addresses how the City’s water system would be managed during a water shortage emergency that arises as a result of drought, which could result in required customer water use reductions (SOURCE V.3g). Furthermore, the City continues to administer its water conservation program, has completed a Conservation Master Plan.

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

13.139
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -89- March 2023
and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for solid waste disposal. Since the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required regarding solid waste pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

20. WILDFIRE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 35-36
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-5, 4.6-33
to 4.6-37
No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 36 Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 36 Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 36 Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None (a) Emergency Plans. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (SOURCE V.7). See also Section IV.E.9(f) regarding emergency access.
(b-d) Exacerbation of Wildfire Impacts. Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, in 2019 OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to add wildfire-related impacts and exposure to the Appendix G checklist questions. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or

13.140
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -90- March 2023
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; see also 9(g). The project site is located in a local responsibility area. Local responsibility areas are located within incorporated city limits, and therefore, fire protection would be provided by the City’s fire department. The proposed project therefore would not cause any impacts peculiar to the parcel or the project with respect to this category of impact.

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

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
DEIR pp. 4.3-17
to 4.3-22,

4.4-12 to 4.4-13
DEIR pp. 4.8-13
to 4.8-21,

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

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

4.8-48 to

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

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

24.12.430
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
DEIR pp. 5-4 to
5-14
DEIR pp. 5-8 to
5-36
FEIR pp. 3-27 to
3-33
No No
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR Mitigation

5.1 c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 43, 38 to
39 DEIR pp. 4.13-4
to 4.13-8,

4.13-10 to

4.13-20
No No None

13.141
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -91- March 2023
(a) Quality of the Environment. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat as discussed in Section IV.E.4 (Biological Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review. As explained in Section IV.E.4, biological resource impacts are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. As discussed in Section IV.E.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section IV.E.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), cultural resources are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. The project would not result in elimination of important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory. (b) Cumulative Impacts. The General Plan EIR identified potential significant cumulative impacts related noise, population, transportation/traffic, and water supply. Vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR identified significant cumulative impacts related to transportation/traffic, water supply, schools, and cumulative traffic.

Noise. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative noise impacts since the project is not located in proximity to the road segments subject to the cumulative noise impact (Westside industrial area) as identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR.

Population. The General Plan 2030 EIR identified cumulative population growth as a potentially significant impact due to growth at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) in conjunction with growth accommodated by the General Plan. The EIR concluded that cumulative growth (City and UCSC) could result in an average annual growth rate that would exceed historical growth rates and AMBAG population forecast growth rates if the North Campus area is annexed to the City in the next 20 years. UCSC updated its Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) in 2021 and no longer proposes expansion into the North Campus area, although enrollments were projected to increase. The General Plan EIR considered UCSC enrollment to 19,500 students with provision of additional oncampus housing. According to UCSC’s website, enrollment for the 2021-2022 academic year totaled approximately 19,000 students (SOURCE V.11a).

Regional population forecasts are updated every four years by AMBAG and have been updated since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. Current forecasts project a Citywide population of 72,218 in the year 2030 (AMBAG 2022). The City had a population of 64,075 people as of January 1, 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022). Based on the City’s existing average household sizes, cumulative residential projects7could result in a population increase of approximately 7,684 persons as a result of development of 2,405 new housing units and student housing at UCSC based on average citywide household sizes (2.33 persons per household) and the slightly lower household size in the downtown area (1.9 persons per household, based on Census information). City population as a result of cumulative residential projects could increase to 7 Cumulative projects include the proposed project, projects under construction, approved projects, and reasonably foreseeable pending projects, including residential projects at UCSC.

13.142
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -92- March 2023
approximately 71,759, which would not exceed the regional population forecast for the City of 72,218 in the year 2030 (SOURCE V.4a). Therefore, no new significant cumulative population growth impacts related to cumulative development is expected.

The General Plan 2030 EIR also indicates that regional population forecasts, which are updated every four years, would account for changing trends in cumulative development and growth. Furthermore, it is also noted that the proposed project would not be inducing new population growth, but would serve existing households in the city or county that are on waiting lists for affordable housing. As indicated in Section IV.E.14, Population and Housing, the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County has indicated to City staff that there are a total of 10,851 applicants on the waiting list for affordable housing. Given this existing waiting list for affordable housing in the county, it is likely that some or all of the future occupants of the proposed project and other affordable housing projects in the City would already be city residents and thus would not result in additional population growth in the City.

Transportation/Traffic. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR. However, the General Plan EIR did not identify significant cumulative impactsin the project vicinity. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR Mitigation Measure 5-1 requires cumulative downtown development projects to pay fair-share contributions for improvements at the following intersections: Front/Soquel, Front/Laurel and Front/Pacific. With implementation of this mitigation, the Downtown Plan EIR concluded that significant cumulative traffic impacts at these three intersections would be mitigated, and a project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would be required to pay traffic impact fees and contribute to downtown improvements as specified in Mitigation Measure 5-1 in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR.

The project transportation impact study identified one intersection deficiency at the Front Street/Soquel Avenue intersection, but noted that the improvements proposed in the Downtown Intersections Improvement Plan, the LOS and delay could be reduced from F to E and 206.0 to 73.7, respectively (SOURCE V.17). The improvements include modifying the eastbound and southbound approaches While no feasible improvements were identified that would reduce the LOS and delay to LOS D, under the City’s existing General Plan, the City accepts a lower LOS at some major regional intersections such as this one per Circulation Policy 5.1.2.

The previous General Plan and Downtown Plan EIRs’ evaluations of cumulative traffic impacts were based on the traffic congestion metric of LOS, which is no longer applicable due to changes in CEQA described above in Section IV.E.19, which now require traffic impacts to be evaluated based on VMT.

In establishing guidelines, the State Office of Planning and Research issued guidelines that indicate if a project falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans, there would be no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.

Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact (SOURCE V.8). As indicated in IV.E.19(b), the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT, and accordingly, cumulative traffic impacts also would be less-than significant. Future development projects would be individually evaluated for potential VMT impacts, and none have been identified. There are no new significant cumulative transportation impacts to which the proposed project would contribute that have not been addressed in the General Plan EIR.

13.143
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -93- March 2023
Water Supply. The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to water supply identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. As indicated in these EIRs, development projects would be subject to City requirements for installation of water-conserving fixtures and landscaping in accordance with current Municipal Code and building requirements. Under multi-year drought conditions, the project, like other City customers, would be subject to water use restrictions. The increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not substantially exacerbate water supply reliability in the future or during a drought because the amount of additional demand when spread across all service area customers would not result in any noticeable increase in the timing or extent of curtailment in customer use that would otherwise be implemented during drought conditions.

In addition, the project would pay the required “System Development Charge” that is required for a new or upgraded service connection or where a project adds new residential uses. This charge, as set forth in Chapter 16.14 of the Municipal Code, funds public water system improvements, and is assessed so projects pay the proportional share of the costs of new and existing water facilities necessary to meet the demand resulting from new or enlarged water services. This charge is intended to mitigate the water supply impacts caused by new development in the City’s water service area, and the funds are used for construction of public water system improvements and conservation programs. Payment of the System Development Charge and implementation of other water conservation measures would mitigate the project’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts.

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

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

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

16.14 of the City’s Municipal Code, is intended to mitigate the water supply impacts caused by new development in the City of Santa Cruz water service area, and the funds are used for construction of

13.144
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -94- March 2023
public water system improvements and conservation programs. Payment of the System Development Charge and implementation of other water conservation measures would mitigate the project’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative water supply impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Because the potential project contribution to cumulative impacts falls within the total level of those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Schools. The General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs concluded that cumulative development could potentially affect school enrollments. The General Plan EIR concluded that this is a potentially significant cumulative impact, but would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with required payment of school impact fees to fund necessary facility expansion and/or additions (City of Santa Cruz, April 2012, DEIR volume). Both EIRs also found that potential addition or expansion of school classroom facilities is not expected to result in significant physical impacts due to the location of existing facilities within developed footprints, and future enrollment could be accommodated without construction of new schools, although some expansion of existing facilities may be necessary (City of Santa Cruz, April 2012, DEIR volume). Therefore, a project’s incremental contribution to this impact as a result of generation of students, including the proposed project, is not cumulatively considerable as the required payment of school impact fees would mitigate the project’s cumulative contribution such that it would no longer be considered cumulatively considerable.

Stormwater. Subsequent to the preparation and certification of the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, the City has identified a cumulative stormwater conveyance/ capacity issue in the downtown area and is proposing a new pump station to address this issue and ensure adequate stormwater conveyance capacity for a five-year storm event in the downtown. A feasibility study was prepared for the City, including an evaluation of alternative sites for locating a new pump station. The study indicates that the existing 42- to 48-inch stormwater pipeline beneath the toe of the San Lorenzo River Levee, which extends between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street, is undersized, and the study identifies a preferred location for a new pump station at the southeast corner of the Front Street/Soquel Avenue intersection (SOURCE V.3c). The City proposes inclusion of the new pump station in the City’s upcoming Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program. The proposed DLAHP would not result in increased runoff due to an overall reduction in impervious surfaces as a result of the project, and therefore, would not contribute to this identified cumulative stormwater impact.

Conclusion. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Nor would the project result in cumulative water supply or traffic impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. Neither the General Plan EIR nor the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR identified impacts relating to air or water pollution or noise levels that would result in adverse effects on human beings; see Sections IV.E.3, 10 and 13. Project construction would

13.145
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -95- March 2023
require demolition of existing buildings that may contain hazardous materials (asbestos and leadbased paint). However, as discussed in Section IV.E.9, an uniformly applied development standard to require testing and removal of these materials if found in compliance with applicable regulations is included as a project condition of approval. Thus, no environmental effects have been identified that would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings, and the project would not result in new significant impacts peculiar to the project or site that would result in substantial adverse effects on humans.

V. REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCE LIST
Agency Plans and Studies

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

Santa Cruz City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
November 19, 2024