Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, August 12, 2025 (part 5 of 5)

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment
2020 North Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Suitability for Preservation Ratings: Disposition Category:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site
RT: Retain Tree
RI: Remove Due to Construction Impacts
Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures
I.M. Impacts Can Be Mitigated With Pre-Construction Treatments R.C. Remove Due to Condition
Regulated Trees City of Santa Cruz - Heritage Tree - Any tree 14 inches or greater in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Street trees regardless of size.

31.158
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.

Regulated
Tree
Crown
Height
(feet)&
Spread
(diameter
feet)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Age
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition &
Species)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
radius feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating &
Description)
Retention
or Removal
Code
Comments
T3 crape myrtle 5" Yes 25'X10' Good Good Semi-Mature Good 10' High (Root loss, excavation) R.I. Street tree. Grows sidewalk cut out with cast iron grate.

T4 crape myrtle 6" Yes 25'X10' Good Good Semi-Mature Good 10' High (Root loss, excavation) R.I. Street tree. Grows sidewalk cut out with cast iron grate.

T5 Marina madrone
(Arbutus 'Marina ') 6" No 15'X15' Good Good Semi-Mature Good 12' High (Within building footprint) R.I. Grows in landscape planter by building. Minor thrip infestation noted on leaves.

T6 Marina madrone 7" No 15'X15' Good Good Semi-Mature Good 12' High (Within building footprint) R.I. Grows in landscape planter by building. Minor thrip infestation noted on leaves.

T7 coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) 44" Yes 85'X25' Good Good Mature Good 25' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Grow in raised wooden planters. Some roots have grown beyond planter and are lifting sidewalk. One sidewalk section is lifted to create a trip hazard.

T8 coast redwood 40" Yes 85'X25' Good Good Mature Good 25' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Grow in raised wooden planters. Some roots have grown beyond planter and are lifting sidewalk. One sidewalk section is lifted to create a trip hazard.

Page 2 of 3 ends

2020 North Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A

31.159
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.

Regulated
Tree
Crown
Height
(feet)&
Spread
(diameter
feet)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Age
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition &
Species)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
radius feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating &
Description)
Retention
or Removal
Code
Comments
T9 Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis) 6" No 15'x10' Good Fair Semi-Mature Good 10' High (Within building footprint) R.I. Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot.

T10 Chinese pistache 6" No 15'X10' Good Fair Semi-Mature Good 10' High (Within building footprint) R.I. Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot.

T11 Chinese pistache 7" No 15'X15' Good Good Semi-Mature Good 12' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot. Topped at 8' above grade. Tree has responded with compacted branch arrangement.

T12 Chinese pistache 9" No 20'x15' Good Fair Semi-Mature Good 12' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot. Topped at 8' above grade. Tree has responded with compacted branch arrangement.

T13 Chinese pistache 9" No 25'X20' Good Fair Semi-Mature Good 15' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot. Topped at 8' above grade. Tree has responded with compacted branch arrangement.

T14 Chinese pistache 9" No 25'X20' Good Fair Semi-Mature Good 15' High (Within building footprint) R.I.

Row of pistache. Grows in planter adjacent to parking lot. Topped at 8' above grade. Tree has responded with compacted branch arrangement.

Page 3 of 3 ends

2020 North Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A

31.160
Tree Location Plan
2020 North Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz
Sheet T1 of2 sheets
K.F.11/7/2024
APN: 006-364-01,02
T3 CRAPE MYRTLE
5"
T2 CAROB
16"
T1 CRAPE MYRTLE
4"
..
. T12 PISTACHE
9"
T13 PISTACHE
9"
T14 PISTACHE
9"
XX
X
.
..XX X
Base map from Sheet 1, Boundary &
Topographic Survey, 2020 N. Pacific Ave.,
dated 9/27/2023, by GW Land Surveying.

31.161
T
9 PISTACHE
6"
T10 PISTACHE
6"
T11 PISTACHE
6"
Tree Location Plan
2020 North Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz
Sheet T2of two sheets
K.F.11/7/2024
APN: 006-364-01,02 ...
..
.
.
. T8 REDWOOD
40"
T7 REDWOOD
44"
T5 MADRONE
6"
T6 MADRONE
7"
T4 CRAPE MYRTLE
6"
X
XX
X
X
X
X
.X
Base map from Sheet 2, Boundary &
Topographic Survey, 2020 N. Pacific Ave.,
dated 9/27/2023, by GW Land Surveying.

31.162

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Trees & Development – A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 1998 Costello, L.R., Watson, G., Smiley E.T. Root Management – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2017 ANSI Board of Standards Review. A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape tree, shrubs, and vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. c.2004 Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Champaign, IL: Wadley Graphix Corp. c.1994
Smiley, E.T., Matheny, N., Lilly, S. Tree Risk Assessment – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2011 Costello, L., Perry, E., & Matheny,N, Abiotic Disorders of Landscape Plants: A Diagnostic Guide Oakland, CA:UC/ANR Publications (Publication 3420) c.2003.

31.163
Glossary of Terms
Basal rot: decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.

Critical Root Zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required.

Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark.

Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage.

Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength.

Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade.

Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects.

Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Branch/limb or limb /trunk, or codominant trunks originating at acute angles from each other. Bark remains between such crotches, preventing the development of axillary wood. The inherent weakness of such attachments increases with time, through the pressure of opposing growth and increasing weight of wood and foliage, often resulting in failure.

Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the height of the crown containing live foliage to overall height of the tree.

Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.

Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure.

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development.

Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots.

This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015)

31.164
Appendix F- TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS Protecting Trees During Construction:
1) Before the start of site work, equipment or materials move in, clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, every tree to be retained shall be securely fenced- off as delineated in approved plans. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of the work undertaken in connection with the development. 2) If the proposed development, including any site work, will encroach upon the tree protection zone, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the project arborist, to allow the roots to obtain necessary oxygen, water, and nutrients. 3) Underground trenching shall avoid the major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees. If avoidance is impractical, hand excavation undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist may be required. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Boring/tunneling under roots should be considered as an alternative to trenching.
4) Concrete or asphalt paving shall not be placed over the root zones of protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the project arborist.
5) Artificial irrigation shall not occur within the root zone of native oaks, unless deemed appropriate on a temporary basis by the project arborist to improve tree vigor or mitigate root loss.
6) Compaction of the soil within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. 7) Any excavation, cutting, or filling of the existing ground surface within the tree protection zone shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as the project arborist may impose. Retaining walls shall likewise be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize their impact on protected trees.
8) Burning or use of equipment with an open flame near or within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9) Oil, gas, chemicals, paints, cement, stucco or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the tree protection zone of any protected tree, or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
10) Construction materials shall not be stored within the tree protection zone of a protected tree.

31.165
Project Arborist Duties and Inspection Schedule:

The project arborist is the person(s) responsible for carrying out technical tree inspections, assessment of tree health, structure and risk, arborist report preparation, consultation with designers and municipal planners, specifying tree protection measures, monitoring, progress reports and final inspection.

The Project Arborist must provide monthly tree protection monitoring inspections. During these inspections the Project Arborist should monitor the condition of the trees, verify the tree protection measures are in compliance, provide recommendations for any necessary maintenance and impact mitigation, and prepare monthly reports for City Arborist Review.

A qualified project arborist (or firm) should be designated and assigned to facilitate and insure tree preservation practices. He/she/they should perform the following inspections:

Inspection of site: Prior to equipment and materials move in, site work, demolition, landscape construction and tree removal: The project arborist will meet with the general contractor, architect / engineer, and owner or their representative to review tree preservation measures, designate tree removals, delineate the location of tree protection fencing, specify equipment access routes and materials storage areas, review the existing condition of trees and provide any necessary recommendations.

Inspection of site: During excavation or any activities that could affect trees: Inspect site during any activity within the Tree Protection Zones of preserved trees and any recommendations implemented. Assess any changes in the health of trees since last inspection.

Final Inspection of Site: Inspection of site following completion of construction. Inspect for tree health and make any necessary recommendations.

Kurt Fouts shall be the Project Arborist for this project. All scheduled inspections shall include a brief Tree Monitoring report, documenting activities and provided to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Fencing
a. The tree protection shall be installed in compliance with the recommendations in the Arborist Report.
b. Then the Project Arborist should visit the property, verify that the protection measures are in compliance, take photos, and then prepare a brief verification letter for City Arborist review.

Tree Protection fencing shall be installed prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials. Fence shall be comprised of six -foot chain link fence mounted on eight - foot tall, 1 and 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced on a minimum of 10-foot centers. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.

A final inspection by the City Arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fencing.

31.166
Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited.

Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.

The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.

Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.

Tree Work Standards and Qualifications
All tree work, removal, pruning, planting, shall be performed using industry standards of workmanship as established in the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute series, Safety Requirements in Arboriculture Operations ANSI Z133-2017, Contractor licensing and insurance coverage shall be verified.

During tree removal and clearance, sections of the Tree Protection Fencing may need to be temporarily dismantled to complete removal and pruning specifications. After each section is completed, the fencing is to be re-installed.

Trees to be removed shall be cut into smaller manageable pieces consistent with safe arboricultural practices, and carefully removed so as not to damage any surrounding trees or structures. The trees shall be cut down as close to grade as possible. Tree removal is to be performed by a qualified contractor with valid City Business/ State Licenses and General Liability and Workman’s Compensation insurance.

31.167
Development Site Tree Health Care Measures

RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWING CONDITIONS, PHYSIOLOGICAL

INVIGORATION AND STAMINA, FOR PROTECTION AND RECOVERY FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACT.

Establish and maintain TPZ fencing, trunk and scaffold limb barriers for protection from mechanical damage, and other tree protection requirements as specified in the arborist report.

Project arborist to specify site-specific soil surface coverings (wood chip mulch or other) for prevention of soil compaction and loss of root aeration capacity.

Soil, water and drainage management is to follow the ISA BMP for "Managing Trees During Construction" and the ANSI Standard A300(Part 2)- 2011 Soil Management (a. Modification, b. 'Fertilization, c. Drainage.)
Fertilizer / soil amendment product(s) amounts and method of application to be specified by certified arborist.

31.168

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Any legal description provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality of any title.

2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.

3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.

4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.

5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.

6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.

7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.

8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.

9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.

10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.

CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. Knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees, Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.

Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.

31.169
From: Planning Counter
To: Timothy Maier
Subject: FW: I oppose the 2020 North Pacific Avenue Clocktower Center project Date: Thursday, May 29, 2025 9:41:31 AM
Public Correspondence for the 2020 N Pacific Project
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith McHenry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 8:27 AM
To: Planning Counter <[email protected]>
Cc: City Plan <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose the 2020 North Pacific Avenue Clocktower Center project I oppose the 2020 North Pacific Avenue Clocktower Center project It saddens me that our city has been ravaged by ugly towers that none of us who live here want. I almost never saw any local people other than developers and city staff who wanted any of these projects. I witnessed the corruption that was used to push all these projects through from the recall campaign hiring violent thugs to get your ballot measure and the never ending name changes of your pro development astroturf groups when your scams were made obvious.

Well you destroyed our beautiful community.

Keith McHenry
640 National Street
Santa Cruz CA 95060

31.170
From: [email protected]
To: Timothy Maier
Subject: 2020 North Pacific Ave Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:42:31 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 2020 North Pacific Ave (CP24-0124) - Significant Project Date & Time: 05/15/2025 4:42 PM
Response #: 97
Submitter ID: 116184
IP address: 2601:647:c800:3460:b89d:a817:82d5:a9da
Time to complete: 9 min. , 9 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 2020 North Pacific Ave (CP24-0124). Please provide any project-related questions or comments in the fields provided. Your comment/question will be automatically directed to the City Planner assigned to this project. Please note that questions and/or comments entered here are public information and subject to release in accordance with the Public Records Act.

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a question(s).

2. Question/Comment:

I have a few questions:

1. I would like to know if this 8-story building is still in the city plans. If so, when will the building start?

2. Have investors committed funds yet? With all the vacancies in the recently developed apartment buildings at the other end of the mall, I have a hard time imagining anyone thinking they can fill these large number of units.

Thank you!

3. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: Not answered

31.171
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

31.172
From: [email protected]
To: Timothy Maier
Subject: 2020 North Pacific Ave Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 6:28:54 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 2020 North Pacific Ave (CP24-0124) - Significant Project Date & Time: 05/14/2025 6:28 PM
Response #: 95
Submitter ID: 116158
IP address: 71.204.163.178
Time to complete: 4 min. , 47 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a question(s).

2. Question/Comment:

Trip generation report was for project with 79 spaces. New project has 100 spaces. Will a new traffic study be done? It's hard to believe that traffic congestion in this area won't be worse.

3. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

31.173
From: [email protected]
To: Timothy Maier
Subject: 2020 North Pacific Ave Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:22:30 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 2020 North Pacific Ave (CP24-0124) - Significant Project Date & Time: 05/14/2025 9:22 PM
Response #: 96
Submitter ID: 116163
IP address: 2601:647:cb01:ccd0:c4c9:6c47:a67e:855e
Time to complete: 6 min. , 5 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a question(s).

2. Question/Comment:

I cannot find the pre application for pacific north. Please tell me where to find it . I am a low income Senior and resident of Santa Cruz paying very high rent.

Janet Ingram Smith 719-330-8931 cell
[email protected]

3. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (719) 330-8931
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

31.174
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

31.175
From: [email protected]
To: Timothy Maier
Subject: 515 Soquel Avenue Question/Comment Received
Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 10:40:58 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 515 Soquel Avenue-Significant Project
Date & Time: 05/02/2025 10:40 AM
Response #: 14
Submitter ID: 116009
IP address: 2603:3024:204:5300:4578:1eb8:bf16:949e
Time to complete: 27 min. , 44 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 515 Soquel Avenue. Please provide any project related question or comment in the fields provided. Your comment/question will be automatically directed to the City Planner assigned to this project. Please note that questions and/or comments entered here are public information and subject to release in accordance with the Public Records Act.

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a question(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (505) 930-4120

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) Question(s) only.

4. Question/Comment:

I'm curious if there has been any new communication by developers on their plan for this project? I live on the north side of the planned project and am getting nervous with the 7 story project going in on 530 Ocean street. If this project goes through, my house will be surrounded by high rise apartments (completely shadowed) which will impact my property value.

Has there been any new movement on this since 2022? Thanks

31.176
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

31.177

31.178

31.179

31.180

31.181

31.182

31.183

31.184

31.185

31.186

31.187

31.188

31.189

31.190

31.191

31.192

31.193

31.194
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ CA 95060
831.227.2217
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
Date: March 24, 2025
To: Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner
Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”) - AddiƟonal InformaƟon on Waivers Hi Samantha and Tim,
I hope it’s okay for me to just write in my own, normal-person voice in this letter. I was at the Almar PC hearing last week and was thinking how busy and difficult your jobs are, and how the process is often just exhausting. This is the fifth draft of this letter. The early drafts were a little salty. Call this the low-sodium version of the letter. The Workbench team is frustrated and it seems like we are often at odds over stuff that I think shouldn’t be so hard. So, I did a rewrite in hopes of just explaining this all from our perspective. If anything seems too harsh, I hope you’ll just read it as exasperation.

You’ve asked that we provide additional information on our requested waivers for Sidewalk widths and Balconies overhanging property line. I’ve also included discussion of two new waivers, for “Build-to lines and setbacks” as explained below, and for “Visibility of Mission Hill” (per your request in the comments letter dated March 21, 2025).

These waivers are good examples of why the state law has been amended so we don’t have to provide documentation on this stuff, and why we really push back. But at the same time, when we have a difference of interpretation, it’s good that we explain our thinking, so here it goes!
Waiver - Sidewalk widths
Throughout the Downtown Plan, development is required “generally” to be built to the property line, however the Downtown Plan also guides projects to set back development to create a 12-foot sidewalk. The design guideline for the North Pacific Area is found on page 68, design guideline number 2.:

2. Build-to Lines and Setbacks.

To promote well-defined streets, development shall generally be required to be built to the property line adjacent to public streets. The following exceptions to this condition are noted:
a. Sidewalk Width. In locations where the sidewalk is less than 12 feet, development shall be set back from the property line to create a 12-foot sidewalk.

As an aside, following this standard would result in a sidewalk that is partially on the subject property and partially in the public right-of-way, so I don’t think it is correct to say that the Downtown Plan’s standard was written assuming that dedications would be required to place the property line at the back of sidewalk. The standard requires “… set back from the

31.195

Page 2 ends

property line to create a 12-foot sidewalk.” It does not require a dedication such that the sidewalk is entirely in the public right-of-way.

Contrary to the “generally” requirement above, guideline number 8. on page 70 applies to “New development occurring adjacent to Town Clock Park (Knight Street right-of-way)” (emphasis added):

8. Town Clock Park/Scope Park.

New development occurring adjacent to Town Clock Park (Knight Street right-of-way) or Scope Park shall have a strong ground-level orientation to these public open spaces. Buildings along Knight Street shall be built to the property line to maintain the spatial quality of Town Clock Park and to reinforce the civic importance of the WaterPacific-Front intersection. Ground-level uses shall be pedestrian-oriented, and the treatment of storefront facades shall correspond with the guidelines described for the Pacific Avenue Retail District.

The “… generally be required to be built to the property line …” except “… where the sidewalk is less than 12 feet …” language in 2.a. applies generally to all frontages of this project. But guideline 8. Is specific to the Knight Street frontage and says “… shall be built to the property line …” and doesn’t follow up with an exception. This is the only place in the Downtown Plan that mentions Knight Street. The project followed design guideline 8. for the Knight Street frontage, because the guideline is specific to this frontage, rather than following design guideline number 2. that is general to sub-area.

The state laws are intended to give us certainty based on just reading the literal words in the development standard as to what we are required and allowed to do. Here, we think the literal (i.e., objective) requirement is to build along the Knight Street frontage to the property line regardless of the sidewalk width.

The property line along Knight Street is about 6 feet from the curb face. I’m pretty certain the property line was about 6 feet from the curb face when the Downtown Plan was adopted. So, if we follow this objective standard 8., we’d only have a 6-foot sidewalk. We don’t want to do a six-foot sidewalk here. That’s too narrow. And you don’t want us to do a six-foot sidewalk either. So, with our next submittal we will be requesting a waiver for Build-to Lines and Setbacks to allow the building to be set back from the property line on Knight Street, as explained further, below.

So, the design team set the ground-floor building façade a little bit back from the property line (about 2 feet) to provide for at least an 8-foot sidewalk width, and created a broad and deep entry plaza, which is consistent with the overall goal of “… a strong ground-level orientation to …” Town Clock Park. The 2nd floor and above are set further back, with an extensive outdoor common space and two private balcony spaces. The Knight-Street frontage is the south-facing façade that will get the most sun throughout the year, and the Town Clock Park and wide streets and public spaces to the south ensure that the sidewalk along Knight Street will get year-round sun. The design team looked at all the language in the design guidelines, tried to follow the intent and subjective standards where possible, and showed the dimensions on the plans. We think this sidewalk design is consistent with the design guidelines as a whole.

In addition, the 1st Submittal included an 8’2” sidewalk along Bulkhead Street to allow for a double-loaded parking aisle and generous lobby and potential commercial spaces facing Knight Street. Here again, the building was set back from the property line to allow at least an 8-foot sidewalk. But in response to the 1st submittal comments, since we can’t find any design guidelines specific to the set-back and sidewalk along Bulkhead Street, we increased the width of the sidewalk on Bulkhead Street, as explained below.
1st Submittal
The proposed site plan, sheet AP0.51, included in the 1st planning submittal shows a proposed 12’5” sidewalk along North Pacific Avenue, a proposed 8’2” sidewalk along Bulkhead Street, and a proposed 8’0” sidewalk along Knight Street.

The comments letter included, page 6:

31.196

Page 3 ends

5. Proposed Site Plan (Sheet AP0.51)
a. Required 12’-wide sidewalk. Revise the site plan to incorporate a sidewalk of 12' in width per the provisions of the Downtown Plan.

Based on this comment, and the above discussion about the Knight Street frontage, we decided to make some changes, including widening the Bulkhead sidewalk, but not the Knight sidewalk. We could have just waived the sidewalk widths altogether. But we didn’t. One reason is that there’s an existing transformer on the Bulkhead side of the building that serves 13 meters that aren’t on our site, and moving that transformer would be really expensive and would disrupt power for a little while to a bunch of neighbors. We still could have just “indented” the building around the existing transformer, and had a narrower sidewalk along Bulkhead, but we adjusted the ground floor to widen the Bulkhead sidewalk, except at the northeast corner where we have a pinch point to allow for some more parking, as explained below. 2nd Submittal
The revised proposed site plan, sheet AP0.51, included in the 2nd planning submittal shows:

1. a proposed 12’5” sidewalk along North Pacific Avenue,

2. a wider-than-12-ft sidewalk along most of Bulkhead Street, except where the northeast corner of the building provides for additional car-stacker parking in response to community comments. This wasn’t dimensioned very well on the plans (we were in a rush to get the submittal in by the deadline), but Omar gave me the dimensions, and the “pinch-point” at the northeast corner is only narrower than 12 feet for a length of 5’4” and even there the building is set back 4’5” from the property line. Most of the building is 15 feet from the back of the curb, which gives us the PG&E-required clearance from the existing transformer, and allows for some landscaping around it.

3. a proposed 8’0” or wider sidewalk along Knight Street, with the ground floor of the building set back about 2 feet from the property line, same sidewalk as the 1st submittal, except the entry courtyard is different.

The State Housing Law Information sheet included “5 Sidewalk widths” under Wavers / Reductions of Development Standards. This waiver covers any development standard pertaining to sidewalk widths, and is specifically intended to cover the narrowing of the sidewalk at the northeast corner of the building. We believe that the 8 foot sidewalk width with the building set back about 2 feet from the property line along Knight Street doesn’t require a waiver for sidewalk width, but rather a waiver for not building to the property line.

Waiver - Build-to Lines and Setbacks
Clearly there are conflicting standards (whether objective or subjective) around the relationship between the sidewalks and the setbacks. In the old days, you’d have discretion to interpret those rules and we’d have to follow whatever you all decided was the appropriate interpretation. The state laws are supposed to give us certainty based on just reading the literal words in the development standard as to what we are required and allowed to do. Here, we think the literal (i.e., objective) requirement is to build along the Knight Street frontage to the property line regardless of the sidewalk width. So, we’re asking for a waiver for the build-to lines and setbacks. For the North Pacific Ave and Bulkhead Street frontages, the literal wording is to build “generally” to the property line, so we don’t need a waiver for the build-to lines and setbacks on those frontages as the term “generally” is subjective and therefore not applicable and does not require a waiver. We will include this waiver request in our next submittal.

Waiver - Balconies overhanging property line
The design team endeavored to design a project that follows the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Plan overall, and the North Pacific sub-area, while achieving the density permitted for the project with the use of the State Density Bonus Law, providing on-site and in-unit amenities to residents, providing an activated ground floor that is open and inviting to the Town

31.197

Page 4 ends

Clock Park, includes the utilities and other services necessary to the project, is financially feasible given the cost of construction, and complies with building codes, all with a design that is unique to this building, and contemporary to its time.

One important element of any multifamily project is the provision of private open space to the residents, which in a mid-rise project is achieved by the use of balconies, which also provide architectural interest, eyes on the street, and a connection between the public and private realm.

Under Planning Principles and Strategies > The Character of Downtown Buildings (page 12 of the Executive Summary), the Downtown Plan expresses that:

The design guidelines call for … buildings that have a unique rhythm and variation created by elements including balconies, loggias, trellises, and bay windows; buildings that extend and enhance the public realm with courtyards, setbacks, extension areas, and passages; and buildings that are not hermetically sealed, but reflect the environment and are energy efficient.

We think the project easily meets this design principal.

The design team, especially Omar, really worked hard to understand all the design guidelines in detail. I didn’t do a deep dive until starting the first draft of this letter, but Omar had showed me where in the design guidelines he was seeing the balcony overhang, and we read the Downtown Plan as allowing the balconies to overhang the property line, as I’m going to explain in too much detail, below.

No detailed balcony design guidelines are contained within the section pertaining to the North Pacific Area The first mention of “balconies” in the North Pacific Area Development Standards and Design Guidelines is on page 69, under the River Street Residential heading, which does not apply to this project. The second and only other mention of “balconies” for this sub-area is on page 72, under Additional Height Zones:

A strong and well detailed storefront and building base is critical to the continuity of the retail and pedestrian environment of the Downtown; intermediate floors should be composed with window openings, balconies or projections that provide visual interest and a scale relationship with adjacent building … There are no detailed design guidelines for balconies in the North Pacific Area section of the Downtown Plan.

Design Guidelines for the Pacific Avenue Retail District apply in other sub-areas Each of the sub-areas has different design guidelines. However, some of the design guidelines in one sub-area are referenced by another sub-area, such that the design guidelines for the subject sub-area are found in another sub-area’s section of the Downtown Plan. The central and most important sub-area is the Pacific Avenue Retail District, so the other sub-areas all cross reference to the standards for the Pacific Avenue Retail District. For example:

1. On page 61, for the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor, “… the ground-level treatment of commercial buildings and parking structures within the area shall generally comply with those for the Pacific Avenue Retail District …”

2. On page 63, for the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor, “The treatment of upper-level facades shall generally comply with the guidelines for the Pacific Avenue Retail District…”

3. On page 66, for the Cedar Street Village Corridor, “The treatment of upper-level facades shall generally comply with the guidelines for the Pacific Avenue Retail District …” and “Building materials can be more diverse and residential in character than those recommended for the Pacific Avenue Retail District.” And the same thing happens in the text for the North Pacific Area where the project is located:

1. On page 69, “The design of the ground-level of buildings facing North Pacific Avenue, River Street and Water Street shall generally follow the guidelines and standards described for the Pacific Avenue Retail District …” and “Clapboard

31.198

Page 5 ends

wood siding is encouraged, in addition to the building materials recommended for the Pacific Avenue Retail District …”

2. On page 70, for Town Clock Park/Scope Park: “Ground-level uses shall be pedestrian-oriented, and the treatment of storefront facades shall correspond with the guidelines described for the Pacific Avenue Retail District.” The bottom line is that the Pacific Avenue Retail District design standards are incorporated by reference into the design guidelines for other sub-areas.

The upper-level façade guidelines for the North Pacific Area are incorporated by reference into the Pacific Avenue Retail District guidelines
The guidelines for the North Pacific Area start on page 68 of the Downtown Plan. On page 69, design guideline 4. is (emphasis added):

4. Building Facades
The treatment of upper-level facades shall generally comply with the guidelines and standards for the Pacific Avenue Retail District in terms of building rhythm, articulation, corner treatment, windows, roof treatment, building materials, colors and planting.

On page 52, in the section of the Downtown Plan pertaining to the Pacific Avenue Retail District, we find guideline 3. UpperLevel Facades as referenced by design guideline 4. of the North Pacific Area section (emphasis added):

3. Upper-Level Facades
In general, the upper-level façade shall be built to the property line and consist of carefully composed “punctured openings” within a richly detailed wall. A variety of treatments shall be introduced to create richness in both the horizontal and vertical planes, including:
 balconies
 bay windows
 flower boxes
 awnings
 cornice and belt courses, etc.

Next, under design guideline 4. Streetwall, page 53 (emphasis added):

4. Streetwall
To create a visually interesting “streetwall” with a rhythm and cadence that is reflective of the pattern of development along Pacific Avenue, building facades shall introduce variation at general intervals of 25 to 50 feet with the use of:
 fenestration,
 architectural elements,
 building materials, and/or
 building planes.

Large, uninterrupted expanses of horizontal or vertical wall surface shall be avoided. Regardless of property lines, the appearance shall be of a street with varying architectural treatments at intervals of no more than 50 to 75 feet.

The multiple rhythms shall be created through the careful design of building elements and three-dimensional articulation of building elements sufficient to mitigate the presence of long, blank walls along Pacific Avenue,

31.199

Page 6 ends

Front Street and Cedar Street the east-west streets, and the alleys. Elements that make up the rhythmic variation may include, but are not limited to:
 recessed windows;
 projecting windows;
 bay windows;
 structural elements;
 surface textures, patterns and colors;
 trim elements;
 balconies;
 belt-cornices;
 cornices;
 awnings and shutters; and
 landscape elements.

Then, under design guideline 7. Upper Level Bay Windows and Balconies, on page 54 we find the only detailed guidelines for balconies in the Downtown Plan (emphasis added):

7. Upper Level Bay Windows and Balconies
Bay or projecting windows and balconies are encouraged and may be permitted on upper levels of buildings, provided that a minimum of 10 feet of clearance is provided to grade and that the following provisions are met:
a. The projection into the public right-of-way or designated setback area is no more than 3 feet; where sidewalks are less than 10 feet in depth, this projection shall be limited to 2 feet; along alleys, no projection shall be closer than 8 feet to the centerline of any alley. b. The glass area of the bay window, and the open portions of each balcony, shall not be less than 50 percent of the total area of the vertical surfaces of the projection. c. Bay windows and balconies shall "punctuate" rather than dominate the facade; to this end, the maximum length of bay windows shall be 15 feet at the property line or setback line; this width shall be reduced to a maximum width of 9 feet at the full projection of 3 feet, by means of 45 degree angles at the sides of all projecting bay windows. Perpendicular bay windows and balconies (or projections at a different angle) may be permitted, provided that they remain within the outside dimensions described above.

Unless balconies are used as a means of distinguishing the storefront area from the upper-level facades, they shall be generally 15 feet in width or less. d. The minimum horizontal separation between bay windows, between balconies, and between bay windows and balconies shall be three feet as measured from the face of the building wall along the property line or setback line. A bay window or balcony shall not occur within two feet of the building edge. The intent of this guideline is to ensure that bay windows and balconies do not visually dominate the building wall.

31.200

Page 7 ends

You have to follow the breadcrumbs, but the detailed Bay windows and Balconies design guidelines are part of the Streetwall and Upper-Level Façade guidelines, which are prescribed by the Pacific Avenue Retail District guidelines and incorporated by reference into the North Pacific Area (and other sub-areas) guidelines. Said differently, the design guidelines for balconies are found in the Pacific Avenue Retail District. They apply in the North Pacific Area (and other sub-areas), and they explicitly allow balconies to extend three feet into the public right-of-way, plus 18 inches for planter boxes, for a total allowed encroachment of up to 4.5 feet.

The project is required to follow the design guidelines for balconies as specified in the Pacific Avenue Retail District. As directed by the guideline on page 69 for the North Pacific Area, “The treatment of upper-level facades shall generally comply with the guidelines and standards for the Pacific Avenue Retail District.” Balconies are part of the upper-level facades, and the only detailed balcony guidelines are those contained in the Pacific Avenue Retail District design guidelines.

Look, people make mistakes. We make mistakes. You make mistakes. We often interpret things differently. But I hope everyone reading the above agrees that 3-foot balcony overhangs into the right-of-way are explicitly permitted for the project.

First Submittal
Based on all of the above guidelines, Workbench submitted proposed plans for a building with extensive balconies overhanging the property line into the public right-of-way along North Pacific Avenue and Bulkhead street beginning at Level 2 (sheet AP1.02 through AP1.08 of the first planning submittal), and overhanging into the Knight Street right-of-way beginning at Level 3 (sheet AP1.03 through AP1.08).

Those balconies extended up to five feet beyond the property line in order for the project to include curved corners with a long sweeping radius, as a key design element of the project, and so that there would be generous private open space for most of the units. This is a density bonus project. It is eligible for concessions and waivers to ensure that the project can include the density allowed for the project and the amenities the applicant deems appropriate for the project. Spacious balconies are an important residential amenity that increases the financial viability of the project, so a concession/incentive could potentially be used to allow for the larger balconies. But, the project is entitled to over 220 units, and to achieve the number of units within the spatial limitations of the site and building-code and construction-cost limitations on height, the average unit size is only about 520 square feet, so the project is also entitled to waive development standards that physically preclude the project from including the units and amenities as proposed and designed.

So, we did a design with five-foot balconies overhanging the property line, and are entitled to a waiver for the balcony overhangs.

After making the first planning submittal, we received the City’s comments letter, dated November 22, 2024, including this comment on page 6 (emphasis added):

No encroachment by balconies. Revise the proposed design to eliminate encroachment of balconies beyond the lot's property into the public right-of-way (ROW). It is encouraged that the project provide balconies and similar such features for use of outdoor space which additionally provide visual interest and mitigate project mass and bulk are, but encroachment beyond the project's property lines cannot be supported.

And this contradictory comment on page 7 (emphasis added):

31.201

Page 8 ends

The comment correctly says to comply with the guidelines and standards for the Pacific Avenue Retail District” and “… upperlevel façade shall be built to the property line …” but fails to quote or acknowledge the guidance from the Pacific Avenue Retail District specific to balconies on page 54, that allows for a three-foot encroachment into the public right-of-way.

Attempts to resolve the balcony-overhang issue
Following the receipt of the above comments, we reached out to the City to try and resolve this issue. Omar emailed Tim Maier on December 5, 2024, and quoted the ODS section that “… balconies at the second story or above may extend into the right-of-way no more than three feet …” and asked, “Is there a path to gaining city support for a balcony projection of 3’-0” max? (smaller than the currently proposed 5’-0”)” and asked for a meeting, saying the balconies are “… the biggest impact on the project from the comments received as it would mean the elimination of all the balconies completely or else the reduction of up to +/-17,000SF of residential area to push into the buildable footprint.” Then on December 17, Omar followed up and provided a snippet of the approved development plan for the Anton Pacific project that not only has balconies extending beyond the property line, but also livable building space encroaching into the public right of way.

And then I followed up with a quote from the Anton Pacific staff report pointing out that “The upper floor projections are consistent with the Downtown Plan that allows for a maximum three-foot encroachment over the public right-of-way and a maximum nine-foot width for bay window encroachments and a maximum 15-foot width for balconies.” The Anton Pacific staff report correctly stated that upper floor projections are consistent with the Downtown Plan. It did not say “consistent with the Pacific Avenue Retail District,” because the entire Downtown Plan uses the balcony standards found in the section pertaining to the Pacific Avenue Retail District.

Then, after the holiday break, Omar followed up with Tim on January 7, 2025 saying:

I just wanted to follow up on this item as we are quickly running out of time to make adjustments to our plans, get consultants to make changes and resubmit in time for our SB330 resubmittal window. Our goal is to be deemed complete in this next submittal (with whatever compliance items may remain that require our attention and adjustments), however the impact of the balconies is a major one on the Clocktower Project.

When do you think you can share official direction on this matter? We need to move quickly to make sure we have enough time to update all of our work, the inclusion or exclusion of these balconies as you know has a huge impact on our architectural plans, elevations, renderings, and area plans, and impacts our civil and landscape consultants as well. We appreciate whatever guidance you can offer so we can keep racing ahead, even if it is as simple as referencing the approvals listed below from the Anton Pacific project.

Tim M. responded the same day (emphasis added):

Regarding the question related to allowability of encroachment for balconies, etc. for the 2020 N. Pacific Avenue redevelopment project (CP24-0124), our response remains that encroachment into the public right-of-way cannot be supported.

With reference to a suggested parallel between the subject project and the Pacific/Front/Laurel project, one key difference is that the Pacific/Front/Laurel project was entitled in 2018, prior to January 1, 2020, when SB330 went into effect. Additionally, the Pacific/Front/Laurel site is located in the Pacific Avenue Retail District of the Downtown Plan, a subarea for which the Downtown Plan contains statements allowing for projection of certain building features into the public right-of-way.

The 2020 N. Pacific Avenue site is located in the North Pacific Avenue subarea of the Downtown Plan, in which the Downtown Plan does not contain an objective standard allowing for any consideration of encroachment into the public right-of-way.

31.202

Page 9 ends

In light of the above, no mechanism allows for consideration of encroachment of a private development project into the public right-of-way as proposed, and such encroachment can therefore not be supported.

Staff’s response is pretty exasperating
Tim and Samantha, my intent here is not to be a jerk, and not to throw Tim under the bus, but just to explain how much that response chapped my hide, and how that response has influenced my thinking on providing more explanation on waivers.

We took Tim’s response very much to mean that despite what we feel is a clear right, contained both in the Downtown Plan and in the ODS, to a three-foot balcony overhang; despite our repeated emails with supporting facts, and precedents for the overhangs; and despite our clear communication about the impacts to the project; and after a month of follow ups; we got this response that just feels really wrong. So, apologies, but this part is gonna be salty:

1. We just don’t think it’s relevant whether staff can “support” the encroachment. Subjective considerations not supposed to be used on housing development permits. You are supposed to simply apply the relevant objective standards. We welcome suggestions and have no problem with you explaining why you recommend something different than what we proposed. But we also want you to have due regard for state laws, including the requirement to grant waivers.

2. Tim, I’m sorry, but you are just wrong about the balcony overhang as I explained above. The balcony standards applicable to the project are those found in the Pacific Avenue Retail District section of the Downtown Plan. We all make honest mistakes, you’ve caught a bunch of mine, but applicants rely on City staff to have detailed knowledge of the City’s standards. It is not the applicant’s job to explain the City’s codes and standards to staff. If reasonable people come to different interpretations, state laws require that the interpretation used by the project applicant prevails. The old world where the applicant always has to defer to the staff’s judgement is no longer the world we live in. Deference goes to the project. The Housing Accountability Act, subdivision (f) paragraph (4):
(4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.

3. The email stated “… in the North Pacific Avenue subarea … the Downtown Plan does not contain an objective standard for any consideration of encroachment into the right-of-way.” First, the North Pacific Area design guidelines direct the reader to the Pacific Avenue Retail District for the applicable upper-story façade standards, as explained above. But moreover, so what if that subarea does not contain an objective standard allowing an encroachment? It also doesn’t contain a standard prohibiting encroachment. The absence of a standard is a permission, not a prohibition. Unless the City has a published objective standard prohibiting an encroachment, or some state law prohibits it, the project can encroach.

4. The contention that “… no mechanism allows for consideration of encroachment …” is just plain false. Many mechanisms could allow for an encroachment, including the ODS, the SDBL concessions and waivers, a variance, or simply a finding that encroachments have been permitted for other projects and thus must be permitted for this project.

By using the phrase “consideration of” an encroachment, what we hear is you saying that you refuse to consider the various mechanisms that could allow the encroachment.

5. Finally, the email repeats the “not be supported” language, again claiming that staff is permitted to make subjective judgements about a housing development permit. It just feels like a bullying attempt to shut us down.

But, even when we strongly disagree, I really respect and appreciate your professionalism. So, this letter is trying to explain all the rationale about the balconies, so hopefully we can come to agreement rather than just being at odds with each other.

31.203

Page 10 ends

Impending deadline and request for extension
After receiving the January 7 email, the Workbench team all met to determine how to proceed. We had previously sketched options for designs with no balconies, with balconies behind the property line and the building façade set back from the property line, and with buildings built to the property line and balconies extending only three feet over the property line. And the result was what Omar communicated to Tim M.: they were all bad options that either reduced the size or number of units or left the majority of units with no private open space.

The option to design the building with no balconies was just awful, and considered by the team to be inconsistent with applicable design standards due to a lack of articulation and a lack of private open space. The option to set the building façade back from the property line and keep the balconies behind the property line would require a reduction in either the number or size of the units, reducing the FAR-density and/or unit-density of the project, which is exactly what the SDBL rules are intended to prevent. The option to build to the property line and extend the balconies three feet beyond the property line was considered to be the only option that would be consistent with the downtown plan, comply with the objective standards, and be a viable project at the density we’re allowed.

Given the impending SB 330 resubmittal deadline of February 20, 2025, and the City’s repeated insistence that no encroachment would be allowed, we decided to proceed with a redesign to three-foot balcony overhangs. While the team was confident that a three-foot balcony overhang was clearly permitted by the Downtown Plan, and a waiver or concession could be used to extend five feet, we were running out of time and needed to get it resubmitted.

Once we saw the results of the redesign, we really were not happy with the narrower balconies. This whole thing was a delay of many weeks, and a major and expensive redesign of the project, to make it worse. The balconies were reduced to overhang only three feet into the public right-of-way, reducing the signature sweeping curved corners of the project design, substantially reducing the private open space for the units, and reducing the financial viability of the project by severely cutting back an important amenity of the project.

Request for extension
As we approached the submittal deadline, we could see that there were still major open issues, so about a week before the deadline, we asked for an extension to discuss the proposed waivers and concessions and other issues, including the base density study, all of which continue to be issues that City is refusing to budge on. The request for an extension was denied, and we do understand that that denial was mistaken and unintentional, but the response to the request for extension took about a week. With no more time, Applicant hurried to make the second submittal.

Second Submittal
The project was resubmitted on the deadline of February 20, 2025. A cover letter was submitted, along with previously provided detailed response letters regarding the base density study and the concessions and waivers. The letter regarding concessions and waivers exhaustively explained the SDBL requirements, case law, and HCD guidance regarding waivers.

In addition, the State Housing Law Information sheet included the citation to the SDBL regarding waivers, and quoted from the two appeals court cases with respect to waivers (emphasis added):

In accordance with Gov. Code 65915(e)(1), "In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit ... a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards ..."
The court in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley found "Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period."

31.204

Page 11 ends

The court in Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego found "[U]nless one of the statutory exceptions applies, so long as a proposed housing development project meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes "amenities" beyond the bare minimum of building components."
We proposed several waivers, including for the balconies:

To assist the Jurisdiction in complying with the State Density Bonus Law requirement not to apply any development standard that would physically preclude the Project as designed and proposed, the Applicant has identified the following development standards which, if applied, would physically preclude the Project, and hereby proposes that the Jurisdiction waive or reduce the conflicting development standards. …
4 Balconies overhanging the property line
…
Despite all that, the City’s comments letter on the 2nd Submittal, dated March 21, 2025, has just repeated all the same comments on these items. There has been virtually no attempt to even address the points in our responses to comments.

Visibility of Mission Hill
The comments letter asked us to request a waiver for visibility of Mission Hill. We will respond to this request after the City explicitly answers this question:

Please identify the development standard you are applying that would be eligible for a waiver. If you are referring to the following development standard, please tell us whether this development standard is objective or subjective (Downtown Plan, page 68):
c. Visual Analysis and Criteria for Exceeding Base Height. Proposed development above 35 feet, up to 50 feet, must prepare a detailed visual analysis of the building to determine the visual impact. The visual impact analysis must consider the views from the mid-point of the Water Street Bridge looking toward the Mission Hill, from Mission Hill and other key locations within the City. The additional building height shall not obstruct views of the profile of the top of the grade of Mission Hill as viewed from the crest of the Water Street Bridge; i. Additional height above 45 feet, up to a maximum of 50 feet, must demonstrate that the building creates a superior gateway entrance to Pacific Avenue and the Downtown; and ii. The building height above 35 feet shall be stepped back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the 35 foot Base Height. The additional height shall be highly articulated and the upper level shall gently transition to surrounding development. iii. Uninhabitable mechanical penthouses will be permitted above the Base Height to a maximum height of 5 feet above the permitted building height, provided that such penthouses are set back a minimum of 15 feet from any exposed face of the buildings and are out of the pedestrian's view, unless such penthouses are architecturally integrated into the building façade design.

If part of the standard is objective and part is subjective, please identify which parts are subjective and which are objective.

To be clear, I am NOT asking if this standard requires discretionary review. I’m asking if the development standard is an “objective, quantifiable” development standard as defined by Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(9):
(9) For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development

31.205

Page 12 ends

applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project.

Please remember that waivers are a response to a jurisdiction applying “… any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.” (Gov. Code 65915(e).) Only objective, quantifiable, written development standards apply to housing projects, per the Housing Accountability Act.

So, if the “visibility of Mission Hill” is a subjective standard then it does not apply. If the “visibility of Mission Hill” is an objective standard that would preclude construction of the project as designed and proposed, then “In no case” may the City apply the standard.

Obviously, we need to either agree or disagree on whether this is an objective or subjective standard, because it has implications for the base density study as well as this comment instructing us to request a waiver.

Please, no more requests for additional information
We have done everything we can think of to educate staff on the requirements of state law, and I get it, you don’t want anyone to tell you how to do your job. But the simple fact is that State law and case law entitle density bonus projects to waivers. Jurisdictions have no right to force projects to redesign to conform to objective standards that are waived.

We really do have reasons for not providing documentation and justifications for waivers. We simply don’t want to spend precious time detailing how exactly the project complies with most, but not all, of the hundreds of complex standards. You know as well as we do that no project can possibly follow every standard, objective or subjective, and still include the density allowed and the amenities and services that are necessary for a project to work and actually get built. There are always alternative designs that might be better in some ways. There might even be a design that is perfect … in someone’s eyes.

We’re always trying to do better, and we really do consider all of your comments and suggestions. But at the end of the day, after we’ve all done our best, you just have to let those waived items go.

The purpose of subdivision (e) (the waivers section) of the SDBL is to prevent precisely what has happened on this project:
cities demanding compliance with a standard that requires a major redesign, which reduces amenities, forces reductions in the residential area of the project, and makes the project less financially viable. The case law is clear that jurisdictions “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes "amenities" beyond the bare minimum.” In this case, the City applied a development standard to preclude the project from including balconies that overhang the property line, when in fact no such prohibition exists, the Downtown Plan explicitly permits balconies to overhang the property line by three feet, the ODS explicitly allows the balconies to overhang three feet, and the most recently constructed housing development project in the Downtown was approved not only with balconies overhanging the property line but with enclosed, livable, building area encroaching into the public right-of-way. We informed the City of the fact that that other project was allowed to encroach into the public right-of-way, by quoting directly from the City’s own staff report. Finally, the incompleteness letter for this project references the section of the Downtown Plan that says the design guidelines for the Pacific Avenue Retail District are applicable to the project.

31.206

Page 13 ends

In the case of the sidewalk widths, the Downtown Plan has conflicting guidance regarding the sidewalk width along Knight Street, and the Applicant requested a waiver to allow for a sidewalk width that varies along Bulkhead Street in order to accommodate the neighborhood’s desire that the project include more parking. It’s a lot less complex, but equally not something we should have to provide more information about.

What we try our best to do is design the project in a way that provides the density and amenities, with due consideration of design guidelines, and following the applicable objective standards, as best we can discern them from published materials, with deviations from those objective standards where necessary in our best judgement. Please keep giving us great comments and suggestions. If there’s something that just doesn’t make sense to you, ask us.

Closing
Because of the severe impact on the balcony amenity, and its deleterious effect on the quality of life of the future residents of the project, as well as the financial impact to the project, I really hope you’ll understand why the next design submittal is going to restore the depth of the balcony overhangs to five feet as originally proposed.

We get to use a waiver to do this, because as we have demonstrated by the fact that the 2nd Submittal has less density, and less of the amenities we originally proposed, reducing the balcony overhangs would physically preclude the density, with the amenities proposed by the project.

We really, truly, want to work with staff to design projects that are responsive to the design guidelines, consider your (and I mean this absolutely sincerely) wise counsel, incorporate comments from your excellent and careful reviews, and address those concerns of the neighbors that it is possible for us to address without reducing the density and feasibility of projects.

But we just fundamentally believe that building housing is more important than perfectly adhering to a quite literally mindboggling set of standards. We will never apologize for being fierce advocates for housing and for density.

Sincerely,
Clay Toombs
Sr. Development Mgr.
o. 831.227.2217 ext. 310
c. 323.363.0257
[email protected]

31.207
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ CA 95060
831.227.2217
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
Date: June 14, 2025
To: Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110
Direct: 831-420-5129
Email: [email protected]
RE: CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”) – Complete List of Waivers and IncenƟves/Concessions for 3rd Planning SubmiƩal Dear Mr. Maier,
Applicant (on behalf of property owners Clocktower Center, LLC and Knight Street Santa Cruz, LLC) made a 2nd planning submittal for the above-referenced project on February 20, 2025, met with City staff, conducted community meetings, and considered the concerns of Staff and the community in making certain changes to our plans. We received City’s incompleteness letter with compliance comments dated March 21, 2025.

The comments letter included this item 5, as a “completeness item”:

Complete List of Waivers and Incentives/Concessions. Please provide a complete list of proposed waivers, with each requested deviation/exception from any relevant regulation(s) represented as a separate waiver or incentive/concession. Please note that the requested incentive/concession proposing a 15-day appeal period cannot be supported, as fulfillment of City obligations related to preparation of any public hearing require a longer period of time; for instance, preparation of legal noticing alone for publication in the newspaper of record must be completed minimally 23 days in advance of a hearing.

City requested additional information on two waiver requests:

1. A waiver or reduction of development standards pertaining to sidewalk widths,

2. A waiver or reduction of development standards pertaining to balconies overhanging property line.

Applicant responded with a letter dated March 24, 2025, RE: CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”) - Additional Information on Waivers, and met with Planning Director Butler and Principal Planner Haschert. The letter addressed these two items in detail. At the meeting, Applicant reiterated that the project would be requesting a waiver for balcony overhangs and sidewalk widths. The letter also explained why Applicant would be adding a waiver for building setbacks. City also asked that Applicant request a waiver for views that may be obstructed by the project. Applicant’s 3rd planning submittal includes balconies that overhang the property line by 4 feet 6 inches (4’6”). The rationale for this is thoroughly explained in the March 24 letter.

List of Waivers
For this 3rd Submittal, the list of waivers is:

1. Building height

31.208

Page 2 ends

2. Stepbacks

3. Bicycle parking

4. Balconies overhanging property line

5. Sidewalk widths

6. Building setbacks

7. Views which may be obstructed by the development
With the above, Applicant has requested a waiver or reduction of development standards for those development standards that the City has identified as issues for the project’s consistency with objective development standards. Development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project can be waived pursuant to subdivision (e) of the SDBL. Applicant hereby requests a waiver or reduction of development standards for any and all other development standards covered by subdivision (e) that the City may identify in this third planning submittal.

List of Concessions
For concessions, it is normal for there to be some discussion during the compliance review period that results in changes to the concession requests. In consultation with the Planning department, Applicant has agreed to withdraw or revise certain concession request. With this 3rd planning submittal, Applicant is requesting the two concessions or incentives listed below.

Applicant reserves the right to request a third concession, consistent with subdivision (d) of the SDBL.

Concession / Incentive 1 – Expedited Ministerial Approval of Eating and Drinking Establishments The project proposes an 8th floor space labeled on sheet AP1.08 as “Rooftop Common Space (Future Commercial)” and encompassing the apx. 789 SF of indoor space and 749 SF of outdoor area, and a ground-floor space labeled on sheet AP1.08 as “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” and encompassing the apx. 1938 SF of indoor space as well as potentially an area for outdoor dining in the project’s entry courtyard. This application number CP24-0124 does not include an application for any use except Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse, including lobbies, leasing offices, and associated uses, as specified in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, upon approval of this housing development permit, said “(Future Commercial)” spaces will be entitled for Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse and its associated common areas, services, etc.

City acknowledges that the Downtown Plan may allow, but does not require, within said “(Future Commercial)” spaces, any of the uses specified in Tables 4-1 or 4-2 for the North Pacific sub-area, subject to the use permit requirements and the Additional Regulations listed below the tables. Applicant desires to retain the flexibility to use these spaces for residential amenities if the property owner is unable to lease these spaces at reasonable rents to a commercial tenant or tenants.

Applicant intends to market both the ground-floor “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” and the 8th-floor “Rooftop Common Space (Future Commercial)” to tenants for the Use Categories listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 under the Commercial heading. Applicant specifically intends to market said 8th floor space together with all or part of the ground-floor “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” for a single Eating and Drinking Establishment with on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, connected between the ground floor and the 8th floor by a dedicated elevator as shown on the project plan. This would create an opportunity for the public to dine and drink in an establishment unlike any other in the County, helping support the strong hospitality industry in Santa Cruz.

Incentive request: To encourage the use of the ground-floor “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” and the 8th-floor “Rooftop Common Space (Future Commercial)” for public-serving eating and drinking establishments, the City acknowledges that Eating and Drinking Establishments, including outdoor rooftop dining and (subject to State and local laws) the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, are uses allowed on both the ground and upper floors of buildings in the North Pacific area of the Downtown Plan, either with an Administrative Use Permit, or (for a Bona Fide Restaurant) principally permitted.

31.209

Page 3 ends

Applicant requests that any use permit or building permit required for an Eating and Drinking Establishment be processed ministerially, and that any ministerial permit application be expedited. Further Applicant requests that the City place a Condition of Approval on the project to this effect:

The spaces labeled as ground-floor “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” and 8th-floor “Rooftop Common Space (Future Commercial)” on the approved project plans are encouraged to be used as an Eating and Drinking Establishment, including outdoor rooftop dining and the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, in accordance with the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan. Such use shall be subject to the requirements and standards applicable to the use, except that the City shall process any required use permit for an Eating and Drinking Establishment ministerially, and City departments shall, to the extent permitted by applicable law, expedite the approval of ministerial permits necessary for an Eating and Drinking Establishment use in the “(Future Commercial)” spaces.

This incentive will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. Expediting ministerial permits for future commercial spaces reduces the cost of marketing and leasing the spaces and the cost of processing the permits necessary to construct and use the spaces. Expediting the permits also reduces ongoing maintenance costs of vacant spaces. This concession/incentive is requested pursuant to Govt. Code §§ 65915(d) and 65915(k)(3).

Concession / Incentive 2 - Allow and Incentivize Active Frontage Uses The project proposes a ground-floor space labeled on sheet AP1.08 as “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” and encompassing the apx. 1938 SF of indoor space as well as potentially an area for outdoor dining in the project’s entry courtyard. This application number CP24-0124 does not include an application for any use except, for the ground floor, the use named Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse, lobbies, leasing offices, and associated uses, as specified in Table 4-1 of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan.

Below Table 4-1, and keyed to a column in that table, are a list of nineteen “Additional Regulations — Ground Floor Uses.” The North Pacific area is a district where multi-family housing requires an Administrative Use Permit (as specified in the table by the letter “A”), and in accordance with Additional Regulation (2), “common residential lobbies for upper-level residences are allowed at ground level with active ground level common spaces publicly visible.” On Page 70, item h. is headed “Wrap Garage with Commercial” but further states “… by means of active ground-level uses as described above.” The term “active ground level uses” includes “active ground level common spaces” as specified in Additional Regulation (2) below Table 4-1.

City acknowledges that the Downtown Plan may allow, but does not require, within the “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)”, any of the uses specified in Tables 4-1 for the North Pacific sub-area, subject to the use permit requirements and the Additional Regulations listed below the table. Applicant desires to retain the flexibility to use said space for residential amenities if the property owner is unable to lease this space at reasonable rents to a commercial tenant or tenants.

In discussion with City planning staff, Applicant understands that ground-floor spaces that are public-serving are preferable to ground-floor spaces that are private to the residents of the project. That is, the City prefers that the ground-floor space identified as “Commercial” on the plans be occupied by a business open to the public rather than a residential amenity space.

Applicant intends to market both the ground-floor “Commercial” space and the 8th-floor “Commercial” space to tenants for the Use Categories listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 under the Commercial heading, including Eating and Drinking Establishments.

However, Applicant desires to retain the flexibility to use these spaces for residential amenities if the property owner is unable to lease these spaces at reasonable rents to a commercial tenant or tenants.

Incentive request: To incentivize active frontage uses and increase the likelihood that the ground-floor space labeled “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” (on sheet AP1.01 of the approved development permit plan set) will be occupied by a public-serving active-frontage use, in addition to the uses permitted by the Downtown

31.210

Page 4 ends

Plan, Applicant requests that the City shall allow those Uses for Active Frontage specified in the Table accompanying this incentive request (a selection of uses that are specified in SCMC 24.10.710, 730.1, and 730.2), with the same requirements and qualifications as those Uses for Active Frontage are allowed in the C-C Community Commercial District outside the Coastal Zone. Further Applicant requests that the City place a Condition of Approval on the project to this effect:

The use of the ground-floor space labeled as “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” (on sheet AP1.01 of the approved development permit plan set) is encouraged to be used for public-serving active-frontage uses, including those “Other Uses for Active Frontage” specified in the table accompanying Applicant’s request for this incentive (a selection of uses that are specified in SCMC 24.10.710, 730.1, and 730.2), with the use permit requirements specified in the table accompanying Applicant’s request for this incentive, and in accordance with the requirements and qualifications for those Uses for Active Frontage as specified in the C-C Community Commercial District outside the Coastal Zone. The “Other Uses for Active Frontage” shall be in addition to the Use Categories permitted, now or in the future, by the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Table 4- 1 for the North Pacific sub-area.

This incentive will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. Allowing additional active frontage uses reduces the cost of marketing and leasing the spaces, the ongoing maintenance costs of vacant spaces, and the cost of financing a project with ground-floor commercial spaces that are notoriously difficult to lease and have historically high vacancy rates. This concession/incentive is requested pursuant to Govt.

Code §§ 65915(d) and 65915(k)(3).

Please find attached the “table accompanying Applicant’s request for this incentive” referenced above.

Closing
We have made significant efforts to communicate and cooperate with the Planning department with respect to waivers and concessions and hope that the above satisfies all requests for information on waivers and concessions.

Sincerely,
Clay Toombs
Sr. Development Mgr.
o. 831.227.2217 ext. 310
c. 323.363.0257
[email protected]

Attachment:

Table 4-1 Table of Ground Floor Uses Applicable to CP24-0124 (APNs 006-36-401 and 006-36-402)

31.211
Table 4-1 Table of Ground Floor Uses Applicable to CP24-0124 (APNs 006-36-401 and 006-36-402) Specific to this Project and pursuant to an SDBL Incentive, the Other Uses for Active Frontage listed in the table below are uses allowed in addition to the uses allowed per Table 4-1 of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan.

TABLE 4-1: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Ground Floor (Street Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit S = Special Use
Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North Pacific Additional Regulations
Residential
Community Care Residential Facility — — P/A — (1)
Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse,
lobbies, leasing offices, and associated uses
A A A A (2)
Dwellings, One-Family & Two-Family — — P — (2)
Dwellings, Flexible Density Unit Housing* A A A A (2)
Dwellings, SRO Single Room Occupancy Housing A A A A (2) Family Day Care Homes, Small or
Large, in existing residential units
— P P P (1)
Supportive and Transitional Housing A A A A (2)
Supportive and Transitional Housing, in
existing residential units
P P P P (1), (2)
Commercial (3)
Banks and Financial Institutions A P A P (4)
Business Support Services A P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
- Bar, Tavern A A S A (5)
- Brewpubs A A A A (5)
- Bona Fide Restaurant P P P P (5)
- Tasting Rooms A A A A
- Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries A A A A (6)
General Market P/A P/A P/A P/A (7)
Hotels / Motels A P A P (8)
Instructional Services
- Schools, Business and Technical
A A A A (9)
Live/Work Quarters A A A A (10)
Nightclubs and Live Entertainment S S S S (11)
Offices, Professional A A A P (12)
Parking Facilities, Surface and Structured A A A A (13) Personal Services
- General Personal Services A A A P (14)
- Health/Fitness Studio A A A A (15)
Retail Sales P/A P/A P/A P/A (7), (16)
Theaters/Commercial Entertainment,
Arcade, Billiard Hall and other Indoor
Recreation Uses
P P S P (19)
Thrift Stores/Pawn Shops S S S S (17)
Institutional and Community Facilities (3)
Community/Religious Assembly A A A A
Day Care Centers A A A A
Government Buildings P P P P
Medical Centers and Clinics A A A A (12)
Museums/Galleries/Cultural Institutions A A A A (18)
Social Service Centers A A A A

31.212
Table 4-1 Table of Ground Floor Uses Applicable to CP24-0124 (APNs 006-36-401 and 006-36-402) Specific to this Project and pursuant to an SDBL Incentive, the Other Uses for Active Frontage listed in the table below are uses allowed in addition to the uses allowed per Table 4-1 of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan.

TABLE 4-1: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Ground Floor (Street Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit S = Special Use
Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North Pacific Additional Regulations
Other Uses for Active Frontage (As Allowed in the C-C Commercial Zone) Principal Permitted Uses Outside the Coastal Zone
a. Acting/art/music/dance schools and studios
(610);
P (20)
b. Apparel and accessory stores (250); P (20)
c. Auto supply stores (260C); P (20)
e. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420); P (20) f. Financial services (320); P (20)
g. Food and beverage stores (except liquor and
convenience stores) (240);
P (20)
h. General retail merchandise (drug and
department stores) (230);
P (20)
i. Home furnishing stores (270); P (20)
j. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians
and ambulance services) (410);
P (20)
k. Museums and art galleries (600); P (20)
l. Professional/personal service (except
contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310);
P (20)
m. Repairs, alterations and maintenance services
for household items (except boat repair) (340);
P (20)
n. Small preschool/childcare (twelve or fewer)
(510A);
P (20)
o. Specialty retail supply stores (290); except
thrift stores (290m);
P (20)
q. Video rental (650). P (20)
Administrative Use Permit Requirement (Outside the Coastal Zone) a. Bakery, handicrafts or similar light
manufacturing and assembly uses associated with
retail sales if floor area is less than seven thousand
square feet and retail sale or service area occupies
at least thirty percent of the floor area;
A (20)
d. Community organizations, associations, clubs
and meeting halls (570);
A (20)
e. Educational facilities (public/private) (510); A (20) i. Veterinarians (410A). A (20)
Special Use Permit Requirement (Outside the Coastal Zone) b. Convenience stores, subject to alcohol
regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B);
S (20)
d. Smoking lounges as defined in Section

24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and
performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

S (20)
Other Similar Uses as Determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be consistent with the purpose of
the subdistrict

P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S
The Additional Regulations — Ground Floor Uses" specified on pages 38 through 42 shall apply. In addition, this Additional Regulation shall apply to the Other Active Frontage Uses:
(20) Other Uses for Active Frontage. These Uses are applicable only to the housing development project approved by CP24-0124 (APNs 006-36-401 and 006-36-402) its associated State Density Bonus Law incentive. The use of the ground-floor space labeled as “Active Common Space (Future Commercial)” (on sheet AP1.01 of the approved development permit plan set) is encouraged to be used for public-serving active-frontage uses, including those “Other Uses for Active Frontage” specified in the table above (a selection of uses that are specified in SCMC 24.10.710, 730.1, and 730.2), with the use permit requirements specified in the table above, and in accordance with the requirements and qualifications for those Uses for Active Frontage as specified in the CC Community Commercial District outside the Coastal Zone.

31.213

Page 1 ends

Date: May 29, 2025
To: Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110
Direct: 831-420-5129
Email: [email protected]
RE: CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”) – Waivers, Balconies and Proposed Condition of Approval Dear Mr. Maier,
This letter is provided to address Staff’s intention to recommend a condition of approval be placed on housing development permit CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”), that would effectively deny Applicant’s request for a waiver or reduction of development standards related to balconies overhanging the property line.

List of Waivers
In a letter dated June 14, 2025, RE: CP24-0124 (“Clocktower”) – Complete List of Waivers and Incentives/Concessions for 3rd Planning Submittal, Applicant provided this information at the request of City:

For this 3rd Submittal, the list of waivers is:

1. Building height

2. Stepbacks

3. Bicycle parking

4. Balconies overhanging property line

5. Sidewalk widths

6. Building setbacks

Development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project can be waived pursuant to subdivision (e) of the SDBL. Applicant hereby requests a waiver or reduction of development standards for any and all other development standards covered by subdivision (e) that the City may identify in this third planning submittal.

Subsequent to the provision of the June 14 letter, City identified additional items that City has determined are standards not met by Applicant’s proposed development as designed, and Applicant has requested waivers for these additional City standards or requirements:

8. Floor Area Ratio

9. Garage Wrapped with Commercial Use (page 70 of Downtown Plan)

10. Transformer undergrounding
Thank you for continuing to communicate with Applicant as you prepare the staff report, and please reach out with any other items that may be identified as development standards that the City must waive.

31.214

Page 2 ends

Condition of Approval RE Balconies
On May 20, 2025, Applicant received an email with Subject: A Few Items re: Requested Waivers and Incentives/Concessions, 2020 N. Pacific Ave./113 Knight St. (CP24-0124), in which Staff indicated intention to recommend a condition of approval be imposed on the approval of the housing development permit application:

Additionally, it is noted that encroachment of balconies beyond the property lines of the subject lot will not be recommended for approval, as previously relayed. Condition(s) of approval will be added requiring revision of the design of the building submitted for Building Permit issuance (assuming project entitlement) to omit encroachment by any feature(s) of the building including balconies and similar projections, exterior walls, and the like, beyond the perimeter lot lines of the subject site.

Applicant responded to the email:

On this one, we disagree with the City's interpretation of the Downtown Plan. We maintain our request for the waiver and provided a detailed explanation in the attached. The City must follow State law with respect to the waiver request.

At this time, Applicant understands that the other waiver requests are not being challenged and that other potential conditions of approval would not relate to requested waivers. Applicant has requested that Staff provide all the proposed conditions of approval as soon as practicable for review prior to the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for June 5, 2025. The following would apply to any other recommendation of Staff or action by decision makers with respect to waivers or reductions of development standards.

The City may not apply development standards that preclude the Project as designed and proposed The Project qualifies for the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). That is, the Project meets the criteria of subdivision (b) of the SDBL by providing very low income units. The City is prohibited from applying development standards that would have the effect of precluding construction of the Project as designed and proposed. Per § 65915(e)(1) (emphasis added):
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.

Any development standard that would preclude the construction of the proposed project is prohibited from being applied to the project.

31.215

Page 3 ends

The City may not require redesign of the Project and must approve it as designed and proposed The courts and HCD have determined that the prohibition against applying development standards which would have the effect of physically precluding a project applies to a project as designed and proposed. The jurisdiction may not require the Applicant to redesign the project or even to consider redesigning the project.

In Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 781 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (hereinafter Wollmer), the court ruled (emphasis added):

Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§ 65915, subd. (e)(1).) In Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 289 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (hereinafter Bankers Hill 150), the court applied the Wollmer decision and found (page 3, emphasis added):

When a developer meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, a local government is obligated to permit increased building density, grant incentives, and waive any conflicting local development standards unless certain limited exceptions apply.
[T]he City was obligated to waive those standards if they conflicted with the Project’s design … Bankers Hill 150 made clear that a local jurisdiction cannot require an applicant to redesign the project to make the project compliant with a conflicting development standard (starting on page 20, emphasis added). [The Wollmer court] considered the history of the Density Bonus Law's language and concluded that when a developer proposes a project that qualifies for a density bonus, the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards. … [A] city would be in violation of the Density Bonus Law if it failed to waive development standards that would physically preclude construction of a project. … Thus, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies, so long as a proposed housing development project meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes "amenities" beyond the bare minimum of building components.

As applied here, the interpretation of section 65915 set forth by the court in Wollmer leads us to conclude that the City … could not demand [that the developer] remove the courtyard or redesign its building …. Under the Density Bonus Law, a City may only impose such development standards if not doing so "would have a specific, adverse impact ... upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact" or "would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law." (§ 65915, subd. (e)(1).)
The local jurisdiction cannot even require the applicant to consider alternative building designs. HCD’s letter RE: City of Encinitas Notice of Violation, Ordinance No. 2020-09 (Density Bonus) dated March 25, 2021, page 5, third paragraph (emphasis added):

The project applicant need not consider various alternatives that might be accommodated on site without the concessions, incentives, or waivers. If the project meets the requirements for a density bonus, the City must waive development standards requested pursuant to section (e) that preclude development of the project as proposed.

HCD’s letter to the City of San Francisco RE: 3832 18th Street Project – Notice of Violation, dated December 29, 2022, explained that:

31.216

Page 4 ends

Specifically, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval requiring the project sponsor to redesign the building to a height of five stories, instead of the proposed six stories, based on the idea that such a redesign could accommodate the same number of units by making modifications elsewhere to the project design (i.e., by significantly reducing and eliminating proposed on-site amenities and relocating sixth floor units to the ground floor). The approval motion did not include the SDBL health and safety findings referenced above, which would have been required to legally substantiate the effective denial of the requested waiver. Accordingly, the City/County violated the SDBL pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1).

An applicant has the right to design and propose a project with all of the benefits it qualifies for in accordance with the SDBL, and with whatever amenities and features the applicant deems appropriate and necessary for that development project, and the jurisdiction is prohibited from applying development standards that would preclude construction of the project as designed and proposed.

Imposing the proposed condition of approval would be a violation of subdivision (e) of the SDBL As explained in City’s May 20, 2025 email, Staff is considering recommending a condition of approval that would do exactly what the law, courts, and HCD have prohibited. Again, quoting again from the May 20 email:

Condition(s) of approval will be added requiring revision of the design of the building submitted for Building Permit issuance (assuming project entitlement) to omit encroachment by any feature(s) of the building including balconies and similar projections, exterior walls, and the like, beyond the perimeter lot lines of the subject site.

Imposing such a condition of approval would be very clearly a violation of subdivision (e) of the SDBL as repeatedly affirmed by the courts and explicitly stated in HCD letters.

City has insisted that the Applicant redesign the balconies The City has, multiple times and despite the Downtown Plan’s clear provisions allowing and encouraging balconies to project into the public right of way (see below), directed the applicant to revise the project to remove the balcony encroachments. For example, in the comments letter dated November 22, 2024, the City required a redesign of the Project on page 6 (emphasis added):

And that letter included this contradictory comment on page 7 (emphasis added):

5. Upper-level facades. Per provisions of the Downtown Plan, ▪ "The treatment of upper-level facades shall generally comply with the guidelines and standards for the Pacific Avenue Retail District …
Applicant did consider redesign of the project
Applicant did consider several different approaches to the balcony and building design to address City’s comments, and made multiple attempts to resolve the issue of the balconies, as explained in the March 24 letter. Facing the 90- day deadline for a resubmittal under SB 330, on February 20, 2025 Applicant made a second submittal of the Project with a redesign to reduce the balcony overhang from the originally proposed five feet to the three feet explicitly allowed by the Downtown Plan (see below). That redesign was unsatisfactory to Applicant because it resulted in a reduction in the density of the project, a reduction in the private open space and livability for the future residents, and a reduction in the expected revenue to the project due to providing sub-standard balcony amenities. Because of this, Applicant

31.217

Page 5 ends

explained in the March 24 letter that the third submittal of the Project would restore the overhang of the balconies of approximately 5 feet as was proposed in the first submittal; and would continue to request the waiver for the balcony overhang. The project plans that will be presented to the Planning Commission on June 5th include balconies overhanging the property line by 4.5 feet, and a request for a waiver or reduction of development standards to allow said balconies.

The balconies overhanging the property line are explicitly permitted by the Downtown Plan As was thoroughly explained in Applicant’s March 24 letter, balconies are explicitly permitted, and in fact encouraged, to overhang property lines into the right of way.

The upper-level façade guidelines for the North Pacific Area are incorporated by reference into the Pacific Avenue Retail District guidelines. The guidelines for the North Pacific Area start on page 68 of the Downtown Plan. On page 69, design guideline 4. is (emphasis added):

In other words, the Pacific Avenue Retail District guidelines and standards for upper-level facades are the applicable guidelines and standards for the upper-level facades in the North Pacific Area where the Project is located.

On page 52, the Downtown Plan requires upper-level facades to be built to the property line, and requires “treatments … including:
• balconies
• bay windows
• flower boxes
• awnings
• cornice and belt courses, etc.”
On page 53, under “Streetwall”:

Regardless of property lines, the appearance shall be of a street with varying architectural treatments at intervals of no more than 50 to 75 feet. The multiple rhythms shall be created through the careful design of building elements and three-dimensional articulation of building elements sufficient to mitigate the presence of long, blank walls along Pacific Avenue, Front Street and Cedar Street the east-west streets, and the alleys. Elements that make up the rhythmic variation may include, but are not limited to:
• recessed windows;
• projecting windows;
• bay windows;
• structural elements;
• surface textures, patterns and colors;
• trim elements;
• balconies;
• belt-cornices;

31.218

Page 6 ends

• cornices;
• awnings and shutters; and
• landscape elements.

Then, under design guideline 7. Upper Level Bay Windows and Balconies, on page 54 we find the only detailed guidelines for balconies in the Downtown Plan. That section begins (emphasis added):

Finally, on page 55, under design guideline 11. Landscape Provisions (emphasis added):
c. Planter boxes no more than 24 inches in height may be permitted to project into the public right-of-way up to 18 inches. Window boxes also may be permitted to project from bay windows and balconies by 18 inches. …
The Downtown Plan guidelines applicable to the Project explicitly allow balconies to extend 3 feet into the public rightof-way, plus 18 inches for planter boxes, for a total allowed encroachment of up to 4.5 feet.

The Project as currently proposed with 4.5-foot balcony overhangs beyond the property line does comply with the upper-level façade guidelines for the Pacific Avenue Retail District, except that the balcony extends to 4.5 feet, rather than a combination of balcony and planter-box overhanging the by 4.5 feet. The Project has requested a waiver to allow this deviation from the development standards, which will allow the project to provide the private open space and balcony amenity that is necessary to make the project satisfactory to future tenants and feasible to lease.

Sidewalk widths
In addition, the March 24 letter explained a request for a waiver for sidewalk widths. The Downtown Plan requires buildings to “generally” be built to the property line, but also has guidelines to set back development to create a wider sidewalk than currently exists around the Project Site.

The design guideline for the North Pacific Area is found on page 68, design guideline number 2.:

2. Build-to Lines and Setbacks.

This general guideline requires that development be built to the property line, except that the building shall be set back from the property line to create a 12-foot sidewalk. The Project proposes to comply with this requirement along the North Pacific Ave frontage, setting the ground-floor building façade back at least 12 feet from the face of curb to create a 12 foot sidewalk. The property line is approximately 8’2.5” from the face of curb (varies), so the ground floor is set back at least approximately 3’9.5” from the property line along North Pacific Ave.

Along Bulkhead Street, the ground floor is generally set further back from the face of curb and from the property line, creating a combination of sidewalk and landscape areas, and retaining an existing above-ground transformer that

31.219

Page 7 ends

serves meters on other sites. There is a pinch-point at the northeast corner of the building where the sidewalk narrows to 11’2” to accommodate the geometry of the proposed parking stackers inside the podium.

For the Knight Street frontage the Downtown Plan has a different requirement. Contrary to the “generally” requirement above, guideline number 8. on page 70 applies to “New development occurring adjacent to Town Clock Park (Knight Street right-of-way)” (emphasis added):

8. Town Clock Park/Scope Park.

The “… generally be required to be built to the property line …” except “… where the sidewalk is less than 12 feet …” language in 2.a. applies generally to all frontages of this project. But guideline 8. Is specific to the Knight Street frontage and says “… shall be built to the property line …” and doesn’t follow up with an exception. This is the only place in the Downtown Plan that mentions Knight Street. The project followed design guideline 8, as closely as permitted by other laws and standards like ADA clearances and street tree requirements. Along Knight Street the building is set about 2 feet back from the property line to create an 8 foot sidewalk.

The proposed building, in general, will be built to the property lines, but the ground floor will be set back from the property lines, as per the guidelines in the Downtown Plan. The balconies will overhang the property lines into the right-ofway, as per the guidelines in the Downtown Plan. The floor-to-floor height of the ground floor is 15 feet, and the balconies overhanging the sidewalks provide about a 14-foot clearance above the walking surface.

Meeting regarding waivers
After the City reviewed Applicant’s March 24 letter, Applicant requested a meeting regarding the waivers, in accordance with Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1):
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) … applicant may submit to a city … the waiver or reduction of development standards … and may request a meeting with the city …
The meeting was conducted at the City’s offices on April 3, 2025, between Applicant’s representatives Tim Gordin and Clay Toombs and City’s representatives Lee Butler and Samantha Haschert. The waiver regarding balconies overhanging the property line was discussed, and City again asked Applicant to redesign the building. and Applicant again reiterated that the project would not be redesigned unless the City denied the waiver in a manner allowed by the SDBL.

Overhanging the property has been allowed without controversy on other projects Throughout the Downtown Plan area various building features overhang property lines. It is difficult to walk anywhere downtown without walking under balconies, awnings, bay windows, and other building features that extend past the property lines and far out over sidewalks, in many cases narrower than the sidewalks proposed for the Project.

The most recently completed major project in the Downtown Area likewise extends over property lines. As explained to Staff in a December 17, 2024 email, the approval of the Pacific/Front/Laurel project (now known as the Anton Pacific project) included approving not only balconies but habitable building area overhanging the property line, and included this highlighted snippet from the planning approval for that project:

31.220

Page 8 ends

The habitable area overhanging the property lines is highlighted in magenta, and the balconies are highlighted yellow.

The City does not dispute that the Pacific/Front/Laurel project was permitted to overhang the property lines. The December 11, 2018 City Council agenda report (link) for the project, page 26.111 explicitly allowed the balconies to overhang:

Setbacks
The Downtown Plan requires that all new development within the Pacific Avenue Retail District and the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor is constructed to the property lines. There are exceptions that allow for generous landscaping at gateway areas, recessed areas, step-backs, and articulation (bay windows, balconies, architectural features, etc.) to break up building mass, and that allow for the construction of full 12-foot wide sidewalks to be provided along Pacific Avenue, Laurel Street, and Front Street. The proposal is to construct the building without a hard edge along the property line by incorporating slightly projecting and recessed architectural elements on each building face. These features include columns, storefront entries, residential entries, and outdoor seating areas along the ground-floor, and bay windows, balconies, and variations in building plane on the upper floors. The upper floor projections are consistent with the Downtown Plan that allows for a maximum three-foot encroachment

31.221

Page 9 ends

over the public right-of-way and a maximum nine-foot width for bay window encroachments and a maximum 15- foot width for balconies.

When this fact was explained to Staff, the response in a January 7, 2025 email was:

This response was wrong on many levels. First, whether something “can be supported” by staff is not the question. The question is whether the Downtown Plan allows balconies to overhang the property line, and the Pacific/Front/Laurel project was explicitly allowed to have both balconies and habitable space overhang the property line. Second, the question of SB 330 is irrelevant; the language regarding overhangs in the Downtown Plan has not changed since the 2018 approval of the Pacific/Front/Laurel project. Third, the same overhang allowances apply to the North Pacific Area as to the Pacific Avenue Retail District as explained above and in Applicant’s March 24 letter. The same objective standard regarding overhangs applies throughout the Downtown Plan. Finally, the statement that “no mechanism allows for consideration of encroachment” is entirely false. As explained in Applicant’s March 24 letter:

Many mechanisms could allow for an encroachment, including the ODS, the SDBL concessions and waivers, a variance, or simply a finding that encroachments have been permitted for other projects and thus must be permitted for this project. By using the phrase “consideration of” an encroachment, what we hear is you saying that you refuse to consider the various mechanisms that could allow the encroachment.

Closing
Staff may not refuse to consider a waiver. The granting of waivers is a mandatory requirement of the SDBL, and only if certain written findings are made and supported by evidence can the decision-making body deny an SDBL waiver. As of now, the City has made no written findings and has presented absolutely no evidence that any of those findings can be made.

We ask that the staff report recommend that the waivers requested by the Project be approved in accordance with State law. Applicant does not wish to be in the position of arguing with Staff in the middle of a public hearing about a waiver.

Sincerely,

31.222

Page 10 ends

Clay Toombs
Sr. Development Mgr.
o. 831.227.2217 ext. 310
c. 323.363.0257
[email protected]

31.223
3' - 6"
1' - 0"

PROPERTYLINE
12' - 0" SIDEWALK
10' - 0" LEVEL 2 11' - 0" LEVEL 1

BALCONY
3' - 0"
/ WINDOW BOX
1' - 6" PLANTER
3' - 9 1/2" (TYP)

PROPERTY LINE
4' - 6"
10' - 0"
8' - 3 1/2" (TYP)
CLEAR

PROPERTYLINE
10' - 0" LEVEL 2 15' - 0" LEVEL 1
3' - 6"
1' - 0"

BALCONY
4' - 6"

PROPERTY LINE
12' - 0" SIDEWALK
3' - 9 1/2" (TYP)
14' - 0" CLEAR
8' - 3 1/2" (TYP)
4' - 6"

PLANTER BOX
1' - 6" WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE
1' -
3 0"
'
- 6"
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
All drawings and written material appering herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. 189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
7/7/2025 12:09:03 PM
1/4" = 1'-0"
23143
07/21/21
OH

CT / TG
A2.0

OVERHANG DIAGRAMS -

SECTION
2020 N PACIFIC AVE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060

CLOCKTOWER CENTER
1/4" = 1'-0" 1

OVERHANG DIAGRAM - ALLOWED BY DOWNTOWN PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 2

OVERHANG DIAGRAM - REQUESTED BY APPLICANT

31.224
4' - 6"

T-SHAPED SPACE FOR
180 DEGREE TURNS

REPRESENTATIVE

OUTDOOR FURNITURE
3' - 0" PLANTER BOX
1' - 6" NOT ADA WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE

RED FILL INDICATES ENCROACHMENT ON T-SHAPED SPACE
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
All drawings and written material appering herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. 189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
7/7/2025 12:09:03 PM
3/16" = 1'-0"
23143
07/21/21
OH

CT / TG
A2.1

OVERHANG DIAGRAMS - UNIT
PLANS
2020 N PACIFIC AVE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060

CLOCKTOWER CENTER
3/16" = 1'-0" 1

BALCONY REDUCTION IMPACT - PROPOSED
3/16" = 1'-0" 2

BALCONY REDUCTION IMPACT - REDUCED BALCONY

31.225
From: Clay Toombs
To: Timothy Maier
Cc: Omar Hason; Tim Gordin; Ryan Patterson; Brian O"Neill Subject: Re: Updates re: Appeal, 2020 N. Pacific Ave. Redevelopment Project (CP24-0124) Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:23:03 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Outlook-xip4ioqd.png
2025-0707_23143_ClockTower Center_Planning-Rev03_FloorPlans.pdf 2025-0707_23143_ClockTower Center_Planning-Rev03_Overhang Diagrams.pdf 2025-0707_23143_ClockTower Center_Planning-Rev03_Tree Diagrams.pdf ****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** Hello, Tim. M.,
Attached please find:

1. Tree Diagrams

2. Overhang Diagrams

3. Floor Plans
Tree Diagrams
The tree diagrams show the "Critical Root Zones" of the existing trees as red circles. As can be seen in the 3-D view it is not possible to construct the project and retain the two large redwood trees. In accordance with Gov. Code § 65915(e), "In no case may" the City "apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction" of the project. Both case law and HCD guidance are clear that a jurisdiction is prohibited from requiring any redesign of a housing development project to bring that project into alignment with a development standard that Gov. Code § 65915(e) prohibits the jurisdiction from applying.

Point #6 in the appeal is a misreading of the law by the appellant. Case law and HCD guidance instruct that Gov. Code § 65915(e) applies to the entire project, including its amenities and other characteristics. Jurisdictions are not permitted to require a redesign of a project, to achieve a given number of units with an alternative design.

Therefore, Criterion 1(c)(3), cited by the appellant, was in fact satisfied because State law stipulates that the design cannot be altered by the local jurisdiction. The City acted according to the law when it determined that it could not require the design to be altered, that the project is eligible for the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and that a refusal to grant the Heritage Tree Removal Permit would be a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The appeal of the

31.226
Heritage Tree Removal Permit must be denied and the project approval upheld, including approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit.

The Applicant has requested a waiver of any development standard that would preclude construction of the project as designed and proposed, and Applicant specifically requests a waiver or reduction of any development standard related to trees, including any part of City Resolution No. NS-23,710, that would require a redesign of the project or preclude its construction.

Overhang Diagrams
The project has requested a waiver/reduction of development standards to allow the 4.5 feet of encroachment permitted by the Downtown Specific Plan to be used for a balcony, only, rather than 3 feet for a balcony plus 1.5 feet for a planter or window box. The overhang diagrams show that denial of that waiver/reduction of development standards has the effect of either reducing the size of the balcony amenities (and furthermore, causing the balconies not to meet standards for universal and accessible design, including ADA turn radius for wheelchairs) or reducing the area of the units. Denial of the waiver/reduction of development standards is a violation of Gov. Code § 65915(e) and the Housing Accountability Act, as detailed previously in letters from the Applicant and from the Applicant's attorney. The Applicant's appeal is an appeal of the denial of the waiver and the imposition of Conditions of Approval in violation of the SDBL. State law requires that the City uphold the Applicant's appeal, grant the requested waiver, and remove the unlawful Conditions of Approval.

Floor Plans
The attached floor plans have additional labels, per Planning Commission request, to clearly specify the proposed amenities for the project. Applicant reiterates prior communications with respect to amenities being a part of the project and protected by both the SDBL and the Housing Accountability Act. The majority of the Planning Commission acted in accordance with State housing law in approving the project. Any attempt by the City Council to require a redesign of the project, to reduce its floor area, to remove its amenities, or to reduce its density would be a violation of State housing laws.

Thank you again for the careful reviews and very hard work on staff reports and presentations! Clay Toombs
o. 831.227.2217 ext. 310
c. 323.363.0257
[email protected]

31.227
We're hiring designers and developers! See available opportunities here. Join Our Team! From: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Clay Toombs <[email protected]>
Cc: Omar Hason <[email protected]>; Tim Gordin <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Updates re: Appeal, 2020 N. Pacific Ave. Redevelopment Project (CP24-0124) Hi Clay,
Thanks for the email response and for providing information about your schedules.

The August 12 City Council hearing will focus on the content of the appeals submitted. I wasn’t anticipating receiving a new set of plans as part of materials submitted with the appeal; changes to the plans submitted for City Council review on August 12 as part of the appeal will need to be very limited and focused relative to the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission at the June 5 public hearing, as revisions other than minor changes will need to have been reviewed by staff of various departments in advance of the August 12 public hearing, and not enough time will be available for review City staff in response to substantial changes. If the plans submitted early next week include changes beyond minor revisions (compared to approved plans), review of such revisions will also likely need to be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration, with the City Council hearing for review of changes to building design continued beyond August 12.

I’m happy to discuss the above, and please keep me apprised of any changes to status of either appeal.

Thanks,
Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5129
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: Clay Toombs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:19 PM
To: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>

31.228
Cc: Omar Hason <[email protected]>; Tim Gordin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Updates re: Appeal, 2020 N. Pacific Ave. Redevelopment Project (CP24-0124) ****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** Hi Tim,
Appreciate the check in. Workbench met with the other appellant, and will likely meet with them again, but so far their appeal is still pending (to our knowledge). We are working on some information regarding the trees in response to the appeal, but it isn't quite ready to send out yet.

With respect to Workbench's appeal, there will be a revised set of plans provided to you by noon on July 7. Omar will send those to you when they are ready.

Tim Gordin is on vacation for the next three weeks, and I'm out this afternoon until back in the office on July 15th. However, I will be working on Clocktower as needed to prepare for the appeal. I'll respond to email and phone calls related to the project as quickly as I can.

Thanks for the offer of a video call. I think we'll take you up on that offer once we get everything together. We'll be in touch soon.

Clay Toombs
o. 831.227.2217 ext. 310
c. 323.363.0257
[email protected]
We're hiring designers and developers! See available opportunities here. Join Our Team! From: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Clay Toombs <[email protected]>
Subject: Updates re: Appeal, 2020 N. Pacific Ave. Redevelopment Project (CP24-0124) Hello Clay,

31.229
I’d like to check in quickly about any recent changes regarding the appeal of the 2020 N. Pacific Ave. redevelopment project (CP24-0124) related to your conversations with the appellants of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit.

Also, please keep me apprised of any change in the status of Workbench’s appeal of the project, for example, if the appellants of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit decide to rescind or modify their appeal based on Workbench’s conversations with them.

If a quick Teams or Zoom call would be helpful to discuss further, I’m happy to schedule a meeting.

Thank you,
Timothy Maier
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5129
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com

31.230
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
10" Beam
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
N
N
AP3.01 1
AP3.02
2 AP3.01 2
1 AP3.02
1 AP4.51
2 AP4.51
1 1
2 2
3 3
B
C
D
E
F
H
J I K
L
M
O
N
8567 11
12 13
9 10
14 15
A
G
4 T8
T7
T9
T10
T11
T6
T5
T4
T3
T2
T1
T14
T13
T12
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
7/7/2025 12:14:26 PM
A1.1

TREE ROOT ZONE
DIAGRAM - L1
23143
10/18/2024
OH/MB
EB
2020 N PACIFIC AVESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060CLOCKTOWER CENTER 006-364-01, 02
1" = 10'-0"
1 LEVEL 1 - TREE ROOT ZONE DIAGRAM
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
1 PLANNING REV-01 02.20.2025

31.231
D
D
D
W
W
W
W
D
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
N
N
AP3.01 1
AP3.02
2 AP3.01 2
1 AP3.02
1 AP4.51
2 AP4.51
1 1
2 2
3 3
B
C
D
E
F
H
J I K
L
M
O
N
8 567 11
12 13
9 10
14 15
A
G
4 AP3.03 3
2 1
T8
T7
T9
T10
T11
T6
T5
T4
T3
T2
T1
T14
T13
T12
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
7/7/2025 12:14:32 PM
A1.2

TREE ROOT ZONE
DIAGRAM - L3
23143
10/18/2024
OH/MB
EB
2020 N PACIFIC AVESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060CLOCKTOWER CENTER 006-364-01, 02
1" = 10'-0"
1 LEVEL 3 - TREE ROOT ZONE DIAGRAM
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
1 PLANNING REV-01 02.20.2025

31.232

WATER STREET

N PACIFIC AVE
KNIGHT
ST
T8
T7

TOWN CLOCK PARK

RED HATCH INDICATES CRITICAL ROOT

ZONE, EXTRUDED TO SHOW IMPACT

OF CLEAR SPACE ACROSS THE ENTIRE

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

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number DRAFT: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
7/7/2025 12:14:41 PM
A1.3

TREE ROOT ZONE
DIAGRAM - 3D VIEW
23143
10/18/2024
OH

TG / CT
2020 N PACIFIC AVESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060CLOCKTOWER CENTER 006-364-01, 02
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
1 TREE ROOT ZONE DIAGRAM - 3D VIEW

31.233
Brittany Inclan
From: Laura Tate <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 6:01 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; Fred Keeley
Subject: Please Uphold Appeal to Save Two Heritage Redwoods at 2020 N. Pacific Ave Attachments: Heritage Tree Removal appeal Laura Tate.pdf To: Santa Cruz City Council
From: Laura Tate
Date: August 6, 2025
Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing to express my full support for the appeal submitted by Gillian Greensite on behalf of Save Our Big Trees, urging you to rescind the Heritage Tree Removal Permit granted for 2020 N. Pacific Avenue. Two majestic, healthy coast redwood trees are at risk—not because their removal is necessary, but because the project design chose not to accommodate them. That is not consistent with city policy or the values of our community.

The current project violates our Heritage Tree Ordinance, which permits removal only if a project “cannot be altered” to accommodate heritage trees. In this case, city staff acknowledged that the trees were removed simply to “facilitate the project design”—the opposite of what the law intends. This decision also contradicts General Plan Policy CD4.3.3, which requires protection of significant vegetation.¹ ² This decision does not exist in a vacuum. Santa Cruz is steadily losing mature trees, often without sufficient scrutiny or adherence to policy:
 The Rail Trail Segments 8 & 9 (in addition to other segments) project is expected to remove hundreds of mature trees, including redwoods, to realign infrastructure—despite community concern over tree canopy loss in densely populated neighborhoods.³  In Aptos, the Highway 1 widening project between State Park Drive and Freedom Boulevard will result in the removal of over 1,100 trees, many of them redwoods. The project has prompted a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and widespread public opposition due to its environmental impact.⁴ ⁵ ⁶
 In 2024, the City Council voted to cut down a 120-foot downtown redwood adjacent to a building—despite significant public outcry and a well-documented desire for alternatives. Though the tree posed site-specific challenges, the decision reflected a pattern of placing development and infrastructure priorities above tree preservation.⁷ These losses—incremental but compounding—are stripping our city of a vital ecological and cultural resource. Mature redwoods trees, like the ones at 2020 N. Pacific, store more carbon per acre than any other forest type on Earth, provide critical habitat for hundreds of wildlife species, and are naturally resilient to fire and drought—making them one of our most powerful allies in the face of climate change. (Save the Redwoods League, 2021) They are slow-growing, long-lived, and irreplaceable. And they are exactly the type of natural asset our laws are meant to protect.

Yes, we need housing. But this project would not lose any residential units if it were redesigned to preserve the trees. The only potential tradeoff is a reduction in commercial space or parking—both acceptable and reasonable adjustments under city policy when heritage trees are at risk.

I respectfully ask the Council to:

1. Uphold the appeal;

2. Require a revised design that preserves both redwoods;

3. Strengthen enforcement of our city’s tree protection laws in all future development.

Let us not become a city that once protected redwoods. Let us remain a city that still does. Upholding this appeal affirms not only the value of two trees but the credibility of our environmental policy and our commitment to the community.

31.234
Thank you for your leadership and stewardship.

Sincerely,
Laura Tate
Santa Cruz County Resident
Footnotes

1. City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code – Heritage Tree Ordinance, Resolution No. NS-23,710. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0956.html

2. Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 – Policy CD4.3.3: Protect existing significant vegetation. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community-development/long-range-policyplanning/general-plan/final-eir-general-plan-2030

3. City of Santa Cruz Public Works – Coastal Rail Trail Segments 8 & 9 Final Environmental Impact Report. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/engineering/public-works-projects/coastal-railtrail

4. Santa Cruz County RTC – Final EIR for Highway 1 Project and Rail Trail Segment 12. https://www.sccrtc.org/final-environmental-impact-report-environmental-assessment-for-highway-1-from-state-park-drive-tofreedom-boulevard-and-coastal-rail-trail-segment-12-project-now-available/

5. Campaign for Sustainable Transportation – “Stop Highway 1 Expansion.” https://campaignforsustainabletransportation.org/stop-hwy-1-expansion/

6. Lookout Santa Cruz – “Sierra Club, local advocacy group sue Caltrans over Aptos highway expansion.” https://lookout.co/highway-1-widening-aptos-sierra-club-local-advocacy-group-sue-caltrans/story

7. Mallory Pickett, “Despite pleas from the public, Santa Cruz City Council votes to cut down 120-foot downtown redwood tree,” Lookout Santa Cruz, Jan 24, 2024.
https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-city-council-votes-to-cut-down-120-foot-downtown-redwood-tree/story

31.235
Laura Tate
826 Bay Ave. #1841
Capitola, CA 95010
August 6, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Appeal of Heritage Tree Removal Permit – 2020 N. Pacific Avenue Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I write to voice my strong support for the appeal submitted by Gillian Greensite on behalf of Save Our Big Trees, calling for the protection of two heritage coast redwood trees slated for removal at 2020 N. Pacific Avenue. I urge you to uphold this appeal and rescind the Heritage Tree Removal Permit granted in error.

The city’s own Heritage Tree Ordinance mandates that a heritage tree may only be removed if a project design “cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees.” However, in this case, no serious effort was made to redesign the project. Staff explicitly stated the permit was issued “to facilitate the project design,” which is directly contrary to the ordinance. Convenience is not a legal justification. The Planning Commission’s approval violates both Resolution No. NS-23,710 and General Plan Policy CD4.3.3, which clearly states that significant vegetation—including trees—must be protected.[1][2]
This decision does not exist in a vacuum. Santa Cruz is steadily losing mature trees, often without sufficient scrutiny or adherence to policy:
● The Rail Trail Segments 8 & 9 (in addition to other segments) project is expected to remove hundreds of mature trees, including redwoods, to realign

31.236
infrastructure—despite community concern over tree canopy loss in densely populated neighborhoods.[3]
● In Aptos, the Highway 1 widening project between State Park Drive and Freedom Boulevard will result in the removal of over 1,100 trees, many of them redwoods.

The project has prompted a lawsuit from the Sierra Club and widespread public opposition due to its environmental impact.[4][5][6]
● In 2024, the City Council voted to cut down a 120-foot downtown redwood adjacent to a building—despite significant public outcry and a well-documented desire for alternatives. Though the tree posed site-specific challenges, the decision reflected a pattern of placing development and infrastructure priorities above tree preservation.[7]
These losses—incremental but compounding—are stripping our city of a vital ecological and cultural resource. Mature redwoods trees, like the ones at 2020 N. Pacific, store more carbon per acre than any other forest type on Earth, provide critical habitat for hundreds of wildlife species, and are naturally resilient to fire and drought—making them one of our most powerful allies in the face of climate change (Save the Redwoods League, 2021). They are slow-growing, long-lived, and irreplaceable. And they are exactly the type of natural asset our laws are meant to protect.

I respectfully urge the Council to:

1. Uphold the appeal;

2. Instruct staff and the developer to revise the design to accommodate the redwoods;

3. Reaffirm the City’s commitment to protecting Santa Cruz’s urban forest.

31.237
Let Santa Cruz not be remembered as the city that once protected redwoods—but as the city that still does. Upholding this appeal affirms not only the value of two trees but the credibility of our environmental policy and our commitment to the community.

Thank you for your leadership and stewardship.

Sincerely,
Laura Tate
Santa Cruz County Resident
Footnotes
[1] City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code – Heritage Tree Ordinance, Resolution No.

NS-23,710.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0956.html [2] Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 – Policy CD4.3.3: Protect existing significant vegetation.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community -development/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan/final-eir-general-plan-2030 [3] City of Santa Cruz Public Works – Coastal Rail Trail Segments 8 & 9 Final Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/engineering /public-works-projects/coastal-rail-trail
[4] Santa Cruz County RTC – Final EIR for Highway 1 Project and Rail Trail Segment

12. https://www.sccrtc.org/final-environmental-impact-report-environmental-assessment-forhighway-1-from-state-park-drive-to-freedom-boulevard-and-coastal-rail-trail-segment-12 -project-now-available/
[5] Campaign for Sustainable Transportation – “Stop Highway 1 Expansion.” https://campaignforsustainabletransportation.org/stop-hwy-1-expansion/ [6] Lookout Santa Cruz – “Sierra Club, local advocacy group sue Caltrans over Aptos highway expansion.”
https://lookout.co/highway-1-widening-aptos-sierra-club-local-advocacy-group-sue-caltr ans/story

31.238
[7] Mallory Pickett, “Despite pleas from the public, Santa Cruz City Council votes to cut down 120-foot downtown redwood tree,” Lookout Santa Cruz, Jan 24, 2024. https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-city-council-votes-to-cut-down-120-foot-downtown-redwoo d-tree/story

31.239
Brittany Inclan
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 6:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 31
Dear Mayor and Council:

I urge you to uphold the appeal by Gillian Greensite regarding preserving the heritage trees on the sidewalk near the Workbench project.

As I read Parks Director Tony Elliott's message in the Fall catalog of Parks & Rec classes, referring to Santa Cruz as a city that protects and preserves trees, there is no small degree of hypocrisy when hundreds of Heritage Trees have been removed, many of them deemed healthy by various arborists.

There does not seem to be evidence that Workbench made efforts to design this latest project to save the sidewalk heritage trees. They seem determined to have a contentious relationship with the City, so we might as well save the trees!
Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

31.240
Brittany Inclan
From: Debbie Bulger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 4:15 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Leslie Keedy
Subject: RE: 2020 N. Pacific Avenue, 113-115 Knight St.

Dear City Council Members,
RE: 2020 N. Pacific Avenue, 113-115 Knight St.

I urge you to approve the appeal of Clay Toombs and Gillian Greensite to preserve the two heritage redwoods on this property. These trees are healthy and next to the sidewalk.

I believe that with a little creative thinking, good design, and possible waiver/adjustment of City site development standards, the trees which are next to the sidewalk can be preserved, maintain an active building frontage and meet density bonus requirements.

It is well known that redwood trees do well even close to buildings. There are many examples of redwoods existing close to buildings all over town and on the UCSC campus.

Perhaps the City can be flexible on the amount of commercial space required, or be flexible with the parking requirements, or closeness of the building to the street. I suspect there are many opportunities to adjust the design to preserve these healthy trees.

Our community seems to have made such design decisions in the case of the new Metro Center which preserves the trees next to it. (see photo below).

Surely there is room for good design, much needed housing, and tree preservation in this case.

As a community WE CAN DO IT. Let's save these trees with some creative thinking and design.

31.241
2020 N. Pacific. See how close to the sidewalk the trees are.

31.242
Construction next to tree on Pacific Ave.

Best regards,
Debbie Bulger

31.243
Brittany Inclan
From: Vincent Meade <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2025 4:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Two heritage coast redwood trees at 2020 N. Pacific Avenue.

To the Santa Cruz City Council,
As a concerned resident, I’m asking you to save the two heritage coast redwood trees at 2020 N. Pacific Avenue. City rules say heritage trees can only be removed if a project truly cannot be redesigned to keep them. In this case, no redesign was even attempted — the trees are being cut simply to fit the current project design. That’s not what the law allows.

These redwoods are part of our General Plan’s vision for protecting significant vegetation, and they have broad public support. Please uphold the appeal, direct staff to work with the developer, and require a design that lets both the project and the trees coexist for generations to come.

Respectfully,
Vincent Meade
Santa Cruz Resident

31.244
Brittany Inclan
From: James Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 7:10 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; [email protected]; Renee Golder; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; [email protected].; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Message from James Allen re: Appeal of Proposed Removal of Two Coast Redwoods at 2020 River Street, Santa Cruz, CA
Attachments: RiverStreet_2020_TreeRemovalAppeal_JPA_8.9.25.pdf Honorable Council Members,
As a Board-Certified Master Arborist with over five decades of professional experience, I respectfully urge you to uphold the appeal and preserve the two coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) at 2020 River Street.

These trees are exceptional community assets, and their removal is neither necessary nor consistent with sound arboricultural practice.

Health and Structure
The subject redwoods are in excellent health, with vigorous growth, full canopies, and no visible structural defects. Based on my limited inspection and review of available information, these trees possess outstanding suitability for retention and the capacity for decades—if not centuries—of continued service to the community.

Critical Root Zone (CRZ) and Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) The Arborist Report prepared for this project calculates a CRZ radius of 25 feet—nearly seven times the trunk diameter (DBH). While caution is essential, this figure significantly exceeds the requirements suggested by both the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part 5 Standards and widely recognized industry research.

ANSI guidance clearly states that the minimum distance from the trunk for root cutting should be adjusted based on:
 Trunk diameter
 Species tolerance to root loss
 Tree age and health
 Site conditions
For healthy, vigorous, and adaptable species such as coast redwood, a retained CRZ radius of 12 to 15 feet— greater than three times the DBH—exceeds accepted minimum protection distances used in the industry for root disturbance on one side of the tree. This position is supported by peer-reviewed research, including Smiley, Fraedrich, and Hendrickson (2002), Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.

With proper procedures—such as root pruning at the disturbance line, staged excavation, and supplemental irrigation—these trees can retain full health and stability within the reduced CRZ.

Any proposed construction can be defended against future root growth potential through inexpensive widening and thickening of foundation and hardscape elements.

Retention and Relocation Options
In addition to retention in place, these trees could be relocated to a nearby suitable location using established large-tree transplant methods practiced in California. While relocation is a complex undertaking, it remains a viable alternative to outright removal when preservation is prioritized.

31.245
Economic and Community Value
The Contributory Landscape Value of these two redwoods is $105,240, calculated using the Trunk Formula Technique in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (2019), published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

Beyond monetary worth, these redwoods provide:
 Significant carbon sequestration and oxygen production  Stormwater interception and groundwater recharge
 Urban heat island reduction through shading and transpiration  Wildlife habitat and biodiversity benefits
 Cultural and aesthetic value as part of Santa Cruz’s living heritage Conclusion
The removal of these healthy, structurally sound, and high-value redwoods would be an irreversible loss to our community. Sound arboricultural science supports their retention with appropriate root protection measures, and feasible alternatives exist that eliminate the need for removal.

I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the appeal and direct that these redwoods be retained and protected as hallmarks of our city’s environmental stewardship.

Respectfully submitted,
James P. Allen
James P. Allen
Registered Consulting Arborist #390
Certified Urban Forester #120
Board Certified Master Arborist #625B
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
119 Surfside Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.426.6603 office
831.234.7739 mobile
__________________________________________________________________________ This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you.

31.246
Dedicated to the Preservation of Trees
119 Surfside Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.426.6603 office
831.234.7739 mobile
[email protected]
www.consultingarborists.com
Consulting Arborists

Page 1 of 2 ends

August 9, 2025
City of Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Regarding: Appeal of Proposed Removal of Two Coast Redwoods at 2020 River Street, Santa Cruz, CA
Honorable Council Members,
As a Board Certified Master Arborist with over five decades of professional experience, I respectfully urge you to uphold the appeal and preserve the two coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) at 2020 River Street. These trees are exceptional community assets, and their removal is neither necessary nor consistent with sound arboricultural practice.

ANSI guidance clearly states that the minimum distance from the trunk for root cutting should be adjusted based on:
• Trunk diameter
• Species tolerance to root loss
• Tree age and health
• Site conditions

31.247

Page 2 of 2 ends

For healthy, vigorous, and adaptable species such as coast redwood, a retained CRZ radius of 12 to 15 feet—greater than three times the DBH—exceeds accepted minimum protection distances used in the industry for root disturbance on one side of the tree. This position is supported by peer-reviewed research, including Smiley, Fraedrich, and Hendrickson (2002), Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.

With proper procedures—such as root pruning at the disturbance line, staged excavation, and supplemental irrigation—these trees can retain full health and stability within the reduced CRZ.

Any proposed construction can be defended against future root growth potential through inexpensive widening and thickening of foundation and hardscape elements.

Economic and Community Value
The Contributory Landscape Value of these two redwoods is $105,240, calculated using the Trunk Formula Technique in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (2019), published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

Beyond monetary worth, these redwoods provide:
• Significant carbon sequestration and oxygen production • Stormwater interception and groundwater recharge
• Urban heat island reduction through shading and transpiration • Wildlife habitat and biodiversity benefits
• Cultural and aesthetic value as part of Santa Cruz’s living heritage Conclusion
The removal of these healthy, structurally sound, and high-value redwoods would be an irreversible loss to our community. Sound arboricultural science supports their retention with appropriate root protection measures, and feasible alternatives exist that eliminate the need for removal.

I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of the appeal and direct that these redwoods be retained and protected as hallmarks of our city’s environmental stewardship.

Respectfully submitted,
James P. Allen
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist #390 Society of American Foresters, Certified Urban Forester #120 International Society of Arboriculture, Board Certified Master Arborist #625B International Society of Arboriculture, Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Certified Line Clearance Tree Trimmer
California State Contractors License C-61/D-49 #608703

31.248
Brittany Inclan
From: Anina Van Alstine <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 8:24 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley
Cc: Ryan Coonerty
Subject: Please do NOT allow the cutting of those two redwood trees! Sirs and Madams,
I am writing to strongly request that you do not authorize or allow the cutting of the two redwood trees behind the town clock! They preserve a sense of the connection of our town to the natural world and will, if allowed to remain, be a very gentle reminder of the context in which our town was built. Furthermore, they provide a bit of greenery and shade at a time when our entire City is being turned into the proverbial parking lot in the song! We need the sense of life and the reminder of our connection to the past that they represent!
You have already broken the heritage tree ordinance by allowing the cutting of several heritage trees at the site of the new library. Please do not continue to create a concrete dessert downtown! Please preserve the remaining relics of our beautiful heritage.

Thank you.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
824 B Mission Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Je parle français
831-818-0735
Refer A Friend!
www.AninaAndJulia.com

31.249
Brittany Inclan
From: Jean Brocklebank <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 10:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item 30. Heritage Tree Mitigation/Replanting Dear City Councilmembers ~
I urge you to support the appeal of the removal of two very special Heritage trees behind the Town Clock.

There is no in lieu planting that could ever replace these two magnificent healthy trees, any more than there would be to allow the historic Town Clock to be demolished with a pittance contribution to its rebuilding elsewhere.

The living is too precious to be cut down, be it healthy people or healthy trees and all the life contained therein.

The Workbench project must include allowing the trees to thrive. That we may continue to thrive.

Jean Brocklebank
Santa Cruz resident since 1979

31.250
Brittany Inclan
From: Diane Crawford <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 10:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Saving Two Redwood Trees
I support the plan to save the two redwood tress behind the Town Clock. I am concerned because the current city council wants to develop every inch of Santa Cruz. This area had a history of being a beautiful place to live, but it is now being overrun with traffic and and development in places that should be allowed to give us open space.

Diane Crawford

31.251
Brittany Inclan
From: Woody Carroll <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 10:31 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Please mitigate the negative parking impacts of Clock Tower Development Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
Like most Santa Cruz citizens, we are not opposed to building more housing but feel the proposed Clock Tower Development is way out of proportion and scale. Additionally, the inadequate amount of parking in the plans will be detrimental to the surrounding area.

You may not have the power to reduce the size of this project but we are at least hoping you can do something about the lack of parking the building will provide and/or do something to mitigate the impact this development will have on parking on the surrounding neighborhood and businesses. One hundred spaces for 178 residences, their guests, staff of the businesses and their customers patronizing the buildings businesses is woefully inadequate. It is folly to think that because this building is near a bus route that all those people are magically going to be able to live without cars.

We live in and own a 4 plex apartment on School St.. We have lived there for thirty years. Even though this is a permitted parking area our great concern is that our street will become one of the defacto parking lots for this building. There is only a set of stairs that will separate our neighborhood from the front door of this development
We would request you;
1) Make the developers provide more parking
2) At a minimum, make the developers mitigate parking by funding additional parking control in the area (in perpetuity)
3) On most of School St. there is currently "two hour parking except by permit". The residential side of School St. (the north side, not the Holy Cross School side) should be made residential permit parking only with the exception of the area adjacent to the Mission Santa Cruz which is currently two hour parking. To have any effect this would need to be regularly and continually enforced (in perpetuity). As is current policy, residents of School St. w ould be able to purchase day passes for their guests. 4) Developments that don't provide adequate parking should be assessed fees that go specifically to public transit (in perpetuity)
Of course the developers want to maximize their profits by making the surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and the city deal with the parking issues they are creating by not providing adequate parking on site. Please do what you can to prevent this.

Thank you and best regards,
Woody Carroll
NinaRose Odegaard
135 School St., Santa Cruz

31.252
Brittany Inclan
From: fred geiger <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 2:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Clock tower project
Why is it that the City consistently ignores requirements that projects be designed to protect trees? There is is no excuse!
I hope that your hypocrisy will be a factor in the next election if you continue to try to talk out of both sides of your mouths !
Fred J. Geiger

31.253
Brittany Inclan
From: David Carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 2:17 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Timothy Maier; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Agenda Item 31, Regular Meeting August 12, 2025 Attachments: Clocktower Project.pdf; 24CV02414 - City of Santa Cruz Responding Brief.pdf; 24CV02414 - Notice of Entry of Order.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached public comment related to the Clocktower Project.

Sincerely,
David Carlson

31.254
August 10, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz CA, 95060
Subject: Agenda Item 31, Regular Meeting August 12, 2025 2020 N. Pacific Avenue, 113-115 Knight Street (CP24-0124) Clocktower Project
Uphold the Tree Appeal and Approve a 178 Unit Project with 28 Affordable Units Dear Mayor Keeley and Members of the City Council:

The number of units that would fit the Clocktower Project site consistent with current rules and surrounding development is 92 units. This is the base density calculation. The project is described as consisting of 178 residential units, 86 more units than would normally be allowed utilizing State Density Bonus Law (DBL) to increase the number of units. In exchange for the additional units, DBL requires the project to provide on-site affordable restricted units equal to 15 percent of the total number of units. A two-step calculation results in a requirement for 28 affordable units. In addition, under DBL the developer is allowed to request incentives, concessions, and waivers from other requirements that would normally apply to the project, allowing a larger building compared to what would normally be allowed on the site to accommodate the density bonus units.

While that is the project that can be approved under DBL, that is not the project that is before the City Council. The real project consists of 224 units, 46 more units than allowed by law. The 46 additional units - spread out on each residential floor, at prime corner locations, with extended balconies, and larger living areas - are labeled on the plans approved by the Planning Commission as “not livable space”. In the Planning Commission staff report the stated intent is to convert these “spaces” to additional units citing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law.

While the project presented to the Planning Commission stated the intent to convert the areas labeled “not livable space” to ADUs, the project now being presented to the City

31.255
Clocktower Project
Pg 2
Council relabels the same areas as no less than 16 different uses without changing the 1 stated intent to convert these same areas to ADUs. Unless the City Council requires as a condition of approval and the applicant agrees to restrict these areas to the uses labeled on the plans, the relabeling is a disingenuous attempt to disguise the real intent on the record to convert the spaces to ADUs.

Such conversions are not allowed under State ADU law and expressly prohibited by the Municipal Code. This is confirmed by the City Attorney in a brief filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court in response to the Food Bin Project’s lawsuit against the City Council (Attachment A). The Food Bin Project is another multifamily project utilizing DBL just like the Clocktower Project. The City Council correctly rejected an attempt by the Food Bin Project to do the same thing by adding stealth units to a proposed multifamily DBL project. The Court has ruled in favor of the City (Attachment B), agreeing the City Council acted within its authority to require removal from the project the spaces the City Attorney confirmed were illegal units.

Just like the the City Council’s action on the Food Bin Project, the City Council should act to remove the 46 illegal units from the Clocktower Project. The Court agreed that the additional units in the Food Bin Project would represent an end run around DBL. As explained by the City Attorney to the Court, the City’s ADU regulations purposefully prohibit ADUs in proposed multifamily projects to “avoid this kind of chicanery”. While the City Council can and should remove the 46 illegal units from the Clocktower Project, two other projects are proposing the same thing at 1811-1819 Mission Street, and 1024 Soquel Avenue.

Even though State and local law do not allow approval of the Clocktower project as designed and intended for illegal ADU conversion, the compound tragedy would be the loss of two iconic trees in the heart of downtown Santa Cruz. By removing the illegal 46 units and redesigning the project while taking advantage of the incentives, concessions, and waivers of DBL, the trees could be saved. The flexibility of DBL law, combined with the location of the trees on the sunny south facing boundary of the lot, creates an ideal scenario for designing a project for tree preservation at this important location for the community that I appreciate very much as a 42-year resident of downtown Santa Cruz.

Work from home spaces (7), resident storage (6), event space (3), laundry facilities (3), study 1 rooms (3), chef’s kitchens (2), art studios (2), music rooms (2), fitness studios (2), fitness center, sauna/steam room, children’s playroom, media room, library, makers space, and pet grooming

31.256
Clocktower Project
Pg 3
Please uphold the tree appeal, remove the 46 illegal units from the project, and approve a 178 unit project with 28 affordable units designed around the existing redwood trees.

Sincerely,
David Carlson
CC: Timothy Maier, Senior Planner
Anthony P. Candotti, City Attorney
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney
Attachments:

Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 24CV02414
A. City of Santa Cruz Responding Brief
B. Notice of Entry of Order

31.257
-1-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney, SBN 149886
[email protected]
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 334312
[email protected]

ATCHISON, BARISONE & CONDOTTI
A Professional Corporation
PO Box 481
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: (831) 423-8383
Facsimile: (831) 576-2269
Attorneys for Respondents,
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
DOUGLAS WALLACE, an individual; and
WORKBENCH, a California corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive,
Respondents.

Case No. 24CV02414
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING
BRIEF
Date: May 12, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept.: 5
Exempt from filing
fees pursuant to
Government Code
section 6103

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Cour oft Caifol rnia
County of Santa Cruz
4/18/2025 4:36 PM
Clerk ofthe Cour byt Deputy,
Erik Campos

31.258
-2-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 II. PROJECT HISTORY ............................................................................................................. 6 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................... 7

IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 8

A. The City Did Not Violate the HAA Because It Did Not Reduce Density Nor Did the Project Comply With Objective ADU Standards ............................................................. 8

1. The City Approved the Project Without Reducing Density ................................. 8

2. Even If the Court Finds the Conversion ADUs Were Part of the Project, Conversion ADUs Are Prohibited in Multifamily Projects .................................. 9

3. The Project’s ADUs Improperly Utilized “Livable Space.” ............................... 11

4. The City Identified Inconsistencies With ADU Standards At Its May 28th Meeting ................................................................................................ 12

5. The City Council is the Final Arbiter of Whether a Project Complies with Applicable Objective Standards .......................................................................... 13 B. Petitioners’ Vesting Rights Claim Fails Because a Preliminary Application Does Not Vest Rights in Post-Entitlement ADU Permits ............................................................... 14 C. The City Complied With the Density Bonus Law and Properly Conditioned Waivers on the Scope of the Project .................................................................................................. 15 D. Petitioners Fail to Support a Claim of Bad Faith Through Objective Evidence ............. 17 V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 18

31.259
-3-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE(S)
Avco Cmty. Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Reg’l Com.,
(1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 793 ..................................................................................................... 15 California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo, (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 831, 837, 839-840, 846, 851 ....................................................... 7 Giorgianni v.Crowley,
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474-1475 ............................................................................. 13 Ornelas v. Randolph,
(1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1105 .................................................................................................. 13 Pettit v. City of Fresno,
(1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 816–819 ..................................................................................... 13 Reznitskiy v. County of Marin,
(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1036 ........................................................................................ 11 Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles,
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1084-1085 ...................................................................... 8, 10-11 Thornbrough v. Western Placer Unified School Dist,
(2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 169, 200 ............................................................................................ 7 Wollmer v. City of Berkeley,
(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346–1347 ................................................................... 5, 15-16

STATE STATUTES
California Code of Civil Procedure
§1094.5..................................................................................................................................... 7 §1094.5(b) ................................................................................................................................ 7 California Government Code
§65569.5(j) ............................................................................................................................. 11 §65589.5............................................................................................................................... 5, 9 §65589.5(f)(4) ........................................................................................................................ 13 §65589.5(h)(10) ..................................................................................................................... 12 §65589.5(j)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 8 §65589.5(j)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 12 §65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 17 §65589.5(m) ............................................................................................................................. 7 §65589.5(o) ....................................................................................................................... 14-15 §65915................................................................................................................................ 5, 15 §65915(e) ............................................................................................................................... 16 §65915(e)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 16 §65915(f)................................................................................................................................ 17 §65941.1(d) .............................................................................................................................. 6 §65943.................................................................................................................................... 12 §65943(a) ............................................................................................................................... 12 §66313(e) ............................................................................................................................... 11

31.260
-4-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
§66323(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................... 10-11 §66325.................................................................................................................................... 11

LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Santa Cruz Municipal Code
§24.04.180.............................................................................................................................. 14 §24.16.100.............................................................................................................................. 10 §24.16.125(2) .................................................................................................................... 10-11 §24.16.125(6) ......................................................................................................................... 10 §24.16.125(9)(c) .................................................................................................................... 10 §24.16.130.............................................................................................................................. 15 §24.16.140(1)(b) ............................................................................................................... 10-11

31.261
-5-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners seek extraordinary relief based on the false premise that the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) unlawfully denied a 59-unit mixed-use housing project. In truth, the City approved the project, including the 48 residential units as it was formally proposed. The dispute arises not from any action to reduce the project’s density, but from Petitioners’ attempt to impermissibly increase density above the maximum density provided under the Municipal Code and state Density Bonus Law by the artifice of identifying “storage” space actually intended for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) that were never included in their application, never approved, and never permitted by local law.

Petitioners assert that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5; the “HAA”)1 by “reducing density,” when in fact the City approved every proposed residential unit and simply declined to entitle 11 storage rooms, never intended for storage, that Petitioners intended to later convert to ADUs—despite the fact that such conversion would directly violate the City’s objective zoning standards. Petitioners’ arguments hinge on the fiction that these storage rooms were entitled units. They were not. Petitioners cannot invoke the HAA to compel approval of units not included in the project’s formal submittals or to override municipal code provisions that prohibit “conversion” ADUs within unconstructed multifamily buildings.

Moreover, Petitioners’ claim of vested rights fails. While a preliminary application may vest development standards for the project as proposed, it does not freeze regulations for hypothetical future uses—particularly where those uses require separate permits and are expressly barred by local law.

Petitioners also misstate the City’s obligations under the Density Bonus Law (“DBL,” § 65915). The City granted all requested waivers necessary to facilitate the actual 48-unit project— which includes all requested density bonus units. But Petitioners demanded even more: waivers to accommodate building features intended solely to support unlawful ADUs that would expand beyond the maximum density authorized by the DBL. Neither the DBL nor Wollmer v. City of 1 All statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise stated.

31.262
-6-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Berkeley (relied on by Petitioners) requires the City to grant waivers for unpermitted density disguised as “storage space,” and never intended as an “amenity.” Finally, there is no evidence of bad faith. The record shows City Council wrestled with a complex and novel project proposal and took reasonable action to ensure consistency with state and local laws. Petitioners’ disagreement with that decision does not somehow transform it into misconduct. Because the City approved the project as proposed, and did so in full accordance with the HAA, DBL, and applicable local ordinances, the petition should be denied.

II. PROJECT HISTORY
On January 6, 2023, Douglas Wallace, the owner of 1130-1132 Mission Street, and his developer Workbench (collectively, “Petitioners”), submitted a preliminary application for a 59- unit2
mixed use project (the “Project”) consisting of 40 “base density”3 units and 19 density bonus units. On February 16, 2023, the City determined the preliminary application was complete. (Supp AR 41.) On January 18, 2024, the Planning Commission approved the Project (AR 2412-14), but on January 29, 2024, two appeals were filed challenging the Planning Commission’s decision. (AR 697-717.)
On or about March 11, 2024, after an error in their “base density” calculations was identified, Petitioners submitted a revised base density diagram with 32 instead of 40 base units. (AR 991). Petitioners also stated (but did not demonstrate on their plans) they would be using “12 conversion ADUs to make up for the base density reduction.” (Ibid.) Then, on or about April 19, 2024, Petitioners revised their drawings again, bringing base units up to 33, after realizing that their prior change from 40 to 32 base units, a 20% reduction, required them to submit a new preliminary application under Government Code section 65941.1(d). (AR 994.) Subsequent revisions to the plans were made again on April 24 and May 8, 2024, to update dimensions, net area plans, and to provide additional information to confirm compliance of the base density diagram. (AR 995-996.) The final Project plans submitted to the City included 48 units (33 base 2 Of the 59 units, 40 were deemed “base units” and 19 units were “density bonus units.” 3 “Base density” is a calculation of the number of units that can be accommodated on a building site taking into account limiting factors such as building height limits, setbacks, open space requirements, etc. It is used to calculate a “density bonus” whereby, in exchange for designating a certain percentage of the base units as affordable, the developer can exceed the base density by seeking waivers or concessions of those limiting factors.

31.263
-7-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
units and 15 density bonus units), various “amenities” such as bike storage, laundry room, “amenity” areas and “resident storage,” plus 11 apartment-sized areas labelled “storage.” (AR 975-998.)
The revised Project came before the Planning Commission for a second time on May 16, 2024. Due to the unusual nature of the revised Project, several commissioners questioned whether they were recommending approval for a 59-unit project or a 48-unit project. (AR 2551-

53.) Planning Director Lee Butler stated that “technically you’re recommending approval of a 49 – excuse me, 48-unit project. And those 11 ADUs are something … they will be entitled to down the line.” (AR 2552.) Upon confirmation that the Planning Commission was only reviewing a 48-unit project, the Planning Commission recommended denying the appeals and approving the Project. (AR 2556-68.)
On May 28, 2024, the revised Project and associated appeals came before City Council.

After discussion, Council adopted a resolution denying the appeals and approving the proposed 48-unit project, including requested waivers for height, setbacks, and FAR, but only to the extent necessary to facilitate the Project without the 11 “storage units” included. (AR 2759-59.) III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Any action brought to enforce the provisions of [the HAA] shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(m).) “The inquiry in such a case shall extend to . . . whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1094.5(b); see also Opening Brief (“OB”) at 12:12-16.) “A writ of administrative mandamus will not be issued unless the court is persuaded that an [alleged] abuse of discretion was prejudicial.” (Thornbrough v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 169, 200.) The Court considers questions of law, including the proper interpretation of a statute, de novo. (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 837 (“CRLA”).)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

31.264
-8-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The City Did Not Violate the HAA Because The City Did Not Reduce Density and the Project Failed to Comply With Objective ADU Standards.

1. The City Approved the Project Without Reducing Density.

Petitioners’ HAA claim fails for the simple reason that the City Council approved the Project, including each unit of housing actually proposed.

The HAA prohibits a city from disapproving or conditioning a housing development project in a manner that would render it at a “lower density,” unless it makes specific findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 65589.5(j)(1).) “Lower density” includes any condition that has “the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” (Id., subd. (h)(8) [emphasis added].) Importantly, the statute protects the housing development project as actually proposed and submitted for approval—not some hypothetical unit additions the applicant may pursue after project approval. (See CRLA, supra 68 Cal.App.5th at 839–840 [HAA protects the project as proposed and submitted for approval]; Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1084 [city not required to treat project site as if it had already been rezoned].)
Here, Petitioners formally proposed a 48-unit SRO project. (AR 1093 [“The revised project is now proposing 48 units.”]; AR 01111 [Plan No. GP0.02 “Project Unit Count” of 48.].) The 11 ADUs were identified throughout the application plans and documents as “storage,” not dwelling units. (AR 1417–1423.) Petitioners did not include ADUs in the unit count, did not seek ADU approval through the entitlement process, and admitted that any conversion would occur “later” under the City’s ministerial ADU ordinance. (AR 1016, 1095 [“[I]f the project is approved, at the time of building permit application, the applicants will be proposing to convert the 11 storage spaces into 11 ADUs . . . .” (emphasis added)].) The City approved the entire 48- unit Project, without eliminating or modifying any proposed units.

Petitioners now attempt to invoke the HAA by recasting the unentitled storage rooms as de facto housing units. If the Court were to accept Petitioners’ process, developers would be allowed to increase project densities beyond the maximum allowed under the DBL by disguising

31.265
-9-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
proposed units from their applications then later asserting HAA protections for those units. This would create an unworkable loophole compelling cities to treat hypothetical, post-entitlement housing concepts as part of the protected project. The HAA applies to the density requested in the actual project proposal, not to what an applicant might later seek entitlement for through a separate process.

Further, “the HAA does not bar local agencies from imposing conditions of approval; rather, it prohibits conditions of approval ‘that the project be developed at a lower density,’” (CRLA, supra 68 Cal.App.5th at 846 [“[N]othing in our opinion prevents the City from imposing appropriate conditions of approval to mitigate any effects the height differential may have on the surrounding neighborhood, as long as those conditions do not reduce the density of the project.”].) Because the City approved all proposed housing units, and because the disputed ADUs were never part of the Project under review, the City did not reduce the Project’s density under Government Code section 65589.5. No findings under subdivision (j) were required, and the HAA was not violated.

2. Even If the Court Finds the Conversion ADUs Were Part of the Project, Conversion ADUs Are Prohibited in Multifamily Projects.

Under the HAA, a petitioner is not entitled to any writ relief if the development in question failed to comply with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards[.]” The provisions of the HAA are conditional, and if a project fails to meet the threshold element of compliance with “applicable, objective standards,” findings of adverse impact are not required for disapproval. (CRLA, supra 68 Cal.App.5th at 831 [“[T]he HAA restricts the ability of local governments to deny an application to build housing if the proposed project complies with the general plan, zoning, and design review standards…”].) Here, in an effort to obtain more units than allowed under local standards and the DBL, Petitioners’ Project violated the City’s ADU standards by including 11 conversion ADUs within an unconstructed multifamily building. (OB, 9:26-27, 10:1-2.) As such, the Project is not entitled to the protections of the HAA.

31.266
-10-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 24.16.100 sets forth the standards for ADUs. “Conversion” ADUs are defined as “any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any one permitted, entitled, or legal nonconforming building, or portion of such a building…” (SCMC § 24.16.125(2) [emphasis added].) By contrast and consistent with state law4, section 24.16.125(9)(c) defines a statewide exempt ADU as follows (emphasis added):

Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multi-unit buildings, including a residential condominium or apartment building with two or more attached units, that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.

While these definitions are similar, conversion ADUs differ from statewide exempt ADUs in that statewide exempt ADUs are only allowed in existing buildings, not merely proposed or entitled buildings. Therefore, conversion ADUs fall into the category of “nonexempt” ADUs, which the municipal code defines as “an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit.” (SCMC §

24.16.125(6).) The distinction between “existing” and “entitled” structures found in the definitions of conversion ADUs and statewide exempt ADUs is deliberate and meaningful. If the City were to allow conversion ADUs in multifamily buildings that do not yet exist, it would create an impermissible loophole allowing developers to skirt density standards by proposing multiple floors of empty space to expand the number well beyond the maximum allowed by the already generous standards of the DBL. The City’s ADU regulations purposefully define conversion ADUs as nonexempt ADUs and prohibits them in multifamily projects to avoid this kind of chicanery.5

Petitioners cannot rewrite the ordinance to claim a right that does not exist, nor can they use conversion ADUs to contravene density standards. As the Court of Appeal found in Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles:
4 Section 66323(a)(3) states (emphasis added): “Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. 5 The general development standards governing ADUs state that “no nonexempt accessory dwelling units shall be allowed” in multifamily projects. (SCMC § 24.16.140(1)(b).)

31.267
-11-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[C]ompliance with the HAA does not mean that every proposed project must be approved . . . . The Legislature has narrowed the criteria local authorities may rely upon in denying a project. However, local control has not been abrogated by the HAA. Instead, the HAA has made clear . . . that it only applies when a proposed housing development project complies with the local general plan, zoning, and development policies.
(Snowball West Investments L.P., supra 96 Cal.App.5th at 1085 [citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1036 [“The HAA’s purpose of encouraging more housing does not compel us to interpret the statute to encompass as many projects as possible.”].)
Petitioners’ Project failed to comply with the City’s objective ADU standards because it improperly seeks to use conversion ADUs in a multifamily housing project under SCMC §24.16.140(1)(b). Further, Petitioners cannot utilize statewide exempt ADUs where no building yet exists, or design a project that openly flaunts their attempt to take advantage of a perceived loophole in local and state law. Consequently, the HAA did not apply and the City was not required to make findings under section 65569.5(j).

3. The Project’s ADUs Improperly Utilized “Livable Space.” Statewide exempt ADUs and conversion ADUs are only available when used in “areas that are not used as livable space.” (SCMC §§ 24.16.125(2), (9)(c), italics added.) This language intentionally mirrors state law, as local agencies must adopt ADU ordinances consistent with state requirements. (See §§ 66323(a)(3), 66325.) Under state law, “livable space” in the context of ADUs is defined as “a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.” (§ 66313(e).) Thus, state ADU laws only allow areas not used as livable space to be converted to ADUs. This is in accordance with the requirement that conversion ADUs only apply to existing buildings, as the intent of the state ADU laws is largely to utilize existing space in existing buildings.

Here, the 11 apartment-sized spaces mis-labelled “storage” were always intended to be used for “human habitation.”6 (AR 2472 [“So there were two ways to get at the 59 units that the 6 The Project plans did identify additional, smaller, spaces actually intended for “storage” on Level 2, and for “bike storage” on Levels 2-5. (AR 00975-00979)

31.268
-12-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
client would like to build on the project. We chose to do ADUs.”].) Petitioners openly acknowledged the 11 storage spaces were always intended to be treated as housing units, and there were never any plans to convert “areas that are not used as livable space.” Instead, Petitioners construed the ADU ordinance to provide a loophole to exceed allowable density and backfill the units that were lost when they revised the Project base density. (AR 1138 [“In response to the [appeals] we revised our base density diagram from 40 units to 32 units and proposed using 12 conversion ADUs to make up for the base density reduction.”].) Therefore, Petitioners failed to comply with state and local law governing ADUs and livable space. Because Petitioners’ use of conversion ADUs violates both state law and the City’s objective standards, Petitioners are not entitled to any relief under the HAA.

4. The City Identified Inconsistencies With ADU Standards At Its May 28th Meeting.

Petitioners argue briefly that because the City failed to identify inconsistencies within 30 days of the application being determined complete, that the Project was deemed consistent as a matter of law. (OB, 13:15-18.) Petitioners’ argument fails because it presents an oversimplified reading of the HAA that would lead to an absurd result: local agencies would be required to determine whether a project is consistent with objective standards prior to any substantive project revisions that violate objective standards.

Under the HAA, inconsistencies must be pointed out to the applicant within 30 days from when a project is “determined to be complete.” (§ 65589.5(j)(2).) A project is “determined to be complete” when is has submitted a complete application pursuant to Government Code section 65943. (§ 65589.5(h)(10).) Further, “[u]pon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application. (§ 65943(a).)
Here, the original Project for 59 SRO units (notably including no storage/ADUs) was determined complete on November 30, 2023. (OB, 8:26-28; AR 3022.) Thus, the City had until December 30, 2023, to point out inconsistencies under Petitioners’ interpretation of the HAA.

However, because the inconsistencies were only revealed to the City when Petitioners revised the

31.269
-13-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Project several times between March and May 2024, Petitioners’ resubmittals restarted the time period for the City to determine completeness and to confirm compliance with applicable development standards. (AR 988-998.)
Petitioners’ interpretation would lead to the absurd result of requiring the City to point out inconsistencies in the Project before they are even created through subsequent project revisions. (See Giorgianni v. Crowley (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474-1475 [statutes must be interpreted to avoid an absurd result]; Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1105 [“The court can disregard even plain language if it leads to absurd results or contravenes clear evidence of a contrary intent.”] Because the revisions that resulted in the final 48-unit project were not made until April 19, 2024, the City had until May 19, 2024 to determine completeness, and until June 19, to point out inconsistencies. On May 28, 2024, the City Council pointed out inconsistencies when it conditioned the Project on the removal of the 11 storage areas, within the allowable timeframe of the HAA.

5. The City Council is the Final Arbiter of Whether a Project Complies with Applicable Objective Standards.

Petitioners rely heavily on information provided by planning staff in an attempt to show the Project complies with objective standards. Under the HAA, a project shall be deemed consistent with an applicable “plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision” if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude the project complied. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).) Petitioners argue that because City staff concluded that the Project complied with the City’s objective ADU standards, City Council’s determinations to the contrary do not matter. (OB, 14:24-28.) This argument would render appeals to the City Council meaningless and should be rejected.

In Pettit v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 816–819, the court held that the city was not estopped from enforcing its zoning laws despite staff representations and a permit issued in error. The public interest in upholding zoning regulations outweighed the plaintiffs’ reliance and resulting hardship. (Id. at 819.) Applying these principles, the Court should reject any

31.270
-14-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
argument that the City Council was estopped from identifying violations of objective standards or conditioning project approval on compliance with applicable laws and ordinances.

Taken to its logical conclusion, Petitioners’ position would mean that any staff determination of compliance would be binding—regardless of whether it was correct or whether the City Council, the elected decision-making body, disagreed. This would effectively nullify the City Council’s appellate authority, a right expressly guaranteed in the City’s Municipal Code. (SCMC § 24.04.180 [“Persons dissatisfied with any action taken under the provisions of this title may appeal such action and decision….”].) The Court should not adopt a rule that elevates potentially mistaken staff interpretations over the lawful decision-making power of the City Council.

B. Petitioners’ Vesting Rights Claim Fails Because a Preliminary Application Does Not Vest Rights in Post-Entitlement ADU Permits.

Petitioners’ assertion that they acquired vested rights to construct 11 ADUs based on their January 2023 preliminary application is without merit. Their argument misinterprets state vesting statutes, the City’s Municipal Code, and improperly seeks to establish rights to construct ADUs that were never legally applied for, let alone approved.

Petitioners’ primary contention is that “the City had a policy to allow non-livable space in permitted buildings to be converted to ADUs” and “impermissibly reinterpreted” that policy on the Project after it had obtained vested rights. (OB, 15:22-25.) This argument fails because a preliminary application does not vest development standards applicable to future or hypothetical uses on the property. Petitioners’ “preliminary application” only vested development standards that apply to the current Project, not to future uses that require a separate application and approval process. The HAA states that “a housing development shall be subject to only the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application” is submitted. (§ 65589.5(o), [emphasis added].) This language explicitly limits the vesting to “the housing project” that is the subject of the preliminary application. It does not vest entitlements or regulatory standards for other potential future uses of the property.

31.271
-15-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioners argue that past ADU policies apply to their Project, even though they have never applied for ADU permits, and do not seek ADU permits in their current proposal. If, after the 48-unit project has been approved and Petitioners apply for ADU permits, the City’s policies in effect at the time of the ADU application would govern, not those from several years ago when they submitted a preliminary application. Thus, even if the City Council did change its ADU policy as alleged, such a change would not violate the HAA, because the ADU ordinance was not even at issue under the proposed Project, as Petitioners had not yet applied for ADU conversion permits.7 (§ 65589.5(o).)
Even if Petitioners had formally applied for ADUs, their claim would still fail. As explained above, the City’s objective zoning standards prohibit the use of conversion ADUs in unconstructed multifamily buildings. Petitioners cannot claim vested rights in a use that is affirmatively barred by law. Courts have long held that a developer may not acquire vested rights to undertake a use that is unlawful at the time of application or approval. (See Avco Cmty.

Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Reg’l Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 793.) Petitioners’ vesting theory improperly seeks entitlement to construct housing units that were never applied for and that the City’s ordinances prohibit outright. For these reasons, the court should reject Petitioners’ arguments based on vested rights.

C. The City Complied with the Density Bonus Law and Properly Conditioned Waivers on the Scope of the Project.

Petitioners assert that the City violated the Density Bonus Law (§ 65915) by conditioning development standard waivers on the removal of 11 storage rooms that Petitioners intended to later convert into residential units. (OB, 18–22.) They argue that the City’s action contravenes Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329 (“Wollmer”), in which the court upheld a city’s approval of waivers to facilitate certain project amenities. But Wollmer is inapposite, and the City’s actions were fully consistent with section 65915. Notably, Petitioners arguments are internally inconsistent. On one hand, they claim the City violated the HAA by reducing the number of dwelling units. On the other hand, they also contend that these same 7 The Municipal Code requires separate permit application and approval for ADUs. (SCMC § 24.16.130.)

31.272
-16-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ADUs are actually “amenities” and the City’s removal of amenities violates the Density Bonus Law.

In Wollmer, the applicant sought waivers of height and setback requirements to include a courtyard and taller ceilings—design amenities that were physically precluded by local development standards. (Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1346–1347.) The court upheld those waivers under section 65915(e), holding that cities cannot force developers to remove basic amenities to comply with development standards. (Ibid.) Here, by contrast, the City did not deny waivers needed to accommodate passive design features like a courtyard, or other features (bike storage, laundry, specifically designated “amenity” spaces). (AR 00975-00979.) It granted waivers for height, setbacks, and FAR necessary to construct the 48-unit Project as proposed. (AR 01417–01423; see also OB, 11–12.) The so-called “amenity” at issue, 11 storage rooms, was not a passive feature, but space Petitioners openly planned to convert into additional dwelling units post-approval. (AR 01016 [“We would come back later for the ADUs.”]) Petitioners seek not to preserve amenities, but to reserve space for future units not proposed in their application or counted for density bonus purposes. Nothing in Wollmer supports the idea that waivers must be granted to facilitate speculative future uses that exceed the scope of the proposed project. To the contrary, Wollmer simply held that cities cannot force developers to remove amenity spaces that constitute elements of their proposed design to comply with development standards. (Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1347 (emphasis added).) Neither case law or the plain language of the DBL compel waiver approvals for features not applied for in the development application.

To the extent the waivers were even denied at all, the DBL “shall not be interpreted to require a local government … to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1).) Indeed, at the May 28th City Council hearing, Councilmember Newsome noted that the proposed condition of approval “addresses the issue of the applicant attempting to gain more units than they are allowed under state DBL and this brings the application into compliance. One reason the City is not required to grant a request for a waiver … is if that waiver would be contrary to state or federal law.” (AR 2727.)

31.273
-17-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioners’ effort to secure a de facto density increase without complying with the DBL’s affordability thresholds or public process was a valid reason to deny any proposed waivers. Petitioners proposed to build 11 “storage rooms” as part of the entitlement, obtain waivers to support the building envelope needed to accommodate them, and then convert them into dwelling units outside of the density bonus program, using the ADU statute. This would allow developers to secure public incentives (i.e., development waivers) based on one project description while privately intending to construct a materially different one. Such a result is contrary to the structure of the DBL, which links incentives and waivers to proposed density and affordability. (Gov. Code § 65915(f).) The law does not permit developers to create bonus density through exploitation of the DBL itself.

D. Petitioners Fail to Support a Claim of Bad Faith Through Objective Evidence.

Petitioners seek relief under subdivision (k) of the HAA, which authorizes courts to direct project approval and award attorney’s fees and costs only “if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved [the project] in violation of [the HAA].” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii).) However, as established above, the City neither violated the HAA nor reduced the Project’s density. Rather, the Project itself failed to comply with objective standards for ADUs, and in fact, the City in good faith approved all proposed dwelling units. Moreover, Petitioners present no evidence of bad faith in the City’s handling of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. Without “objective evidence of bad faith,” Petitioners cannot overcome the presumption that the City acted appropriately. (CRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 851 [“we will not presume that municipalities routinely proceed in bad faith when they apply their development laws and standards”].)
Petitioners improperly characterize Councilmembers’ legitimate concerns about the project's unusual configuration as evidence of bad faith, while simultaneously and inconsistently claiming that these same spaces qualify as “units” under the HAA but mere “amenities” under DBL. Councilmembers aptly described the proposal as “odd” and “strange” because it undeniably is. (AR 2664.) Petitioners openly acknowledged their plan to convert 11 designated

31.274
-18-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
“storage areas” into ADUs, strategically employing questionable interpretations of state and local regulations to circumvent applicable density requirements and maximize unit count. Expressing concern about the long-term impacts of state housing laws is not bad faith—it is part of the normal public process and discourse.

V. CONCLUSION
The City did not deny a housing project or reduce its density. It approved every residential unit Petitioners proposed. The dispute arises not from any action by the City, but from Petitioners’ effort to secure entitlements for units they never applied for, never included in their formal submittals, and which are expressly prohibited by local law.

The City acted within its authority to enforce objective zoning standards, granted all waivers necessary to support the approved project, and complied fully with the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, and all applicable procedures. Petitioners’ attempt to recharacterize unpermitted “storage” rooms as entitled dwelling units finds no support in law or fact. Their vesting and bad faith claims likewise fail, as they never secured rights to construct ADUs, and the record reflects a thoughtful, lawful decision-making process. Because the City approved the project as proposed and violated no legal obligation, the petition should be denied.

DATED: April 18, 2025 ATCHISON, BARISONE & CONDOTTI, APC By:

ANTHONY P. CONDOTTI
Attorney for Respondents
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.

31.275
-1-

PROOF OF SERVICE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Wallace, Douglas, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz, et al.

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV02414

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Atchison, Barisone & Condotti, PO Box 481, Santa Cruz, California 95061. My electronic service address is athayer@abclaw.com.

On the date set forth below, I served the following document(s):
• CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
on the interested party(ies) to said action by the following means:
[X] (ELECTRONIC SERVICE): Based on an agreement and consent of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed below. I am readily familiar with this firm's business practice for filing electronically, and that the document(s) would be electronically served that same day in the ordinary course of business following ordinary business practices.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 18, 2025 at Santa Cruz, California.

_________________________

ANNETTE THAYER

SERVICE LIST
Ryan J. Patterson
Brian J. O’Neill
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioners
DOUGLAS WALLACE and

WORKBENCH

31.276
-1-

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE,

PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney, SBN 149886
[email protected]
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 334312
[email protected]

ATCHISON, BARISONE & CONDOTTI, LLP
PO Box 481
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: (831) 423-8383
Facsimile: (831) 576-2269
Attorneys for Respondents,
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
DOUGLAS WALLACE, an individual; and
WORKBENCH, a California corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive,
Respondents.

Case No. 24CV02414

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE,

PROHIBITION, OR OTHER

EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 15, 2025, the Court in this matter entered the attached Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Extraordinary Relief.

ATCHISON, BARISONE & CONDOTTI, LLP
Dated: July 16, 2025 By: _____________________________________ ALEXANDER GEISE, Attorney for Respondents,
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.

Exempt from filing
fees pursuant to
Government Code
section 6103

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
7/16/2025 3:50 PM
Clerk ofthe Court by Deputy,
Florence Patten

31.277
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
7/11/2025 4:10 PM
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney, SBN 149886
[email protected]
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 334312
[email protected]

ATCHISON, BARIS ONE & CONDOTTI, LLP
PO Box 481
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: (831) 423-8383
Facsimile: (831) 576-2269
Attorneys for Respondents,
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANT A CRUZ
Electronically Filed
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
July 15, 2025
Cler)~: the. Court by Deput ,
Br\C~
Exempt from filing
fees pursuant to
Government Code
section 6103

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANT A CRUZ
DOUGLAS WALLA CE, an individual; and
12 WORKBENCH, a California corporation,
Case No. 24CV02414
13 14 vs.

Petitioners,

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
15 CITY OF SANT A CRUZ; CITY COUNCIL OF Date: June 9, 2025 THE CITY OF SANT A CRUZ; and DOES 1 8:30 a.m. to Time:
16 25,inclusive, Dept.: 5
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Respondents. Action Filed: August 26, 2024
The Petition For Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Extraordinary Relief filed by DOUGLAS WALLACE, an individual; and WORKBENCH, a California corporation ("Petitioners"), came on for hearing on June 9, 2025, 8:30 a.m., in Department 5 of the abovereferenced Court. Alexander Geise and Anthony Condotti appeared on behalf of Respondents, CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANT A CRUZ ("Respondents"). Ryan Patterson and Brian O'Neill appeared on behalf of Petitioners.

I II
II I
-1-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.278
1 After consideration of the parties' pleadings, the records of file in this action, and good 2 cause appearing therefore, the Court adopted its tentative ruling, as follows:
3 4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
5 The petition is denied. As explained below, the Court does not find violations of the 6 Housing Accountability Act, the Permit Streamlining Act, or the Density Bonus Law. 7 I. BACKGROUND
8 Petitioners are Douglas Wallace and Workbench, land developers who have submitted 9 several recent development projects in the City of Santa Cruz. This action relates to a mixed-use 10 development project at 1130-1132 Mission Street, Santa Cruz ("Project"). The Project provides a 11 mix of market-rate and affordable housing units with commercial retail and parking along a 12 transit corridor. The City's Planning Commission approved the Project, appeals were filed, and a 13 revised Project was thereafter submitted to the City Council with the Planning Commission's 14 recommendation to deny the appeals and approve the Project. Petitioners argue that in response 15 to pressure from a vocal group of neighbors in opposition to the Project, the City Council 16 violated its clear obligations under State housing law when its approval included conditions that 17 effectively eliminate 11 accessory dwelling units ("AD Us") and denied waivers of certain 18 development standards.
19 On August 26, 2024, petitioners filed their petition for writ of mandate alleging three 20 causes of action: violation of Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65941.1 ); violation 21 of Housing Accountability Act "HAA'' (Government Code§ 65589.5); and violation of Density 22 Bonus Law "DBL" (Government Code§ 65915).
23 The City's position is that it approved the Project's 48-unit mixed use development. The 24 City argues that it did not reduce density under the HAA when it declined to include the 11 25 "storage" rooms that petitioners intended for conversion to ADUs. The "storage" rooms do not 26 qualify as "units" under the HAA, were not included in Petitioner's preliminary application, and 27 the proposed conversions would violate the City's objective zoning standards. The City further 28 -2-
1 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.279
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 asserts that the Petitioners' claim of vested rights fails because development standards cannot vest for hypothetical future uses. The City also claims that it did not violate the DBL because the City granted all requested waivers necessary to facilitate the actual 48-unit project. Requiring the City to include the ADU conversions would expand the maximum density beyond that which the Petitioners were entitled to under the DBL.

A. The Project
Petitioners' initial project submittal in 2023 was intended to design a mixed-use commercial and residential building for much needed housing and create a new home for the Food Bin (which Wallace has owned since 2018). The Project moved through several stages:
• Preliminary application: in 2023, Workbench submitted plans for a 59-unit mixed use project which the City confirmed obtained vesting rights in the code standards as of 2023. (AR 2234; Supp AR 41.) The Project included eight units as affordable, garnering a 50% density bonus over the 40 units allowed under the zoning code.
• Application: submitted in November 2023 and deemed complete. (AR 3022.) • Revised application: following citizen appeals of the Planning Commission's approval, petitioners revised the Project several times between March and May 2024, eventually ending up with 48 units (33 base units, 15 bonus density units), amenities (bike storage, laundry facilities, resident storage) and 11 apartment-sized areas labelled "storage." (AR 988-998.) Petitioners made clear that these "storage" areas were intended to be converted later to ADUs pursuant to Gov. Code§ 66323, subd. (a)(3) 1 and that the end result would still be 59 units, which was their initial target. (AR 991, 993-995, 1094.)
23 Petitioners' final design submittal went before the Planning Commission on May 16, 24 2024. (AR 943-1056; 1135-1145.) Petitioners agreed that challengers to the Project were 25 26
27 28
1 According to the City, this provision "allows the conversions [to ADUs] of 'the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings."' (AR 1094.)
-3-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.280
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
correct that the Project's density bonus calculations were wrong. To remedy this, petitioners reduced the Project to 33 units, updated other project elements to correspond with those 33 units, and reduced the potential ADUs to 11 (instead of 12). (AR 1141.) The parties fail to identify, and the Court does not find, any formal finding deeming this revised application or submittal complete, other than the Planning Commission's finding that this version of the Project met all city and state requirements. (AR 2568.) B. City Council's approval of the Project
On May 28, 2024, the City Council considered the revised application. The Project consisted of various development permits for the construction of a "five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 48 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above." (AR 1179, 2648, 2741.) The amenities (bike storage, laundry facilities, resident storage) and the 11 apartment-sized areas labelled "storage" were also included. Following hearing, the City Council approved the 48-unit project but specifically excluded the 11 proposed "storage" areas. (AR 2757-2759.) At hearing, councilmembers sought staffs explanation regarding the ADUs and struggled with the issue of converting those to AD Us. Staff explained that if the Project was approved with the 11 storage areas as noted in the plans - and based on petitioners' transparent explanations throughout the process that they fully intended to convert those spaces to ADUs once the Project was approved- the City would be required to permit those spaces to ADUs based on state and local law. Petitioners confirmed at hearing that the Project before Council designated those areas as storage and were considered amenities in the Project application but also confirmed they intended to convert them to ADUs following project approval. (AR 2652-2656, 2662-2664, 2672.)
C. Petitioners' writ
Petitioners' action alleges that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act by lowering the density of the project when it conditioned the approval to remove the 11 "storage" spaces intended to be converted to ADUs. They contend the City also refused to -4-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.281
1 recognize their vested rights by not approving those storage areas. They further contend the 2 City stripped the project of amenities in violation of the Density Bonus Law and acted in 3 bad faith when it unlawfully removed the 11 spaces for AD Us against the advice of staff 4 and in violation of the law.
5 The City argues in opposition that the Project for 48 units was approved as 48 units, 6 thereby approving the Project without reducing density. It contends that even if the 11 7 "storage" spaces had been approved, those ADUs were not permitted under local law as 8 conversion ADUs, and therefore, could not be approved in accordance with law. The City 9 argues petitioners' vested rights did not include any post-entitlement ADU permits. Finally, 10 it contends it complied with the Density Bonus Law in approving the Project and it did not 11 act in bad faith in eliminating the proposed ADU spaces. 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 I.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Standard of review
"At issue in administrative mandate proceedings is whether the agency acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, whether there was a fair hearing, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the agency did not proceed in the manner required by law, its order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5, subd. (b).) [i!] Our role is the same as the trial court's: we review the administrative record to determine whether the City's findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956,962 [cit.].) To the extent interpretation of a statute is involved, we exercise independent review and apply the well-settled rules of statutory construction. (Automotive Funding Group, Inc. v. Garamendi (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 846,851 [cit.].)" (Kaine! Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927, 937-938.) Generally, the petitioner seeking administrative mandamus has the burden of proof to demonstrate where the proceedings were unfair, exceeded jurisdiction, or demonstrated prejudicial abuse of discretion. (See Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.) In -5-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.282
1 cases in which a city disapproves a project or conditions it at a lower density, the city bears 2 the burden of establishing its decision conforms to all the conditions specified in Gov. Code 3 section 65589.5. (§ 65589.6.) 2 Petitioners urge the Court to apply this burden shifting. 4 Additionally, the City, rather than the Petitioner, bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 5 that its decision conformed to the HAA. (§ 65589.6.) Finally, the Legislature has 6 commanded that any uncertainties must be resolved in favor of housing projects, stating that 7 the HAA must "be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible 8 weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing."(§ 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. Key land use laws applicable to the Project

1. Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act ("HAA'') authorizes local governments to require housing development projects to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies that are appropriate and consistent to meet the jurisdiction's share ofregional housing needs. (§ 65589.5, subd. (f)(l )-(2).) Objective development standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (§ 65589.5, subd. (h)(9); California Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v.

City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844-845 ("CRLA") ["a project [is] consistent with applicable objective standards 'if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the [project] is consistent, compliant, or in conformity' with such standards."]
The 2020 amendments to the HAA provide in relevant part:
(j)( 1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a 2 All future statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise stated. -6-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.283
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record [ ... ] (§ 65589.5, subd. (j), emphasis added.)
The HAA includes the following declaration of legislative intent:
"(K) The Legislature's intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing."
(§ 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K) and (L).)
Section 65589.5 provides that until January 1, 2030 the term "deemed complete" means that the developer has submitted a preliminary application which conformed to the requirements of section 65941.1 ( discussed below) and the application is deemed complete by operation of law. After establishing vested rights through submittal of a preliminary application the applicant still must submit a traditional "complete application" that includes all of the information required to process the development application, consistent with sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5. The applicant must submit such a "complete application" within 180 days of submittal of a preliminary application.

2. Vested rights - changes in the HAA affect developers' rights The Permit Streamlining Act(§ 65920 et seq.) ("PSA") places specific timelines on submitted development projects requiring approvals, denials, or completeness so as to expedite permit processing. Developers can secure vested rights - relying on versions of land use laws applicable at the time of application - by submitting complete information within designated time periods.
-7-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.284
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
"The Act expressly declares: 'The Legislature finds and declares that there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects .... ' [i!] To expedite decisions on development projects, the Act sets forth a time limit within which a government agency must either approve or disapprove an application for a land-use permit. If the agency fails to expressly approve or disapprove the application within this time limit, it is 'deemed' approved. [Citations.]"
(Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Comm. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1106, 1120.) In 2020, the Legislature created a developer friendly statutory form of vested rights.

Under section 65941.1, developers can submit preliminary applications, providing designated information and payment of the applicable permit processing fee. Once accomplished, the application is "deemed complete" and protects the project against changes in local ordinances and policies while it winds its way to formal approval. The entity still may provide notice of inconsistencies with planning or zoning rules, in conformance with the PSA's deadlines, but its failure to do so within those prescribed deadlines results in the project being deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with local land use laws. (§ 65589.5, subd. (j)(2).)

3. Density Bonus Law
Density Bonus Law ("DBL") is designed to incentivize developers to include affordable housing in projects by allowing more units and waivers of certain development standards.

Government Code section 65915 (section 65915), commonly referred to as the "Density Bonus Law," was first enacted in 1979 with the aim to address the shortage of affordable housing in California. (Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1164 [cit.] (Latinos Unidos).) 'Although application of the statute can be complicated, its aim is fairly simple: When a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units in a housing development for low- or very-low- income households, or to construct a senior citizen housing development, the city or county must grant the developer one or more itemized concessions and a 'density bonus,' which allows the developer to increase the density of the development by a certain percentage above the maximum allowable limit under local zoning law. [Citation.] In other words, the Density Bonus Law 'reward[s] a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the applicable local regulations.' (Ibid.; see also Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 554- 555 [cit.] (Schreiber).) -8-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.285
1 2
3 4
5 6
When a developer agrees to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in a project, the Density Bonus Law grants that developer (1) a "density bonus;" (2) "incentives and concessions;" (3) "waivers or reductions" of "development standards;" and (4) prescribed "parking ratios."(§ 65915, subd. (b)(l).) [footnote omitted.] (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 769.) II.

DISCUSSION
The City did not reduce the density of the Project
7 To succeed here, petitioners must convince the Court that the City lowered the density of 8 the Project when it excluded the 11 "storage" sites proposed to later be ADUs. The Court finds 9 that the facts do not support petitioners' argument.
10 First, the Project density as proposed was approved-48 units. Petitioners did not include 11 the AD Us in the housing unit count, did not seek entitlement of them, and confirmed at hearing 12 that those spaces could not be called ADUs during the entitlement process. Petitioners believed 13 that they could subsequently convert the storage spaces to ADUs. Petitioners' admitted purpose 14 in including "storage" was to get to their ultimate 59-unit capacity that was prohibited based on 15 the Project's floor area ratio ("FAR") calculations and setbacks. (AR 2672 ["Because we had to 16 go back and redo the FAR calculations for the setbacks. So this is a way to achieve the same 17 building that we were originally working on entitling, just a different code path."].) The City did 18 not reduce the number of units, only eliminated the storage spaces that petitioners wished to 19 convert in the future to ADUs.
20 Second, the HAA prevents agencies from disapproving or conditioning a project that 21 results in lower density, but respondent's evidence establishes that it did not lower the requested 22 density of the project. "'Lower density' includes any conditions that have the same effect or 23 impact on the ability of the project to provide housing."(§ 65589.5, subd. (h)(8).) While this 24 Court must construe the HAA in a manner that promotes the approval and provision of housing 25 (§ 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(L)), it must do so based on the development application at issue, not a 26 future or contingent entitlement. (Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 27 96 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1087 [ city not required to treat project site as if it had already been 28 -9-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.286
1 rezoned].) Petitioners urge the Court to consider that the HAA reaches more than the express 2 elimination of housing units, but also "any conditions that impact the ability of a project to 3 provide more housing units." (Pet. Reply at 9.) But petitioners do not support this interpretation 4 with authority and without such, the Court will not rule that City lowered the density by 5 eliminating spaces that may be converted later to ADUs. 6 Third, cities are not precluded from imposing conditions of approval under the HAA so 7 long as those conditions do not reduce the project's density. 8 "[T]he HAA does not bar local agencies from imposing conditions of approval; rather, it 9 prohibits conditions of approval 'that the project be developed at a lower density,' unless public 10 health or safety findings are made.(§ 65589.5, subd. (j)(l), italics added.) Thus, nothing in our 11 opinion prevents the City from imposing appropriate conditions of approval to mitigate any 12 effects the height differential may have on the surrounding neighborhood, as long as those 13 conditions do not reduce the density of the project." (CRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 846.) 14 The record establishes that the City approved the 48 units sought by petitioners, and that 15 the 11 "storage" spaces - while identified as proposed ADUs - were not before the City for 16 approval and were not included in the Project as separate housing units. If the Court were to find 17 that the potential ADUs were approved as housing units, developers would have an end-run 18 around the DBL requiring cities to consider and analyze elements not included in project 19 applications for fear of HAA violations. Developers could increase project densities beyond 20 allowable maximums by disguising proposed housing units but then later asserting HAA 21 protections for those units. The Court finds that the only reasonable approach is that the HAA 22 applies to the housing units requested in the Project proposal, not to what a developer might later 23 seek in a subsequent entitlement process.
24 Finally, based on the record, it is apparent that the City applied an objective standard to 25 the Project in coming to their decision - they applied the DBL limits for housing units, which in 26 this case was 48. The DBL and its formulae for determining housing units based on the number 27 of affordable units is a standard that involves "no personal or subjective judgment by a public 28 -10-
1 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.287
1 official" and which is "uniformly verifiable by reference to external and uniform benchmark or 2 criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public 3 official."(§ 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).) Here, the City determined at hearing that the housing units 4 established for the Project by the DBL were appropriate and that the 11 "storage spaces" - if 5 used as housing units - would exceed the DBL limits.
6 On reply, petitioners argue that the City takes conflicting positions -- that denial of the 7 building envelope was legal because the project included conversion ADUs and because the 8 project did not include ADUs. The Court does not read the City's position this way; instead, 9 based on the evidence, the City approved the requested 48-unit project but eliminated a means of 10 exceeding the housing unit limit as dictated by the DBL. 11 Since the City did not reduce the Project's density of 48 units, the HAA did not apply and 12 the City was not required to make any findings under section 65589.5, subd. (j). Based on this 13 ruling, the Court declines to address the parties' contentions regarding the viability and legality 14 of petitioners' desired ADUs under state and local law. 15 16
B. Petitioners' vesting rights were not violated
17 Petitioners argue that at the time their preliminary application was deemed complete 18 in January 2023, the City's ADU ordinance permitted non-livable space in permitted 19 buildings to be converted to ADUs, citing City Code§ 24.16.125. This argument is 20 unpersuasive.
21 While the version of the City's ADU ordinance in effect at the time of petitioners' 22 preliminary application is not clear based on the record, it is immaterial considering that the 23 preliminary application did not contemplate ADUs. The 11 ADUs were first proposed in the 24 City Council staff report of April 30, 2024. (AR 1090.) Petitioners realized after that meeting 25 that its calculations would have required them to resubmit another preliminary application 26 since their reduction from 40 to 32 units was more than a 20% change. 27 I I I
28 -11-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.288
1 (Responding Brief at p. 6; § 65941. l(d).) 3 To avoid any resubmittal, petitioners again 2 changed the Project on May 10, 2024, to reflect 33 base units for DBL purposes and 11 3 ADUs. 4
4 A preliminary application can only vest development standards that are triggered by 5 the project when the application is made.(§ 65589.5, subd. (o).) 5 To find otherwise would 6 allow developers to revise projects to include elements not initially contemplated but hold 7 cities captive to prior standards for those elements, resulting in unacceptable uncertainty in 8 applying land use standards.
9 10
C. The City did not violate the Density Bonus Law
11 Petitioners assert that the City violated the DBL when it removed the 11 ADU spaces 12 since those "storage" spaces were amenities and could only be denied with appropriate findings. 13 They argue that the City's action contravenes Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 14 Cal.App.4th 1329. In Wollmer, the developer sought waivers of height and setback requirements 15 precluded by local development standards. (Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1346-1347.) 16 The court upheld those waivers under section 65915, subd. (e), holding that cities cannot force 17 developers to remove basic amenities to comply with development standards. (Ibid.) 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 "[W]hen a developer proposes a project that qualifies for a density bonus, the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards. The court held that nothing in the DBL 'requires the applicant to strip the project of 3 "After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions." 4 Those 33 units become 48 total units with application of the DBL. 5 "[A] housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted."
-12-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.289
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards. Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§ 65915, subd. (e)(l ).) The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.' (Id. at pp. 1346- 1347.)"
(Bankers Hill I 50 v. City of San Diego, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at 774-775, quoting Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329.)
Here, the "storage" amenities were never intended to be storage, and to approve them as such would have exceeded the density allowed under the HAA, as explained above. The other waivers key to the construction of the Project which petitioners requested were approved - height, setbacks, and FAR. (AR 2759.) Petitioners sought to reserve space for future housing units - not "storage" amenities - which they failed to include in their application and which were not counted for density bonus purposes. Nothing in Wollmer supports the idea that waivers must be granted to facilitate unentitled future uses that exceed the scope of the proposed project. Petitioners fail to cite authority that compels waiver approvals for features not applied for in the Project's application.

D. The City did not engage in bad faith
Petitioners assert bad faith against the City pursuant to section 65589.5, subd. (k)(l )(A)(ii). "The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section."(§ 65589.5, subd. (k)(l )(A)(ii). ).

Petitioners rely on several comments by councilmembers at the May 28 hearing as proof of bad faith, primarily related to their discomfort with new state laws reducing their discretionary authority and the impact these new laws will have in the community. (Pet. OB at pp. 11 , 17-19.) But as noted below, several of those citations do not support petitioners' -13-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.290
-14-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
arguments. Petitioners’ also stress that at least one councilmember made comments about appeasing neighbors and acquiescing to project opponents’ demands (“it doesn’t mean just because you can you should”). However, petitioners take that quote out of context; the full statement by Councilmember Watkins is, “I think to Councilmember Vice Mayor Golder’s point about future relationships, I think that requires meaningful and authentic communication with people, and it doesn’t mean just because you can you should. And I think moving forward, certainly not everybody will be happy, and certainly people want to see more development come forward in a way that is meaningful to our community.” (AR 2735.)
Petitioners’ evidence shows councilmembers grappling with the complex issues presented by heightened state regulation in this land use area as part of their approval process. The Court reviewed the May 28 hearing transcript (AR 2570-2742) and found Council’s concerns to be thoughtful, unbiased, and directly related to the “tensions inherent in the Legislature’s efforts to solve a statewide problem that lies within a realm typically controlled by local authorities.” (Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at 1087.) Ultimately here, the City approved all aspects of the Project except for the inclusion of the 11 proposed storage units. Without “objective evidence of bad faith,” petitioners cannot overcome the presumption that the City acted appropriately. (CRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 851 [“we will not presume that municipalities routinely proceed in bad faith when they apply their development laws and standards”].

E. Petitioners misstate the record in key areas
Petitioners argue that following the May 28 City Council hearing, they sought clarification from City staff regarding the Council’s intent, and City Planning Director Butler “confirmed that the intent of the condition was to make the building smaller and remove all amenity space from the project.” (Pet. OB at 12.) However, petitioners misstate

31.291
1 the evidence. Director Butler responded to petitioners that Council's intent "was to not 2 include the square footage associated with the storage units .. .. " (Pet. RJN, Ex. A at p. 6.) 3 Several others of petitioners' record citations fail to support their arguments The cite 4 to AR 5293 relates to the setback issue (item 3.c.i. of the May 10, 2024 Project resubmittal), 5 not the potential AD Us (found at item 3.b. of that same report); Director Butler was not 6 discussing the "best path" towards approval of the AD Us but instead the setbacks, which 7 were ultimately approved as submitted.
8 Petitioners also claim that other projects included such ADU conversions. However, 9 staff discussed projects that were not presented to the council that considered conversion 10 ADUs, but none of those were described as prior approvals. (AR 2662.) 11 On reply, petitioners attempt to persuade this Court that staff warned that denying the 12 storage space was not within the City's discretion. (Reply at p. 11.) The transcript cited was from 13 the May 16 Planning Commission hearing - not the May 28 City Council hearing at issue here - 14 and Director Butler's comments are again taken out of context. (See AR 2467-2468 [staff 15 clarifies that the City's "responsibility is to respond to the application that is presented before 16 them and to not make deviations to that.[ ... ] [T]echnically, we're not approving the ADUs."]) 17 18
19 VI. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
A. Petitioners' Request for Judicial Notice:
20 Respondent did not object to Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice. The Court finds as 21 follows pursuant to Evidence Code§ 452(b), (c), and (h):
22 Exhibit A, Correspondence of July 26, 2024, from Workbench to Lee Butler, 23 Planning Director, City of Santa Cruz: Granted.
24 Exhibit B, California Department of Housing and Community Development, 3832 25 18th Street Project Notice of Violation, December 29, 2022: Denied as immaterial to 26 the writ.
27 Exhibit C, Senate Floor Analyses of SB 330, September 9, 2019: Granted. 28 -15-
-- - - - - ---] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.292
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Exhibit D, Workbench's land use application for 1811-1819 Mission Street, Santa Cruz, permit application no. CP25-0002: Granted.

Exhibit E, Workbench's land use application for 2020 North Pacific, Santa Cruz, permit application no. CP24-0124: Granted.

Exhibit F, Workbench's preliminary application for 1024 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, permit application no. CP24-0100: Granted.

Exhibit G, Workbench's land use application for 915-923 Water Street, Santa Cruz, permit application no. CP22-0092: Granted.

Exhibit A (reply brief), City of Santa Cruz Ordinance No. 2024-18: Granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2025
--------
ORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Dated: July 11, 2025
-16-
7/15/202511:35:50 AM

SUPERIOR COURT
Rebecca Connolly
Ryan Patterson
Brian O'Neill
Attorneys for Petitioners

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

31.293
-1-

PROOF OF SERVICE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Wallace, Douglas, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz, et al.

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV02414

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Atchison, Barisone & Condotti, LLP, PO Box 481, Santa Cruz, California 95061. My electronic service address is [email protected].

On the date set forth below, I served the following document(s):
• NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
on the interested party(ies) to said action by the following means:
[X] (ELECTRONIC SERVICE): Based on an agreement and consent of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed below. I am readily familiar with this firm's business practice for filing electronically, and that the document(s) would be electronically served that same day in the ordinary course of business following ordinary business practices.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 16, 2025 at Santa Cruz, California.

_________________________

ANNETTE THAYER

WORKBENCH

31.294
Brittany Inclan
From: Becky Steinbruner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 9:46 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; [email protected]; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder Cc: Becky Steinbruner
Subject: Public Comment on Tree Appeal Item #31 on August 12, 2025 Agenda Dear City Council,
I request that your Council grant the appeal to save the two heritage redwood trees, and direct staff to work with the developer to accommodate the trees in the project design.

In compliance with Resolution NS-23, 710, the City has made it clear that heritage trees must be preserved and that any demolition permit would only be granted if there is no possible way for a housing project to be designed to accommodate saving the trees. This is clear in Criterion 1(c)(3), stated in the staff report. However, the Planning Commission made an error by not discussing this possibility, even though members of the public requested they do so.

Please correct this mistake now by granting the appeal, and save these two heritage redwood trees that help absorb greenhouse gasses while adding cooling shade for the area, and provide critical habitat for wildlife.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Becky Steinbruner

31.295
Brittany Inclan
From: Rebecca Supplee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 9:01 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage Tree Appeal of 2 Coastal Redwoods on Knight St.

Dear members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing in support of the appeal of the heritage tree removal permit that is before you for the two stately redwoods on Knight Street. It is so disappointing that County staff have once again failed to follow the City’s own regulation. There appears to be no evidence that the developers were required to consider incorporating these heritage trees into their design at the start of the project. This seems to be a pattern with City staff. The same thing happened with the downtown library project. I am confused and disappointed. Why a project on land that has heritage trees that there is not a process upfront requiring that it be designed to protect these trees? So much development and changes are happening in our City.

I fully support the need for more housing, but I don’t think it’s asking too much to save what heritage trees we can while permitting development. They add so much to our community - beauty, sense of place, and CO2 uptake. They take decades to grow and we need to make a more of an effort to protect them and follow our own regulations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rebecca Supplee
135 Lennox St., Santa Cruz

31.296
Brittany Inclan
From: Mara Alverson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 11:12 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Heritage Trees on Knight St. Appeal
Please do everything you can to preserve these trees from destruction by the WorkBench Project. Every heritage tree that is removed from our city results in the degradation of our beautiful city. Pretty soon there will be nothing but tall concrete buildings in what was once a picturesque town center.

Thank you,
Mara Alverson, LMFT

31.297
Brittany Inclan
From: Richard Popchak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 11:57 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Tree Appeal: Please save the Knight Street Redwoods Dear Santa Cruz City and County Leaders,
Please save the two heritage redwood trees on Knight Street near the town clock. I understand that I am powerless to stop the Workbench development on this property. But I have the power (and the law on my side) to join my fellow citizens in fighting for these two trees.

The city's heritage tree LAW requires that heritage trees can only be removed "if a construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees.” You need to stand up and defend this law. Now is the time for you -- as representatives of the people of Santa Cruz -- to tell Workbench, "Removal of these trees will NOT be permitted." Workbench is getting fat off of the development of Santa Cruz. Make them figure out how to build around these trees. You must obey the law and give the heritage redwoods the opportunity to be around long after the Workbench building is gone. The redwoods must be allowed to live there long after all of us are gone. Our job is to leave this place better for future generations. Allowing these trees to be killed because their existence is inconvenient for Workbench is not acceptable.

I have lived in the City of Santa Cruz for 40 years. I frequently take visitors to the Town Clock and they marvel at the redwoods in the background. They ask, "How fortunate are you to live in a city with redwoods downtown? I guess we are all fortunate -- until they are gone. Thank you for adhering to the law and protecting all heritage trees, especially the two Sequoia sempervirens on Knight Street.

Regards,
Richard Popchak
346 Getchell St.

Santa Cruz CA 95060

31.298
Brittany Inclan
From: Jill Schontag <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 12:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Heritage trees
Hello City council neighbors,
I want to start by saying thank you so much for the work you do as a representative for the people in our town. I have really enjoyed having Sonja as my local council member.

I’m contacting you today to express my concern about the two large coastal redwood trees near the clock tower. Trees benefit our city in so many ways by cooling temperatures, creating habitat for many native species, calming traffic and even lowering crime. These heritage trees have been here for many years and I believe they add much beauty and benefit to our downtown.

Honestly I have been very disappointed in the cities approach to our large trees in the past and I’m hoping that this will be a different case. Please look into all the environmental and social benefits that trees provide our cities and do what you can to keep these trees standing.

Thank you so much for your time and attention and I look forward to hearing what you have to say at the hearing tomorrow.

All the best to you,
Jill Schontag
(415)378-0438

31.299

31.300

31.301
Brittany Inclan
From: Jill Schontag <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 12:30 PM
To: City Council; City Council
Subject: Downtown Trees
Hello City council neighbors,
I want to start by saying thank you so much for the work you do as a representative for the people in our town. I have really enjoyed having Sonja as my local council member.

Thank you so much for your time and attention and I look forward to hearing what you have to say at the hearing tomorrow.

All the best to you,
Jill Schontag
(415)378-0438

31.302

31.303

31.304
Brittany Inclan
From: gail page <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 12:32 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Tree Appeal of Heritage Redwood Trees T7 and T8 on Knight Street Santa Cruz City Council:

Please compel Workbench and the future developer of Lot 4 to honor the heritage tree protection ordinance.

The protections for our heritage trees should not be ignored by city planners at the behest of developers.

Our environment and quality of life are more important than developer profits.

All future development in the city should be required to design projects that protect heritage trees. gail williiamson
City of Santa Resident

31.305
Brittany Inclan
From: Annika Mancini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: 2020 N Pacific Ave email for meeting on 8/12
To Mayor Fred Keeley and council members,
You may remember me and my partner, Keelan, from our 2023/2024 attempt to preserve a redwood that lived on the corner of Lincoln street and Walnut Avenue. I am emailing today on behalf of the twin redwoods that stand on the lot of 2020 N Pacific Avenue. Unfortunately, I’m not able to locate the specific resolution that Gillian Greensite noted in her appeal (NS-23, 710) so can’t be as well informed as I would like to be. That said, I feel confident in continuing to urge the approval of this appeal and the subsequent decision to ask the developers to attempt to alter their design to fit these beautiful heritage trees.

Santa Cruz’s ethos, why we love this place in the way that we do, is directly related to our redwoods. The way they hold this town in place, they fill it’s corners and connect it’s puzzle pieces. When I’m standing at “Top of the world” and am looking down on Santa Cruz at sunset time I scan the horizon for the redwood tree in front of my neighbors house, distinct in its shape and surroundings. They are here marking our town with their strength and beauty every single day. The heritage tree ordinance was put into place by people who realized the immense importance of these redwoods, and their fellow large trees, to this town. We get to enjoy Santa Cruz in the way we do only because of the beauty of these trees.

The problem: these trees are rapidly disappearing, leaving holes in our city. This city needs affordable housing more than ever, I know this is true. But, I know that more housing doesn’t always need to mean less trees.

This could be the time, where housing and environmentalism are both taken into consideration. Ask the developers if they can change the design to accommodate these trees. If they can’t, why not? These are things that the heritage tree ordinance should be encouraging. Thoughtful and intentional development.

Development that has genuinely tried to contuine adding beauty, culture, and greenness to our city. Heritage trees can’t always stay, it’s true. But if we don’t try, if we don’t uphold to the own laws we put in place for ourselves to protect these giant trees, then eventually there will be none left. It’s inevitable.

We can change the status quo always, at any time, with enough effort. Change the status quo today.

Thank you,
Annika

31.306
Brittany Inclan
From: Ren Curry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 2:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Save the heritage trees
Mayor and council members:

The Workbench project near the clock tower plans to cut down two heritage trees. The record shows no attempt by the city to discuss design alterations to preserve the trees as required by the Criteria and Standards for heritage tree removal.

To cut them down without attempting to design around them is breaking the law.

Tell the developer to go back a redesign around the trees.

Renwick Curry
Santa Cruz

31.307
Brittany Inclan
From: Nancy Knudegard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:16 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Heritage Tree Appeal at clock tower
Dear Council Members,
It is with great dismay that I learned that two healthy, beautiful heritage trees may be cut down for a building project. The city has clear, written criteria for removal of heritage trees. The criterion to grant a heritage tree removal permit when a building project is involved states that such removal is permitted only “if a construction project design CANNOT be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees”.

However, it seems the city is fond of ignoring this criteria. Case in point, Lot 4 downtown, where NONE of the heritage trees were spared. Why have these criteria if the city chooses to continually ignore them? What is the point?
You owe it to the citizens of Santa Cruz to follow established rules and regulations. That is your job. Please follow the city criteria for heritage tree permits, and save the clock tower heritage trees if at all possible.

Regards,
Nancy Knudegard

31.308
Brittany Inclan
From: Sarah Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:51 PM
To: City Council; City Council
Subject: What is going on?
Dear City Council,
There is no reason to destroy the two large trees near the clock tower in Santa Cruz.

Require the developer to create a design where the trees will remain.

Thank you.

Sarah Olson

31.309
Brittany Inclan
From: lisa ekström <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro
Subject: Appeal of Proposed Removal of Two Heritage Redwood Trees at 2020 River St, Santa Cruz
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I'm writing in support of the appeal to preserve the Heritage Trees at 2020 River Street, near the Clock Tower.

Our Heritage Tree Ordinance requires that a heritage tree may only be removed if a project design “cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees.” Already far too many of our Heritage Trees have been destroyed, and it appears that our Heritage Tree Ordinance is ignored or flaunted again and again.

These Heritage Trees are vital to our city's health and our heritage. Please defend them and uphold the appeal.

Thank you,
Lisa Ekström

31.310
Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 4:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: August 12 Council Agenda item 31, Clock Tower Project, Heritage Tree Protection Friendly greetings City Councilmembers,
Jack Nelson here. I am a City resident and a retired professional land use planner and environmenal planner.

Please do look closely at the resolution proposed for your approval regarding Heritage Tree Removal, don’t adopt it now as presented, and act to protect the two magnificent redwood trees at this redevelopment site, right behind the iconic Clock Tower, as so clearly called for by the City’s Preservation of Heritage Trees Ordinance.

For starters, I point out that the resolution is misleading, in stating that the Arborist’s Report recommends removal of the two redwoods. The resolution fails to inform you/us that Mr. Fouts’ report, in a summary chart, in fact finds that the “Suitability for Preservation” of the two redwoods is “Good.” The report otherwise just acknowledges that the two trees are in the way of the project developer’s desired building footprint and face construction impacts, though they are at the front margin of the site and not an obstruction in the large interior of the site. But simply a desired maximization of development or profit from a site is not, under the ordinance, grounds for approving a Heritage Tree Removal Permit, is it?
My own working knowledge of Coast Redwood trees is that evolution located them high in tolerance of some root zone ground disturbance. The redwoods are also essential to our own sense of place and well-being in a changing world. They are our world-class community resource, if we will recognize it.

The proposed resolution does some convoluted wrangling of words to make it sound like the project can’t adjust to protecting these two iconic redwoods. The resolution does not make a clear, specificsprovided case that State law in this case flatly overrides our own tree protection ordinance. Perhaps you want to send this back to City staff for some further review. At minimum, you could ask, what if anything in State law quite specifically gives desired commercial square footage precedence over our local Preservation of Heritage Trees Ordinance? This is a question different from the project's housing density bonus considerations.

As to the Downtown Plan calling for buildings to build to the sidewalk there on Knight Street, I do not see where the Downtown Plan indicates this is intended to override the Preservation of Heritage Trees Ordinance.

There are times when the City Council must set a course for doing what’s right, and I ask you to consider whether this isn’t one of those times. Let the whole City know, including your staff, that heritage tree protections must not be the last and least consideration when development projects are proposed.

31.311
Please correct the Planning Commission’s mistake made here, by upholding Ms. Gillian Greensite’s valiant appeal.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jack Nelson
Rathburn Way, Santa Cruz

31.312
2020 N. Pacific Avenue,
113-115 Knight Street
(CP24-0124)
Appeal of Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Design Permit, Boundary/LotLine Adjustment, Density Bonus Request, Heritage Tree Removal Permit

31.313
Project Proposal
• Demolish existing structures and site features
• Construct new, 8-story, 169,791 sq. ft. mixed-use project • 178 residential units
• 2,727 sq. ft. commercial/residential amenity space
• 100 parking spaces
• Combine 2 existing lots
• Remove 2 Heritage trees

31.314
Project Site
Project Site
Project site
Mission Street

31.315
Project Site – Existing Conditions
Mission Street

31.316
Existing, Proposed Site Plans
Existing Proposed 31.317
Brief Background
• June 5, 2025 – Planning Commission approved project on vote of 5-0-0-2 • 7 waivers, 2 incentives/concessions requested per State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) • Requests for 6 waivers, 2 incentives/concessions granted • One requested waiver found ineligible under SDBL
• Balcony encroachment into public right-of-way (ROW)
• Changes to Conditions of Approval (COAs)
• Clarification to standard COAs
• COA added requiring balcony design to conform to criteria of Downtown Plan

31.318
Project Rendering

31.319
Project Appealed
• June 16, 2025 – Two appeals filed
• Save Our Big Trees – approval of Heritage Tree Removal Permit
• Workbench – approval of project

31.320
Appeal of Save Our Big Trees
• Claims made:

1. Heritage Tree Removal Permit approved in error
• Inconsistency with General Plan Policy CD4.3.3

2. No attempt to alter project design per Criterion l(c)(3) of Resolution No. NS-23, 710

3. Commercial space or parking should be altered to accommodate Heritage trees 31.321
Tree Removal

31.322
City Response
• Retention of mature trees – implications:
• Fewer housing units and amenities
• Changes to building layouts, bulk, mass
• Loss of commercial space, parking, courtyards, landscaping • Impacts to views; loss of sunlight exposure
• Parking, building support infrastructure underground
• Lot size, height restrictions limit buildable space
• Arborist report recommends removal of all 6 trees due to locational conflicts • Tree replacement - 23 new trees proposed
• Staff recommend approval of Heritage Tree Removal Permit

31.323
Appellant’s Exhibit – Impact of Tree Retention

31.324
Appeal of Workbench
• Substantive claims made:

1. Required widening of sidewalk, disallowance of balcony encroachment into public ROW constitute violation of 5th Amendment of US Constitution
• Taking without “just compensation”

2. Encroachments into public ROW per SDBLrequires grant of waivers • City denied waiver request in violation of State law

31.325
City Response – First Substantive Claim

1. “Just Compensation”
• Widening of sidewalk meets tests of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) (1) Essential nexus between sidewalk width, legitimate governmental interest (2) Rough proportionality between scope of sidewalk easement, project impacts
• Required 8-foot-, 12-foot-wide sidewalks fully comply with applicable law • No taking of private property from disallowance of project’s encroachment beyond private property lines

31.326
Sidewalk Widths

31.327
City Response – Second Substantive Claim

2. Balcony encroachment into Public ROW – Depth of Encroachment • Specific encroachments into ROW allowed by Downtown Plan:
• 3 feet into public right-of-way for balconies where sidewalks ≥10 feet wide • 2 feet into public right-of-way for balconies where sidewalks <10 feet wide • Additional 18 inches by planter boxes attached to balconies • Proposed encroachments:
• 4 feet, 6 inches into ROW on 2 frontages where new sidewalks 12 feet wide • 3 feet into ROW on one frontage, where proposed sidewalk 8 feet wide

31.328
Balcony Projections

31.329
City Response – Second Substantive Claim

2. Balcony encroachment into Public ROW – Balcony Design • Balcony design allowed by Downtown Plan:
• Maximum 15 feet in length
• Minimally 3 feet separation between balconies
• Balconies proposed but as continuous bands ≥ 112 feet long • Argument unchanged from Planning Commission staff report review • City did not deny waiver; rather, showed that ineligible for waiver

31.330
Balcony Design

31.331
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution to deny the appeals of Clay Toombs and Gillian Greensite and uphold the Planning Commission’s
acknowledgment of the environmental determination and
approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Design Permit, Density Bonus Request, Administrative Use Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit, based on the Findings with Conditions of Approval listed in the draft resolution attached as Exhibit “A”.

31.332
Conclusion
• Staff available to answer questions and
provide information
• Thank you!

31.333
APPEAL

CITY COUNCIL
August 12, 2025

SAVE OUR BIG TREES
Criteria and Standards

1. A heritage tree shall only be altered or removed in the following circumstances:
(1)(C)(3) A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees.

31.334

31.335

31.336

31.337

31.338

31.339

31.340

REDWOODS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA

31.341

31.342

31.343

31.344

31.345

31.346

CLOCKTOWER
CENTER
City Council
August 12, 2025
Downtown Santa Cruz, California

31.347

WORKBENCH TEAM FOR THIS PROJECT
Tim Gordin
Partner
Jamileh Cannon
Partner
Architect
Omar Hason
Sr. Designer
Clay Toombs
Sr. Development
Manager

31.348
Tree Removal and
Project Constraints

31.349

TREES AND LANDSCAPING

GROUND LEVEL
Protection zones vary
between 10’ and 25’
Existing trees and their
“Tree Protection Zones”
= “regulated” trees
= “non-regulated” trees

31.350

TREES AND LANDSCAPING

AXONOMETRIC VIEW
Protection zones vary
between 10’ and 25’
Existing trees and their
“Tree Protection Zones”
= Trees T7 and T8

31.351

CODE AND CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
● Loss of ground floor commercial area
which is a City Requirement
● Build-to requirements along Knight
Street. (0’-0” Setback, project is
required to build to property line)
● Public works comment that we need
to fix the sidewalk and that would
require work on the tree roots
● Even if the loss of buildable area isn’t
great along N Pacific street, the
construction access and ability to
physically build the building is not
feasible if the trees were to remain.

31.352

TREE RETENTION IMPACT
Retaining all “regulated trees”
would require:
● Adding an additional 1 to 2
stories, pushing the project to 9
or 10 total stories.
● Complying with high-rise
specific code requirements.
● Changing to a more expensive
construction type.
● The project would no longer be
financially viable given the
above parameters.

31.353
● 17 new street trees
● 29 new trees at Levels 2 & 8
● Trees and lush landscape at podium deck
● Rooftop (future restaurant / bar) with trees & landscape ● 6 “regulated trees” removed, 14 trees total removed

TREES AND LANDSCAPING
17 NEW STREET TREES
Ground Level Level 2 Level 8

31.354
Balconies

31.355
Allowed by Downtown Plan Requested by Applicant
Balconies are within allowed encroachment

31.356

PROPOSED BALCONIES

TYPICAL UPPER LEVEL
= proposed balconies = type “a” balconies = type “b” balconies Type “a” balconies:

Lighter and more open, still allow for
privacy between units, used on less
active frontages.

Type “b” balconies:

Include privacy screening between
units and from busy streets.

Provides shading from summer sun.

B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A

31.357

PROPOSED BALCONIES
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B

31.358

FINAL PLANNING APPLICATION

31.359
The Workbench team is available to
answer questions after public comment
and during your deliberations.

Again, thank you!

31.360
Responses to Other
Potential Questions
Commercial Space and Requests for Incentives
Building Height and Massing
Affordable Rents and Units
Traffic and Greenhouse Gasses
Trees and Landscaping

31.361

COMMERCIAL SPACE
First planning application included more commercial space.

Workbench, our investors, the business community, and
neighbors all had concern about the amount of retail space.

Community preferred more parking and a rooftop restaurant.

Final application has a
smaller commercial
space, room for patio
seating, and a dedicated
elevator direct to the
rooftop restaurant / bar
space with lush
landscaping.

31.362

INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL
Incentive 1 – Expedited Ministerial
Approval of Eating and Drinking
Establishments
“Applicant requests that any use
permit or building permit required for
an Eating and Drinking
Establishment be processed
ministerially, and that any ministerial
permit application be expedited.”
Final application has a
smaller commercial
space, room for patio
seating, and a dedicated
elevator direct to the
rooftop restaurant / bar
space with lush
landscaping.

Sunset viewing deck and restaurant > retail
Incentive 2 – Allow and
Incentivize Active Frontage
Uses
“To incentivize active frontage
uses … Applicant requests that
the City shall allow [the] Uses for
Active Frontage [] allowed in the
C-C Community Commercial
District …”

31.363

BUILDING HEIGHT AND MASSING
130 Center St 201 Front St
324 Front St (Cruz Hotel) 418, 428, 440, 504, 508 Front St (River Row) Anton Pacific (Pacific & Laurel, Complete)
The proposed
design is
consistent with
the scale of new
development.

The New Neighborhood Scale of Santa Cruz

31.364

BUILDING HEIGHT AND MASSING
530 Front St (Front / Soquel Mixed Use) Downtown Library and Affordable Housing 915 Water St (100% Affordable)
902 Pacific Ave (Pacific Station North)
ArtHaus
The proposed
design is
consistent with
the scale of new
development.

Pacific
Station
South
The New Neighborhood Scale of Santa Cruz

31.365

AFFORDABLE UNITS AND RENTS
Affordable rents are set by the State or City,
based on Santa Cruz County’s median income
of $132,800 for a family of 4. Affordable
rents for single-person household are based
on a medium income of $92,950.

Market rate rents are set by competition and
will vary within the development.

Affordable rent (including utilities) for a
moderate-income single-person household
(up to 120% of AMI) is up to $2,789 / mo.

Stated rents include utilities.

31.366

TRAFFIC & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Transportation (mostly private auto
use) is the biggest source of
greenhouse gas emissions in Santa
Cruz County.

Alternative transportation (walking,
biking, public transport, etc.) reduces
emissions and global warming.

TRAFFIC (Trips)
The Project generates 46 net AM peak
hour trips, which is less than the City’s
threshold of significance of 50 trips.

TRAFFIC (Miles Traveled)
The Project is within ½ mile of a major transit stop, and calculates to 5.7 (daily per capita) vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

That is 36% below the threshold of significance of 8.9 VMT.

31.367
Transit Subsidies + Bus Routes

TRAFFIC & ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION
Services within ¼ mile walk
● +10 retail/shopping destinations
● +8 medical / dental offices
● 7 parks / public spaces
● 3 pharmacies
● +15 restaurants
● +5 entertainment venue

31.368

SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT INTO PROPERTY
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
= sidewalk area
encroachment into
Property Line

31.369

MIDNIGHT MOVIE
JUNE 6,7

TEMPLE OF DOOM

BOOKS MUSIC
A
URBAN

EL PALOMAR RESTAURANT
Rosíe McCann's
Irish Pив & Restaurant
สวM Sie
Spapp aul dais

CUSHMAN AVAILABI
831-476-80
Copriviza 462
NO
CINEMA

COMMERCIAL

ER CENT

31.370
Allowed by Downtown Plan Requested by Applicant
Balconies are within allowed encroachment

31.371

CLOCKTOWER
CENTER
Downtown Santa Cruz, California City Council
August 12, 2025

31.372

32.1 32.2

32.3 32.4

32.5 32.6

32.7 32.8

32.9 32.10

32.11 32.12

32.13 33.1

34.1 34.2

34.3

Santa Cruz City CouncilAugust 12, 2025

Santa Cruz City Council
August 12, 2025