Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, September 9, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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 comment(s).

2. Question/Comment:

What a nightmare to have this giant Project go up in several homeowners backyards! This monstrosity will cause the residents on this block to lose the privacy that our homes have had for many years, and the peace of what used to be a quiet family neighborhood.

There's no place for delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and oversize vehicles to park or turn around. There's no place for residents of the project to park their own vehicles.

There must be a way to make this project smaller and less impactful to those of us who will be losing so much.

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,

24.152
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.153
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 10:47:26 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/24/2025 10:47 PM
Response #: 47
Submitter ID: 114813
IP address: 76.235.133.20
Time to complete: 39 min. , 15 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

To whom it may concern, The proposal at 1811 Mission should be rejected by city leaders and city planners.

As proposed, it is physically too big, has too many units, and does not fit with the adjacent neighborhood, or with the Mission Street transportation corridor. The building is twice as high as it should be. 70 units is many multiples of what the neighborhood infrastructure can support. The development does not address our community's need for affordable housing, while contributing significantly to increasing congestion. The Mission Street corridor cannot support the increased traffic pressure of the various proposed projects- and the fallacy of these projects being occupied by car free tenants is simply dishonest. The appropriate place for a project of this scope is Downtown. The City of Santa Cruz should not be approving this project, which almost exclusively benefits the University, an unknown future student population, and the developer's finances, while disregarding the quality of life of the existing neighbors and livability of the community.

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

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

24.154
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.155
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:10:40 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/10/2025 2:10 PM
Response #: 43
Submitter ID: 114624
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 4 min. , 44 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

CONCERNS ABOUT LIGHT TRESPASS. The nearby neighbors are concerned about the amount of light this new building will shower down upon our properties at night. Shielding (or curtains, shades or blinds) should be required to prevent exterior as well as interior lights from bombarding the neighboring properties with light at night.

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.156

24.157
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:19:25 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/10/2025 2:19 PM
Response #: 46
Submitter ID: 114627
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 3 min. , 23 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

CONCERN ABOUT NOISE IMPACTS:

The developer should be required to specify during the design phase how many garbage pickups the new building will require each week. Noise impacts (and city resources) can be minimized if the building is designed to only require one garbage pickup per week.

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.158

24.159
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:15:56 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/10/2025 2:15 PM
Response #: 45
Submitter ID: 114626
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 2 min. , 42 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING ON DUFOUR STREET
This development is going to have a HUGE IMPACT ON PARKING on Dufour Street (which currently does not have parking permits). The residents of Dufour Street would like the conditions of approval for this project to contain a condition similar to Condition 18 of the conditions drawn up in 2023 for the previous version of this project (i.e. CP22-0045).

Here's the text from the 2023 Conditions of Approval: "Should the residents on Dufour Street decide to initiate and facilitate a neighborhood permit parking program, the applicant shall be responsible for two years of program fees to implement the program on the first block of Dufour Street as measured from Mission Street. The recommendation for establishment of a neighborhood permit parking program will also be dependent upon the administrative procedure for adding permit parking described in Municipal Code Section 10.41.040 which involves input from the participating neighborhood area."

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: Not answered

24.160
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.161
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:13:12 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/10/2025 2:13 PM
Response #: 44
Submitter ID: 114625
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 2 min. , 5 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY
There are on-going concerns about how this new building will affect the privacy of the nearby properties that it will overlook. Drone photos taken from 60 feet above the project site have shown that people living in the new building will have direct views into many private yards and direct views into bedroom windows of the residences below. The conditions of approval should compel the developer to provide Privacy/Landscaping Funds to the 12+ Dufour and Palm Street residences that will lose privacy as a result of this new building. These funds can be used by the affected neighbors to plant trees and install awnings over bedroom windows for privacy purposes.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: Not answered

24.162
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.163
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:33:58 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/17/2024 7:33 PM
Response #: 3
Submitter ID: 112640
IP address: 2600:1700:87f8:b000:95a0:a89b:d818:9fe2
Time to complete: 5 min. , 0 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

A huge NO to 6 stories at the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street !! Not fair to all who live nearby who will lose their privacy.

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

24.164
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.165
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 4:26:48 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/18/2024 4:26 PM
Response #: 5
Submitter ID: 112662
IP address: 2601:647:cb01:bcc0:b9d6:7d7b:1c28:ab4b
Time to complete: 7 min. , 25 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

I have know of companies that get projects in other cities zoned with no ability to finance the multiple projects they get approved. They then sell the projects to whoever they can . They acquire great financial gain while the new builders come back to the city asking for more in the way of variances. I'd like to limit approval of new projects to companies that have the financial where with all to complete them.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 466-0561
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.166

24.167
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:14:58 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:14 AM
Response #: 14
Submitter ID: 112679
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 29 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Comment: THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OFF-STREET LOADING ZONE AT MISSION STUDIOS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FED-EX/UPS/APPLIANCE DELIVERY TRUCKS!

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.

24.168
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:16:27 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:16 AM
Response #: 15
Submitter ID: 112680
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 30 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Comment: There needs to be a loading-zone on Dufour Street or the Mission Studios Property capable of supporting 18-wheel delivery trucks. It is not safe nor is it acceptable for building plans to rely on 18-wheel delivery trucks parking on Mission Street (i.e. California Highway 1).

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.

24.169
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:18:10 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:18 AM
Response #: 16
Submitter ID: 112681
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 40 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Comment: The use of zero setback in the rear of the building will cause problems to both Mission Studios and the city of Santa Cruz's future housing. If Mission Studios is built with zero rear yard setback any windows and balconies in the rear of the building run the risk of being occluded by a wall when a tall building is built in the future at 546 Dufour Street (especially if that building also waives its setback requirements). Santa Cruz's housing future depends on properties, such as 546 Dufour, building multi-story apartment buildings in the future.

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

24.170
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.171
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:20:39 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:20 AM
Response #: 17
Submitter ID: 112682
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 2 min. , 20 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Comment: At 6-stories, the new building is going to loom over nearby properties. The developer should be forced to compensate the nearby properties for loss of privacy, or in the least, provide funds to each of the nearby neighbors for privacy-mitigating landscaping such as the planting of trees or bamboo.

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.

24.172
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:21:41 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:21 AM
Response #: 18
Submitter ID: 112683
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 0 min. , 55 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Comment: Workbench need to design the building so that interior and exterior lights do not trespass onto neighboring properties.

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.

24.173
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Sunday, September 22, 2024 4:02:10 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/22/2024 4:02 PM
Response #: 22
Submitter ID: 112731
IP address: 2600:387:f:4811::4
Time to complete: 2 min. , 27 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Where are the hundred or so cars gonna park?

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.

24.174
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 7:44:16 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/25/2024 7:44 AM
Response #: 23
Submitter ID: 112785
IP address: 76.209.243.51
Time to complete: 13 min. , 21 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

I understand the need for housing but this high density building will be a burden on the community.

Mission st is too congested at present day--we don't need yet another construction project that will bring more large construction vehicles during commute hours.

Yes we need housing, but you are degrading the neighborhood by allowing a 71 ft high six story building.

How can our community come together to encourage respectable and sustainable growth? There are no parks being built. We need a sports center for youth to host volleyball, basketball games and events. We need a climbing gym. These are things that bring a community together. Go look at Hood River, OR. They've kept higher density buildings in one area that is easily accessible off a freeway (not congesting local streets or on top of a neighborhood), they've built a beautiful community gathering area in the main part of town (the 'event site') that is supported by larger buildings (that are NOT 6 stories high). Young people with kids are relocating there because of these assets.

If you haven't driven down Mission St during regular business hours, please do so before you approve this building. Visit other cities and see how they've balanced growth with community development. Really think about if you'd want this type of building in your community and what responsible growth looks like.

24.175

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.

24.176
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 26, 2024 10:21:44 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/26/2024 10:21 AM
Response #: 27
Submitter ID: 112813
IP address: 71.198.216.231
Time to complete: 4 min. , 54 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

The building will have 68 residential units and only 14 parking spaces? You are absolutely screwing everyone in the neighborhood surrounding this development. It doesn’t matter what you say on the lease or how you classify the units, people will have cars and you will create a parking and traffic nightmare in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Get some sense on this before it’s too late. People need cars to get to their jobs in Silicon Valley, Watsonville and beyond. They will own cars, and there’s really nothing the city can do to stop it. Require the developer to include the necessary parking, and bear the associated cost. This is a dangerous trend, and the citizens of Santa Cruz are losing faith in the leadership of the city.

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,

24.177
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.178
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Saturday, September 28, 2024 10:42:44 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/28/2024 10:42 AM
Response #: 28
Submitter ID: 112846
IP address: 2600:1010:b0e6:25aa:593f:a972:b657:f72c
Time to complete: 3 min. , 58 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

You haven't even finished the ones on Delaware yet that was started over 10 years ago and you haven't filled the ones downtown and we don't need to build more down here we need to build more on campus so let's find a solution for the students with storefronts and everything that they can have up there because the problem with housing really is a campus student problem which in turn takes food off the shelves in town for the locals when they're in session and they don't have cars up there for the first two years because they can't and there's a lot of problems from the campus that need to be addressed on campus instead of creating more problems down here even the Chase Bank on Mission Street in elmar is empty and has been empty Burger has been empty for years so if new storefront's on Mission Street isn't going to fill up fast and either are the housing units if they're built You haven't even started the ones on the circle yet so let's complete what we started 10 or 12 years ago with Delaware and the circle and then go from there because this town has been rerouted and streets side streets have been blocked off not two ways anymore and this town was originally designed perfectly and has been changed and changed to be a nuisance and a bother for a lot of us down here. Santa Cruz is not the university the university needs to provide more for it's students . We as a town I've already provided enough and our landfill is getting full so where is all this trash going to go from all of these units that you keep building You haven't even finished the ones on front Street either Let's stop the mass production and start filling and using what we got Let's be happy with what we have before we create an unpleasable town

24.179

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 345-3526
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.180
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:33:03 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/30/2024 4:32 PM
Response #: 31
Submitter ID: 112880
IP address: 2603:3024:1a09:7a00:d91:c8e0:a5f6:c1a8
Time to complete: 2 min. , 19 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Traffic on mission is awful. It is a parking lot in the afternoons and evenings and on the weekends. This project will push traffic onto side streets, further impacting quality of life in an already congested part of Santa Cruz.

Plans to mitigate traffic problems. Also: How many parking spots will be allotted? Needs to be at least 100 or all surrounding streets will be
cluttered with more cars.

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

Email:

Phone: Not answered
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

24.181
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.182
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 10:16:14 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 10/01/2024 10:16 AM
Response #: 32
Submitter ID: 112893
IP address: 2601:647:cd02:8c50:5521:ca9c:5a12:25b7
Time to complete: 22 min. , 22 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

I live on Dufour and am all for new housing but I would like to see this project stay within existing zoning regulations and stay at the 3 story level. I would be open to 4 stories but think that 6 stories is excessive for the neighborhood of single family homes and the character of Mission St. already.

Also, I would suggest no matter what size the project is to add a traffic light on Mission St. at the intersection of Dufour if that is where the commercial and parking garage entrances are going to be for the building.

Every time I turn left on Dufour from Mission St. these days there is quite often a backup of cars stopping in the middle of the road to let out passengers to get Starbucks, or a person walking across to their parked car from Starbucks, or people trying to parallel park, creating a dangerous situation with cars turning onto Dufour from Mission. With the added building I can only imagine that bottleneck getting more congested and dangerous.

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

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

24.183
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.184
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024 8:11:30 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 11/24/2024 8:11 PM
Response #: 35
Submitter ID: 113642
IP address: 23.122.130.83
Time to complete: 13 min. , 51 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What an obnoxious project.

No parking for commercial tenants?
Slab walls built to the sky?
Each of these State of CA mandate projects (mostly being proposed by WorkBench) unfairly takes all winter sunlight from neighbor's homes, , eliminates backyard privacy where kids play, takes away adjacent backyard gardening (plants die in the shade). These projects also steal public street parking from the City and neighbors (by purposely shorting offsite parking), and impact a limited water supply for us all.

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

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

24.185
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.186
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, December 5, 2024 12:37:18 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 12/05/2024 12:37 PM
Response #: 36
Submitter ID: 113782
IP address: 23.122.130.83
Time to complete: 3 min. , 5 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

These developers are locals, why are they lying to the City when they make their development applications? Why are they putting immediate neighbors in permanent winter shade so that their landscaping will wither and their solar panels are useless? Is this the kind of town these local developers want their own kids to live in?

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

24.187
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.188
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:36:49 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/25/2024 3:36 PM
Response #: 26
Submitter ID: 112801
IP address: 71.198.88.126
Time to complete: 6 min. , 0 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

My family lives on Palm Street, right around the corner of the proposed new project. My main question is:
how could such an out-of- place monstrosity, no parking facility even reach the discussion stage? Have you driven down Mission street lately? Where are all of these new tenants going to park? And they have friends. Six stories--absolutely nuts.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 542-1661
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.189

24.190
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, October 3, 2024 1:57:11 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 10/03/2024 1:57 PM
Response #: 33
Submitter ID: 112939
IP address: 73.231.250.40
Time to complete: 34 min. , 44 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

I’m concerned about parking. Considering the number of units and the number of parking spaces, the ratio seems off.

I worry that the parking will spill over into the adjacent neighborhoods and, in fact, into the parking lot attached to the Starbucks. I imagine the owner and tenants of that commercial property will be frustrated that residents will take parking for their customers.

I wonder if there’s a way to convert the commercial space into parking. The property adjacent to Starbucks has been empty for a year, and there are two units in the Safeway center that have been empty for quite some time. I worry that the commercial space that’s offered below will also be empty.

Thanks for considering my feedback.

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

Email: Not answered

24.191
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.

24.192
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 12:38:06 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 03/08/2025 12:37 PM
Response #: 48
Submitter ID: 115038
IP address: 2600:6c52:763f:ee92:84e0:2817:14db:be7f
Time to complete: 13 min. , 9 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Why provide any parking at all? Just pass out bus passes and call it a day. Let those that have cars (at least 100 actual cars here) let them cram them in every street parking spot in a 3 block radius.

Let the surrounding City residents pay for their parking.

Who needs parking anyway? We should all be riding bikes on mission street with its broad safe bike lanes.

Oh wait....
(Another Calif-law project treating new residents better than existing surrounding property owners) Another project by this local developer who would probably not dream of living anywhere near their projects that are re taking away shade and everyone's street parking.

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

Email: Not answered

24.193
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.

24.194
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 11:18:17 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/16/2024 11:18 PM
Response #: 2
Submitter ID: 112628
IP address: 71.198.90.72
Time to complete: 5 min. , 2 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

There is a great need for parking here because no parking is available on Mission Street. Is parking included in the plan? Otherwise, there will be huge impacts to the neighborhood.

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.

24.195
From: Candice McLaren
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1819 Mission Street Proposed building
Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 12:54:37 PM
****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 Rena,
I have reviewed the presentation, questions, and draft drawings for the 1811, 1815, and 1819 proposed building. I have the same concerns about this exterior design as most of the proposed Workbench designs for the City of Santa Cruz. (at least this one does not look like a parking garage) I realize that they are taking direction from Developers and maximizing the rentable square footage but most of their proposed buildings look like they were designed for one size fits all and “dropped” on a piece of property. I can only wonder what we will think of these designs twenty or more years from now. Shades of the 60’s County building on Water Street? Even in New York City where there are blocks upon blocks of really tall buildings, down at the human scale, where people walk, enter buildings, and drive by, there is some relief from the building just popping out of the ground going straight up to the sky. There are setbacks and design elements that provide a sense of welcome, joy, and are a visual delight to take in. They just don’t start at the ground with a monolithic flat design.

I hope that this proposed building goes through some more design reviews.

Regards,
Candice McLaren
Santa Cruz Westside Resident
831 426 0758

24.196
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 4:54:07 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 01/27/2025 4:53 PM
Response #: 37
Submitter ID: 114456
IP address: 71.198.88.126
Time to complete: 7 min. , 27 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Dear Planning Commission. I know that Rina knows our neighbor Bruce. I'm sure he has sent the picture of his backyard in reference to this awful proposed building (1811,1815, 1819 Mission). Why have you guys allowed a six story building to get this far in a neigborhood comprised mainly of one-story homes? You guys should not allow this kind of stuff. No, you don't need to do whatever the State says. Many cities are pushing back. Yes, we need housing. But not housing that has NO parking and is invasive to a neighborhood of mainly single story homes. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this awful proposal to get this far. Shame on you. Seriously, how do you sleep?

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 542-1661
Thank you,

24.197
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.198
From: Craig Medlen
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: Mission Street Project 1811,1815,1819
Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 8:09:38 PM
****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.**** I just got through listening to the proposed project and the responses of callers. I simply can't believe that such a crazy proposal could get to this stage of development.

Obviously, the people who are proposing this 6 floor project are not members of our neighborhood, or they would resign their calling. They should feel ashamed of themselves. I feel similarly about the planning group of which you presumably are part that allowed this project to go forward. Have you ever tried to park on Palm or Dufour? Try it and you will see how terrible this plan is. As "Bill" mentioned, the whole thing stinks of monetary incentives going to developers. Forest is also correct in noting that 6 floors translates into 70 feet, blocking the sun and making the neighborhood undesirable.

Privacy issues are also paramount. Bruce has flown a camera loaded drone from 70' feet up to record what the upper deck of the proposed project would allow the new denizens to see. Totally invasive. In the name of sanity, please cancel this project and have a modicum of respect for Santa Cruz and the people living here.

24.199
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 6:00:31 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 01/27/2025 6:00 PM
Response #: 38
Submitter ID: 114458
IP address: 142.254.101.196
Time to complete: 6 min. , 25 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Traffic is dense already on Mission Street. How is this development going to do anything but make it a parking lot? Then there’s the parking for residents. Two cars per rental is normal and parking spaces are not up to those numbers. So nearby streets will be inundated with cars from those that don’t live there?

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.200
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 3:57:09 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 10/18/2024 3:57 PM
Response #: 34
Submitter ID: 113186
IP address: 2600:1010:b072:cf70:a01c:b9ab:afe1:a2cc
Time to complete: 7 min. , 43 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

This building is not the best location. Mission street already has tsp much traffic during the day and evening with the commute. In addition, people speed on mission and do not follow posted speed limits. Parking for the units will not be enough to accommodate the residents if more than one person has a vehicle. All these points are just some of the issues related to adding a multi family unit on a very busy street. A facility like this should be placed on a street that would offer more parking areas, have better safety and not add to safety issues, not impede more traffic on an already congested road, and where a left hand lane or lights with a left hand lane could be offered. This is not a good location.

Thank you,
Stephanie Loguidice
Resident on Dufour Street

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

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

24.201
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.202
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:03:10 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:03 AM
Response #: 7
Submitter ID: 112672
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 4 min. , 23 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Will the side of the building facing 1807 Mission Street have windows? Doing so will cause problems in the future because the owner of 1807 Mission has publicly stated that he plans to build a multi-story building on his property. Any windows on the Palm Street side of the Mission Studios project are likely to get blocked in the future.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.203

24.204
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:04:34 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:04 AM
Response #: 8
Submitter ID: 112673
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 5 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

How will first-responders access the backside of the building, especially if there is zero setback in the rear? It is not acceptable for building plans to require first-responders to trample over or damage neighboring properties in order to respond to emergencies in the back of the building.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.205
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:06:49 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:06 AM
Response #: 9
Submitter ID: 112674
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 2 min. , 8 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What is being done on the backside of the building to provide visual privacy to the properties below? The proposed building will directly overlook 6 nearby properties on Dufour and Palm streets. This is a MAJOR concern for the residents of the nearby properties.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.206
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:09:03 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:08 AM
Response #: 10
Submitter ID: 112675
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 2 min. , 8 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What is being done in the building design to control sound and noise, e.g. help building tenants maintain sound privacy from the neighboring properties below? As it stands, properties on Dufour and Palm streets can currently hear private conversations taking place at the 3-story building located across Mission Street.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.207
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:10:28 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:10 AM
Response #: 11
Submitter ID: 112676
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 20 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What is the developer planning to do with the Tree Island that juts out onto Dufour Street near the rear corner of the property? City officials in 2018 said that these islands could not be removed because they are tied to a state grant that was used to underground the electrical lines (and remove telephone poles) along Mission Street in the early 2000s and that the city would have to repay the grant back to the State if the islands are removed.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

24.208
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.209
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:12:10 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:12 AM
Response #: 12
Submitter ID: 112677
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 32 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What is the city's plan for hiring more parking citation officers? More officers will be needed for Dufour street's new parking permits to be effective. There is no point in having parking permits on Dufour Street if enforcement only happens infrequently (e.g. twice per day).

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.210
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:13:15 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:13 AM
Response #: 13
Submitter ID: 112678
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 4 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Will residents of the new building be allowed to purchase parking permits given that one side of the building falls along Dufour street? If so, how many permits will they be allowed to purchase?

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.211
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:22:52 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 11:22 AM
Response #: 19
Submitter ID: 112685
IP address: 142.254.101.219
Time to complete: 1 min. , 7 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Is Workbench going to submit plans with storage units that it intends to convert to ADUs?

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 425-8510
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.212
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Saturday, September 28, 2024 5:05:39 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/28/2024 5:05 PM
Response #: 29
Submitter ID: 112849
IP address: 24.6.95.252
Time to complete: 2 min. , 41 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Hello!
- Will the building be beautified on the building elevation east side, facing the neighboring homes? Currently, the plans show it as a large plain grey/white wall that may be difficult to look at when the sun is out, and this view would be replacing an existing partial view of trees/green hills. - Will the building's 6th floor patio have an unrestricted view into neighboring homes below, or will the patio be landscaped/built with privacy in mind?
- Have any parking impact studies been considered for Dufour and Palm Streets as a result of this build? - Are utility lines being affected for the street, and/or would neighbors experience utility disruptions during construction?
I'm hoping these questions can be addressed at the meeting on 09/30, but if you already have answers to any of the above, please feel free to share them with me at the email address provided.

Thank you!

24.213

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.214
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 11:11:11 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/25/2024 11:11 AM
Response #: 24
Submitter ID: 112788
IP address: 2603:3024:1a29:2000:4ca3:30f:50b5:2d3b
Time to complete: 0 min. , 44 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Where is everyone going to park?

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.215
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:26:35 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/30/2024 4:26 PM
Response #: 30
Submitter ID: 112879
IP address: 2600:1700:87f0:3610:291f:436e:a0a0:6a44
Time to complete: 37 min. , 37 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:
- Can the developer convert storage and janitor areas into housing units? If so can they do it without going thru the city's approval process?
- What is the current zoning for this area? My guess is the proposed height greatly exceeds the 100% increase permitted under the density bonus allowance. Under what circumstances can the City reduce the height and mass of the building?
- How can a development with 68 apartments and commercial use only provide 14 parking spaces? this would mean at least 50 vehicles will be forced to park on the surrounding residential streets. This will cause congested and unsafe streets.
- A rooftop deck for a building alongside Highway 1 (Mission Street) makes about as much sense as putting a heliport on this building. Can the City remove the deck and lower the building height? - Can a building get any uglier? Are there any architectural or aesthetic requirements or guidelines that the City can enforce.

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

Email: [email protected]

24.216
Phone: (831) 239-5542
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.217
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:42:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your comments/questions. Regarding your question below, I believe the spaces you are referring to are labelled on the floor plans as amenity and storage spaces. Whether the applicant intends to build ADUs is up to them to disclose to the City, but this information cannot be required as ADUs are subject to ministerial reviews only (building permit only). As such, the applicant is not required to provide this information to us and we’ve only known in the past because it was printed on the plan set.

With regards to your question about the errors in callouts, I’ve included a comment regarding the private balconies versus shared balcony callouts on the floor plans for the applicant to address in their resubmittal.

Common open spaces must have a minimum dimension of 15 feet so the west-facing balconies cannot be counted towards the common usable open space calculations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project

24.218
Date & Time: 02/10/2025 2:05 PM
Response #: 42
Submitter ID: 114623
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 7 min. , 7 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Question: What purpose do the undesignated interior areas serve? ERRORS/OMISSIONS IN PLANS: There are 8 interior open areas in the plan set whose purpose is not designated. It's not clear if they are intended to be interior common areas or whether the developer intends to build ADUs in these open areas. This should be clarified before the plans are approved by the city.

Specifically, there are 2 undesignated interior open areas on Level 2, 1 on Level 3, 1 on Level 4, 2 on Level 5, and 2 on Level 6. These show up as undesignated white areas on GP0.04 (Open Space Exhibit) as well as on the respective floor plan sheets.

Correspondingly, sheets AP1.03 and AP1.04 have erroneously labelled callouts. The left side of these sheets has a callout #14 (COMMON/SHARED BALCONY) that is erroneous because it points to a balcony that belongs to a private (Two Bed/2 Bath) apartment. It's also not clear why the middle West-facing balconies on Levels 2, 5 and 6 on GP0.04 (Open Space Exhibit) are not labelled as Group Open Spaces - this indicates that the Plan Set's Open Space calculations are inaccurate.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: Not answered
Thank you,

24.219
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.220
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:41:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your email. Apologies for the delay in response as I’ve been out of the office and just got back today and so I’m currently catching up on my emails. I received your other questions/comments. Regarding the question below, the City included comments regarding the proposed loading zone for the applicant to address as it does not appear to be feasible. The design of the proposed loading zone is on the list of comments for the applicant to address in their resubmittal.

Please note that the project is not required to provide a loading zone per the Municipal Code and AB2097, but if one is proposed, it does have to meet the City’s requirements and be a feasible loading zone.

Please let me know if you have any further questions/comments.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 1:58 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 02/10/2025 1:58 PM
Response #: 41
Submitter ID: 114622
IP address: 142.254.109.173
Time to complete: 11 min. , 20 sec.

Survey Details

24.221

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Question: How is the following critical design flaw going to be addressed? CRITICAL DESIGN FLAW: THERE'S NO WAY FOR DELIVERY [BOX] TRUCKS TO TURN AROUND IN THE PARKING AREA (see AP1.01).

Amazon and UPS delivery trucks that enter the parking area and park in the loading zone will be forced to back out of the parking lot entrance since there is not enough space for them to turn around if cars are parked in the parking area. Trucks backing up out of the parking entrance in order to leave the parking area introduces a dangerous traffic safety issue.
---> The parking area needs a turn around area for Amazon, UPS, appliance etc. delivery trucks.

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.222
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 10:36:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good morning,
Thank you for your email. There are two different designs for this project because one of the submittals was for the SB330 only preapplication, which was only submitted under Senate Bill 330 so that the project would be locked in under the current local regulations/requirements at the time the SB330 preapplication was submitted. A community meeting was held during this time so that the applicant can gather early feedback and comments from the public.

The applicant submitted a formal application, which is the CP25-0002 project plan set. It looks like the look of the building was revised due to the community feedback/comments. Please see below link to the CP25-0002 project plan set, which is what the applicant is proposing:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/102945/638733389955530000 Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 01/29/2025 5:42 PM
Response #: 40
Submitter ID: 114486
IP address: 71.202.107.150
Time to complete: 2 min. , 20 sec.

24.223
Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Why are there two different designs for this project? The active planning application preview image shows something different than what is shown on the project page.

At what point did the developer change the look of the building? Was it because of planning commission comments?

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

Email: [email protected]
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.

24.224
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Cc: [email protected]; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Subject: Re: "Mission Studios" Approval Process
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 9:44:38 AM
Attachments: image001.png
****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.**** This is very helpful Rina. Thank you. I'm going to forward this to the Dufour and Palm Street Neighbors.
--Bruce
On 2025-05-07 08:47, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your email! The project webpage was updated with the resubmitted plans, please see the below link:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-projectapplications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street Once the Planning Department deems the application complete, then we will schedule the item to be heard at a Planning Commission public hearing for a decision on the project. Usually this is scheduled a month in advance in order to meet the legal noticing deadlines. There is a 10-day appeal period once a decision is made by the Planning Commission. If appealed, then it’ll be heard by the City Council. If not appealed, then the Planning Commission’s decision is in effect.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.225
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:46 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: "Mission Studios" Approval Process
****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 Rina,
Thank you for the status update! Can you please let me know what happens after the Planning Department declares the application to be complete. Will this project then go to the Planning Commission? Will it also go to the City Council? Please let me know so that I can inform the Dufour and Palm Street neighbors accordingly. Thanks. --Bruce Thomas
Lead Contact for Dufour and Palm St Neighbors
On 2025-05-05 17:29, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your email and for following up. Apologies for the delay in response as I was preparing for the Planning Commission hearing late last week. The applicant just resubmitted the project plans for the 1811-1819 Mission St project today. Our Admin team is working on processing the plan set and will update the project webpage as soon as possible (likely tomorrow), and we will be sending an e-notification to all those subscribed to the project webpage once the webpage is updated. I can let you know once the project webpage has been updated as well.

The City has up to 30 days to review the resubmittal and provide comments to the applicant either deeming the application complete or incomplete.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.226
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 11:41 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: RESEND: "Mission Studios" Project Status
****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 Rina, I know you've been busy lately and may have overlooked the email I sent you last Thursday. The Dufour and Palm Street neighbors are eager to know the current status of the "Mission Studios" Project. Could you please let us know its status and the next steps ahead (and timelines for those steps). Thank you. --Bruce Thomas
Lead Contact for Dufour and Palm St Neighbors
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:"Mission Studios" Project Status
Date:2025-05-01 10:18
From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To:Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc:SKalantari Johnson <[email protected]> Reply-To:[email protected]
Hi Rina,
The Dufour and Palm Street neighbors are wondering what's happening with the "Mission Studios" project at 1811-1819 Mission Street. Has the applicant submitted revised plans yet? What is the current status of the project? We specifically would like to know what the next steps are in the project's approval process and rough estimates of when these steps are likely to take place. Please let us know. Thank you. --Bruce Thomas
Lead Contact for Dufour Neighbors

24.227
From: Rina Zhou
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 30-SEP-2024 Community Meeting Followup - When Will Answers Be Provided? Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 3:42:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi All,
Thank you Shebreh! Sorry, I sent the other email before seeing this one. We are moving forward with both, I’ll let you know when the responses to the questions is posted on the City website, and it sounds like Workbench is moving forward with their meeting as well.

Thank you!
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 30-SEP-2024 Community Meeting Followup - When Will Answers Be Provided? HI Rina and Bruce
I would recommend we do both...a meeting with Workbench (Bruce, I just responded to that email and suggested we go with 10/30 3pm) and responses to questions posted on city website.

Shebreh
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson (she/her)
Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz District 3
[email protected]
(831) 420-5022
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>

24.228
Cc: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 30-SEP-2024 Community Meeting Followup - When Will Answers Be Provided? ****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 Rina,
Can you please clarify whether you asked folks at Workbench to hold a follow-up meeting with me and Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson. Jessica Pressley from Workbench contacted me and city councilmember Shebreh last week and we all spent a significant amount of time trying to setup a followup meeting at Jessica's behest. I assumed that the purpose of the followup meeting was to get answers to the questions raised at the Community Meeting of 30-SEP-2024. But your email below suggests that you are independently working on getting responses to the questions raised on 30-SEP-2024. This is all very confusing. Can you please clarify what is going on. I am cc-ing Shebreh on this. --Bruce Thomas
On 2024-10-21 14:30, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
I hope you’re keeping well! I’m working on drafting responses to the questions and will let you know when they’re available on the project webpage (will be as soon as possible). I’ll provide an update regarding this timing later this week.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 10:23 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 30-SEP-2024 Community Meeting Followup - When Will Answers Be Provided? ****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.****

24.229
Hi Rina,
It's been 2 weeks since the Community Meeting for the 1811,1815,1819 Mission Street project. When can my neighbors and I expect to see answers to the questions we raised at the meeting? I'm attaching a highlighted version of "Q & A Report" that's posted on the '1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street' project page. The highlights show the many questions that remain unanswered. Please let us know when we can expect to have answers to our questions. Thank you.
--Bruce Thomas
p.s. I'm bcc-ing the Dufour and Palm street neighbors on this.

24.230
From: Rina Zhou
To: Dana Blankinship
Cc: Curtis Busenhart
Subject: RE: 1811 Mission St project
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 10:23:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Dana,
I hope you’re keeping well! It’s been a crazy month and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response on this. To answer your questions, I believe your first question regarding loading zones would be better answered by Matt Starkey ([email protected]) or Curtis Busenhart ([email protected]) from the Public Works Department. The project is located within a half mile of a major transit stop and so no loading zones are required for the project. However, Public Works has indicated that there is an existing loading zone located across the street on Dufour St. I’ve cc’d Curtis on this email if you have any further questions regarding this.

To answer your second question, the project is providing 68 Class 1 bike parking spaces and 14 Class 2 bike parking spaces, while they’re required to provide 67 Class 1 bike parking spaces and 19 Class 2 bike parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver for 5 Class 2 bike parking spaces.

To answer your third question, the floor plans have labelled all spaces, including the units and storage spaces on them. ADUs are required to be reviewed ministerially. The City cannot require the applicant to indicate whether they’re thinking of proposing ADUs at this stage since ADUs are reviewed with a building permit only. We have to review the floor plans as they’re noted.

On a side note, I do also want to give you a heads up that we’re working on scheduling this item for the July 17 Planning Commission hearing.

Please let me know if you have any further questions!
Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: Rina Zhou
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:41 PM

24.231
To: Dana Blankinship <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811 Mission St project
Hi Dana,
Thank you for your comments! I wanted to respond to confirm receipt of your email and to let you know that I’m working on a response.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: Dana Blankinship <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811 Mission St project
****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 Rina,
My name is Dana Rayfield and I live at 543 Palm St. I am writing you with questions I have on some new changes in the planning of the 1811 Project:

1. Zone for delivery vehicles- I see there is no longer this addition to the plans- is this correct? How do you or project planners envision the multiple stops a day to the over 100 people that will be living at this development? I am sure you are aware of how our current society uses various deliveries for groceries, Door Dash, household needs (Amazon/FedEx/UPS). This street is already impacted by neighborhood, school, and businesses (Starbucks) traffic. How do see specifically see the immediate intersection of Dufour and Mission street handle that small corner of where the development is and Starbucks?

2. Bike parking- Initially when this development was proposed, we the neighbors rightfully so were very concerned with the impact of street parking. Andy one of the developers mentioned how they really wanted to incentivize the tenants to use public transportation or bicycles. He mentioned because they live so close to a bus line and that they were going to provide secure bike racks on the property to aid in people's choice to use alternate transportation vs cars. I noted on the latest set of plans there are less racks- Does the developer no longer prioritize alternate modes of transportation? If this is the case, are they now going to offer more parking for our current societies preference in cars for the tenants?

3. Indistinct closets- I am concerned by some of the closest or storage closest that could be changed into ADUs in the future then increasing the original vacancy the project called for. Transparency is very

24.232
important in projects such as this so that the impact on the neighborhood, the streets, the infrastructure, and the town of Santa Cruz is known and makes sense for the community. Can these unspecified areas be properly labeled so that there are no changes after the project is approved? On a positive note, I do like the look of the latest rendering of the project.

Thank you for your time,
Dana Rayfield
[email protected]

24.233
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 2:09:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Bruce,
I do apologize for the delayed response to your specific questions as I was out of the office.

I’ve added all the comments/questions to the public record and forwarded them to the applicant as well. As I mentioned earlier, we do not have specific answers for the projectreview specific questions at the moment because a formal application has not been submitted yet. I can discuss those answers with you once a formal application is submitted and the City has had the chance to review the project plan set in full.

When a formal application is received, the project webpage will be updated, and everyone subscribed will be notified as well. We can have further discussions regarding your questions then.

With regards to question 5 about the tree island, they will remain where they are. The applicant has not indicated on their preapplication any proposal to remove them.

With regards to question 6, I spoke to the Parking Program Manager and they advised that they typically do not add new Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) when new districts are established. The district is added into the patrol route and enforcement is normally ramped up for the first few weeks. They also use a similar approach across the whole community at the start of each permit season and when UCSC starts back up in the fall and spring. After the initial establishment period most districts operate on a complaint basis outside of the patrol routes. They are working towards permits that are tied to license plates so they can use License Plate Recognition systems to reduce patrol times and more accurately identify violation.

The purpose of the community meeting is for the community to provide specific feedback earlier on in the process for the applicant to review and evaluate what’s feasible to incorporate in their design early on. We do not typically hold a second community meeting unless the project plans change significantly. However, I can work with you to ensure that your comments and the neighbors’ comments that are provided to me are forwarded to the applicant so that they are aware of your comments. I can also put you in touch with the applicant so you can discuss with them as well.

The project will require a public hearing so that is another opportunity for you and members of the public to provide comments and speak regarding the project. All public correspondence

24.234
leading up to the public hearing will be included in the public record for the decisionmakers to review.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 9:35 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
****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 Rina,
Thank you for getting back to me on Friday. The current plan set posted on the city's website is so thin on details that I hope there will be another community meeting once a more complete set of plans is available.

When can community members expect to receive answers to the questions we posted at the city's website? The city's website specifically says "If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number". If the answers come too late than the whole question gathering mechanism that the city has created is pointless and useless.

Community members post questions at the city's webpage for this project with the understanding that their questions will get answered (by either the city or the applicant).

Please let us know when we can expect to receive answers to our questions. Thank you.

Sincerely,
--Bruce Thomas
p.s. I'm bcc-ing the Dufour and Palm Street neighbors on this.

24.235
On 2024-09-27 15:09, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your emails and for following up. Apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office last week and catching up on my emails. The proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Under State law, as SB330 Preapplications, staff cannot review and provide comments regarding the projects’ consistency with City design or site development standards. With a formal development application, City staff will determine the permits needed, and, once the formal application is submitted, review the project plans for compliance with all relevant regulations, and issue written comments to the applicant.

Many of your questions are specific to project review. The City has not reviewed the SB330 only preapplication for compliance to the Municipal Code as explained above. The City can only review the project with a prescriptive list of requirements. Once the applicant submits a formal application, the City will review the proposed project and its compliance with the Municipal Code, and I can provide responses to your specific questions regarding design, fire access, noise, etc., at that point in time.

With regards to questions 5 and 6, I forwarded them to other departments for a response, and I followed up with them. I will let you know once I hear back.

I’m also forwarding all questions/comments to the applicant so that they are aware of your questions/concerns.

For the community meeting on Monday, it would helpful to provide specific feedback to the project applicant so that they have specific information to review and evaluate if it’s feasible to incorporate.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development

24.236
809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 9:22 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
****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 Rina,
I submitted 8 questions (repeated below) on the 1815 Mission St project website 8 days ago and have yet to receive any answers. Am I going to get answers to my questions before the Community Meeting of September 30? The timely distribution of information is critically important in lieu of section §65905.5 of SB330 (which prohibits more than 5 meetings in connection with the review of a proposed housing development project). Please let me know when I will receive answers to my questions.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
--Bruce Thomas
Q1: Will the side of the building facing 1807 Mission Street have windows? Doing so will cause problems in the future because the owner of 1807 Mission has publicly stated that he plans to build a multi-story building on his property. Any windows on the Palm Street side of the Mission Studios project are likely to get blocked in the future.

Q2: How will first-responders access the backside of the building, especially if there is zero setback in the rear? It is not acceptable for building plans to require first-responders to trample over or damage neighboring properties in order to respond to emergencies in the back of the building.

Q3: What is being done on the backside of the building to provide visual privacy to the properties below? The proposed building will directly overlook 6 nearby properties on Dufour and Palm streets. This is a MAJOR concern for the residents of the nearby properties.

Q4: What is being done in the building design to control sound and noise, e.g. help building tenants maintain sound privacy from the neighboring properties below? As it stands, properties on Dufour and Palm streets can currently hear private conversations

24.237
taking place at the 3-story building located across Mission Street.

Q5: What is the developer planning to do with the Tree Island that juts out onto Dufour Street near the rear corner of the property? City officials in 2018 said that these islands could not be removed because they are tied to a state grant that was used to underground the electrical lines (and remove telephone poles) along Mission Street in the early 2000s and that the city would have to repay the grant back to the State if the islands are removed.

Q6: What is the city's plan for hiring more parking citation officers? More officers will be needed for Dufour street's new parking permits to be effective. There is no point in having parking permits on Dufour Street if enforcement only happens infrequently (e.g. twice per day).

Q7: Will residents of the new building be allowed to purchase parking permits given that one side of the building falls along Dufour street? If so, how many permits will they be allowed to purchase?
Q8: Is Workbench going to submit plans with storage units that it intends to convert to ADUs?
On 2024-09-12 17:40, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
I hope you’re keeping well! I wanted to send you an email to notify you and the Dufour Neighbors that the City received a Senate Bill 330 (SB330) only preapplication for a new project located at 1811, 1815 and 1819 Mission Street. The main purpose of an SB330 only preapplication is to lock in the project under current objective standards, so the City has not reviewed the proposed project in terms of compliance with the Municipal Code, etc. A formal application has not been submitted for the proposed project yet.

The applicant has scheduled a virtual community meeting to be held on September 30 at 6pm. I wanted to let you know about the upcoming community meeting which is to discuss the proposed project, ask questions and provide feedback. You will receive a postcard in the mail and also see a notice sign posted on the property. Please see the following link to the new project webpage with the SB330 plan set:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-andcommunity-development/planning-division/active-planning-applications-andstatus/significant-project-applications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street The zoom link to join the community meeting will be posted on the above-linked project webpage. If you want to stay notified regarding the project, please sign up for notifications.

The proposed project is to combine the three lots and construct a six-story mixed-use

24.238
development with a partial rooftop deck, ground floor commercial space and 68 residential units.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I cc’d the applicant to this email if you have any questions as well.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Associate Planner II
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com

24.239
From: Rina Zhou
To: Bruce T
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Date: Friday, September 27, 2024 2:09:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your emails and for following up. Apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office last week and catching up on my emails. The proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

With regards to questions 5 and 6, I forwarded them to other departments for a response, and I followed up with them. I will let you know once I hear back.

I’m also forwarding all questions/comments to the applicant so that they are aware of your questions/concerns.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.240
Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 9:22 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
****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 Rina,
I submitted 8 questions (repeated below) on the 1815 Mission St project website 8 days ago and have yet to receive any answers. Am I going to get answers to my questions before the Community Meeting of September 30? The timely distribution of information is critically important in lieu of section §65905.5 of SB330 (which prohibits more than 5 meetings in connection with the review of a proposed housing development project). Please let me know when I will receive answers to my questions. Thank you.

24.241
Q4: What is being done in the building design to control sound and noise, e.g. help building tenants maintain sound privacy from the neighboring properties below? As it stands, properties on Dufour and Palm streets can currently hear private conversations taking place at the 3-story building located across Mission Street.

The applicant has scheduled a virtual community meeting to be held on September 30 at 6pm. I wanted to let you know about the upcoming community meeting which is to discuss the proposed project, ask questions and provide feedback. You will receive a postcard in the mail and also see a notice sign posted on the property. Please see the following link to the new project webpage with the SB330 plan set:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-projectapplications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street The zoom link to join the community meeting will be posted on the above-linked project webpage. If you want to stay notified regarding the project, please sign up for notifications.

24.242
The proposed project is to combine the three lots and construct a six-story mixed-use development with a partial rooftop deck, ground floor commercial space and 68 residential units.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I cc’d the applicant to this email if you have any questions as well.

24.243
From: Lee Butler
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Joe Hutson; Matt Huffaker Cc: Rina Zhou
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 6:19:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Hi Joe,
Thanks for reaching out to the Councilmember about the subject project. I’d encourage you to sign up for email alerts regarding the project at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/planning-and-community-development/planning-division/active-planningapplications-and-status/significant-project-applications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street, where you can also email the project manager, Rina Zhou, with any specific project comments. I’ve also copied Rina here.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson is correct, our discretion is very limited. We have a handout at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/100394/638542965627730000 that describes select state law protections for housing development projects. The state has stepped in because the prior system (with more local control) resulted in many fewer homes being built than what was needed – something that happened by locally, regionally, and statewide. The link above was updated in the last year or so, but the state continues to update regulations to promote housing production. For example, the governor just signed another 32 new housing laws last week (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/19/governor-newsom-signs-bipartisan-housing-package-andlaunches-prop-1-homekey-initiative/), and many more from this legislative cycle remain on his desk for signature.

The Downtown is planned for the most intensive development in the City. That said, state laws can allow for development in other areas of the city to have more units (and often more height, mass, and/or square footage) than the city codes would otherwise allow. For example, density bonus allows for up to a 100% density bonus, and single-family properties that meet certain requirements can now be subdivided into two lots with two units allowed on each lot. Many other laws also seek to streamline and encourage development to address the many years of housing underproduction that are the main (not only, but main) culprit in lack of affordability across the state. Notably, the same state laws apply to the downtown, meaning that the planned building densities or intensities in the downtown can also be increased above what is planned, for example, through density bonus laws.

With these new laws in place, more intensive development is expected throughout the city – with the most intensive still expected downtown, the next most intensive in other areas planned for additional development (like the main arterials – Mission, Water, Ocean, and Soquel), slightly less intensive in areas planned for lower density multi-family, and the least intensive (but still an increase over just single-family homes) in our single-family neighborhoods (with the aforementioned SB 9 subdivisions,

24.244
ADUs, and similar allowances that continue to evolve at the state). Not only do these laws seek to address the longstanding housing production shortfall, but they also seek to address longstanding economic and racial segregation that has occurred (sometimes deliberately and sometimes inadvertently) as a result of zoning rules.

Here's some text from a handout that give some more info related to state law changes:

State laws have turned the planning profession on its head in recent years, with 129 housing-related laws passed between 2017 and 2023. A high-level overview of some significant changes follows:

The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code (GC) Section 65589.5) was strengthened to 1) limit cities’ ability to deny housing projects or reduce their residential density or square footage, 2) allow for projects at the densities specified in the general plan, even if the zoning is more restrictive, and 3) prohibit cities from reducing the residential capacity in their general plan.

State Density Bonus Law (GC Section 95915 et. seq.) was updated to increase maximum allowable density increases from 35% to 50% and then more recently to 100% bonuses for market rate projects. Affordable projects now get three additional stories and 33’ additional height and have no density limit when within a half mile of high-quality transit.

Parking requirements were eliminated statewide for projects within a half mile of high quality transit, with very limited exceptions (Gov. Code 65863.1 et. seq.). Much of Santa Cruz falls within this buffer, so no parking can be required for most of the city.

Many Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) laws were updated to facilitate and streamline production of ADUs on single-family and multi-family properties, including removal of owneroccupancy requirements.

Small lot subdivisions were facilitated through bills like Senate Bill (SB) 9 (allowing singlefamily lot splits and four units) and SB 486 (allowing 10 or fewer lot splits and 10 or fewer units on properties zoned for multi-family), both of which are allowed by right, with no discretionary approvals required.

Many permit streamlining laws were enacted, such as SB 35 and its successor SB 423, Assembly Bill (AB) 2162, AB 2011, SB 4 and a variety of others that remove discretionary processes (allowing for development through just a building permit), reduce processing times, streamline California Environmental Quality Act reviews, and expand where housing is allowed.

Many new laws also increase state enforcement authority and non-compliance penalties, with the state Housing & Community Development Department’s Housing Accountability Unit and the state Attorney General actively pursuing cities for violations of housing laws.

Check out our website at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planningand-community-development/planning-division/informational-handouts for more info.

24.245
Thanks and have a nice evening,
Lee Butler, AICP, LEED AP
Director of Planning & Community Development
City of Santa Cruz | Planning & Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5103 | Main: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com

From: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2024 3:06 PM
To: Joe Hutson <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]>; Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Hi Joe
Thank you for your email.

We have met our 5th cycle RHNA goals but the clock resets and we now have to meet our 6th cycle RHNA goals which includes over 3,000 units.

The goals were set by the State based on a formula that indicates how much housing the community still needs to produce. We are definitely playing catch up here in Santa Cruz.

Locally we have very little discretion regarding these new developments.

I'm including our planning director Lee Butler who can share more about this specific project.

Thank you again
Shebreh
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson (she/her)
Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz District 3
[email protected]
(831) 420-5022
From: Joe Hutson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2024 2:37 PM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
****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.****

24.246
Hello City Council Members and Planning Commission,
RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Are we as a city required to approve this project with no concern for its affect on the neighborhood, traffic, parking, view, resource scarcity, concern for the existing neighborhood, including Bay View School?
In this article, the Planning Commissioners Pete Kennedy and Michael Polhamus state; “Far from not producing enough affordable housing, we have met our city’s housing production targets (Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals) for the fifth cycle for every income category, and exceeded the goal by more than 50%.” https://lookout.co/santa-cruz-affordable-housing-planning-commissioners-op-ed-settingthe-record-straight-its-time-to-debunk-false-affordable-housing-narratives-in-santa-cruz/ Does the fact that we are meeting our housing production targets mean we do in fact have discretion as a city and community to decide what types of development occur within our community?
Many, likely most, of your constituents do support additional high density housing. The SoLa plan and other downtown proposals are controversial, but at least they are in the right place for high density housing. This new proposal on Mission between Dufour and Palm, and Food Bin project, amongst others, are an overreach and out of step with the neighborhoods they would be adjacent to.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Joe Hutson
539 Palm Street, Santa Cruz
BEWARE OF CYBER-FRAUD Before wiring any funds, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions - and be very wary of any request to change wire instructions you already received, a Guaranteed Rate employee will never provide nor confirm wire instructions.

Headshot Joe Hutson
NMLS# 447536
VP of Mortgage Lending
(831) 212-4138 Email Me

24.247
(831) 205-1582 Visit My Website 519 Seabright Ave.

Suite 103
Santa Cruz, CA
95062
Loan Options | Mobile App | Agent Advantage
Equal Housing Lender | © 2024 Guaranteed Rate, Inc. D/B/A Rate | NMLS ID 2611 | NMLS Consumer Access | Licensing Information CA - CA-DOC447536
Please Note : We care about your security and privacy, Please don't include identifying information like account numbers, birth dates and social security numbers in emails to us. Call us instead for secure email options or send the information by fax or regular US mail.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE The contents of this message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential and proprietary and also may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not an intended recipient, Please inform the sender of the transmission error and delete this message immediately without reading, disseminating, distributing or copying the contents. Guaranteed Rate makes no assurance that this e-mail and any attachments are free of viruses and other harmful code.

Operating as Guaranteed Rate, Inc. in New York.

Meet My Team:

24.248
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: Re: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St - New Project
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 9:15:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
****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 Rina,
Thank you for the heads up. I will let the Dufour and Palm Street neighbors know about this. 6-stories will definitely raise concerns about safety and privacy. --Bruce
On 2024-09-12 17:40, Rina Zhou wrote:

The applicant has scheduled a virtual community meeting to be held on September 30 at 6pm. I wanted to let you know about the upcoming community meeting which is to discuss the proposed project, ask questions and provide feedback. You will receive a postcard in the mail and also see a notice sign posted on the property. Please see the following link to the new project webpage with the SB330 plan set:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-projectapplications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street The zoom link to join the community meeting will be posted on the above-linked project webpage. If you want to stay notified regarding the project, please sign up for notifications.

The proposed project is to combine the three lots and construct a six-story mixed-use development with a partial rooftop deck, ground floor commercial space and 68 residential units.

24.249
Please let me know if you have any questions. I cc’d the applicant to this email if you have any questions as well.

24.250
From: Steve Yazalina
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 3:20:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
****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.****
Good Afternoon Rina, so I certainly understand the SB330 requirements, however at a very basic level the presentation contained on the city web site found here:
638633954757200000 (cityofsantacruz.com) , notes this project as an AB2097, never anywhere do they mention SB330? Here is an actual snip from the presentation:

Additionally, here is another point of contention, I understand you hands are tied, but that does not give the developer free rights to place whatever they feel is appropriate as it relates specifically to codes. In this case they state 12 stalls and 2 ADA stalls, however Code requires ADA EV Stalls, and they need to be unique from the standard ADA stalls. They are not showing this and likely reduces their minimal amount of stalls as it is. Also, standard stalls noted as EVV ready does not satisfy the code, there actually needs to be dedicated EV stalls, please provide a comprehensive parking plan showing ADA, EV ADA, EV and standard stalls. There needs to be a plan! They note EV parking provided, but where? Next, SB330 requires proximity to a transit hub…please explain to me where the transit hub is…as far as I know it lives downtown and is currently being re-built. Having bus stops and a pilot program for Bike share doesn’t constitute Transit Hub.

Next, Trash pick-up…the developer has made a vague statement about trash collection. I’d like to know how this is being addressed in relation to the residences on Dufour, where will cans or bins be placed during pick-up days? Everyone knows crossing Mission is insanely difficult, there is no reasonable/actionable movement that allows for ingress/egress from Mission onto Dufour. You and everyone else at the city knows the ingress/egress will happen through the neighborhood and not across Mission.

The Arch/Developer put together a street corridor plan and existing conditions with Dufour being at the extreme end of the exhibit with the designers conveniently expanding the view towards Natural Bridges. It is convenient they did not place the site in the middle of the exhibit and expand both directions, I find this very self serving. It would be more contextually valid if they expanded both directions and not just the direction that helps their argument.

24.251
Here is a perfect example, where it helps them to expand in both directions they clearly show it:

Next, the Zero Lot line is concerning for the residential neighborhood: please show me one location on Mission with a mixed us e building along the corridor that has a zero lot line configuration? Please explain how a zero lot line is allowable by SB330 or AB2097…I assume they have addressed this? If not An explanation would be appreciated.

The shade study is not helpful, I’m guessing the three story across the street is not casting the same shadow to the east as the proposed building, frankly not possible:

Nice perspective, but add in the residences, particularly due to the zero lot line!

24.252
They have them in this view, so I’m sure they are modeled or rendered.

Finally, if the parapet is 71’-6”, there are other elements (I assume mechanical equipment) sitting higher…how much higher…it is not defined.

And along those lines, when does the FD weigh in on the height. Dufour is not wide enough for Aerial Access, only Mission … please provide any Fire comments on this prelim application.

Steve
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>

24.253
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 11:18 AM
To: Steve Yazalina <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

Hi Steve,
To clarify, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Below is a link to the project webpage containing information about the 1811-1819 Mission St SB330 preapplication. Please subscribe to this webpage so you can stay up to date regarding the project progress. Once a formal application is submitted, the City will update the webpage with the project plan set and you’ll be notified as well. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community-development/planningdivision/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-project-applications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Steve Yazalina <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.
****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.****
Thanks Rina, I’ll do both, formalize comments and certainly looks forward to the public hearing.

I was under the impression there was a formal application, sounds like that is not the case? I live on Dufour so very concerned about this project.

Although usually I’m on the other side supporting the developers…this one may be hitting too close to home! Hope you have a wonderful evening!
Steve

24.254
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook
| LinkedIn | Instagram
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 5:01 PM
To: Steve Yazalina <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

Hi Steve,
Thank you for your email. The next steps for the applicant would be to submit a formal application, which has not been submitted yet. A second community meeting would only be held if the project changed significantly from what was presented at the first community meeting. If you have any questions regarding the project, please feel free to consolidate them and email it to me to look into and provide a response. Any comments sent to me will also be added to the public record for decision-makers to review.

The project will require a public hearing, once it gets to that step in the process, where you will have an opportunity to provide comments as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.255
sits in the approval process and what the next steps are? Will there be a follow up Community meeting where the applicant will review any updates and give a chance for the community to ask additional questions? Thanks in advance,
Steve
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook
| LinkedIn | Instagram
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

24.256
From: Steve Yazalina
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 3:35:57 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
****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.**** Additionally, they are asking for too many concessions related simply to height and parking to not fulfill the intent of SB 330, from the bill:
if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, as defined
I don’t believe the project as proposed fits the applicable, objective general plan or the zoning standards for this district!
Steve
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 11:18 AM
To: Steve Yazalina <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

Hi Steve,

24.257
To clarify, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Below is a link to the project webpage containing information about the 1811-1819 Mission St SB330 preapplication. Please subscribe to this webpage so you can stay up to date regarding the project progress. Once a formal application is submitted, the City will update the webpage with the project plan set and you’ll be notified as well.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-projectapplications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street Please let me know if you have any further questions.

24.258
****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.**** Thanks Rina, I’ll do both, formalize comments and certainly looks forward to the public hearing.

I was under the impression there was a formal application, sounds like that is not the case? I live on Dufour so very concerned about this project.

Although usually I’m on the other side supporting the developers…this one may be hitting too close to home!
Hope you have a wonderful evening!
Steve
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

From: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 5:01 PM
To: Steve Yazalina <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St.

24.259
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Importance: High
****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 Rina,
I’m looking for an update post community meeting for the project on Mission Street…can you tell me where the project currently sits in the approval process and what the next steps are? Will there be a follow up Community meeting where the applicant will review any updates and give a chance for the community to ask additional questions?
Thanks in advance,
Steve
Stephen Yazalina
Project Manager
Cell 650.793.9718
[email protected]
500 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
1700 S. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 | Campbell, CA 95008 Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram

24.260
This message may contain confidential information that is for the sole use and benefit of the individual or entity to whom Sandis has performed these services. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, and distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

24.261
From: Rina Zhou
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Samantha Haschert; Lee Butler Cc: Matt Huffaker
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street Project
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 4:18:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson,
Thank you for forwarding this email. Please see below responses to each question in red. I just want to note that the proposed project was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. With SB330 only preapplications, the City can only review the application for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements.

Under State law, as SB330 Preapplications, staff cannot review and provide comments regarding the projects’ consistency with City design or site development standards. Once the applicant submits a formal application, we will route the project to all departments who will review the project and provide comments regarding fire access, objective design standards, etc.

The purpose of having a community meeting early in the process, before we have specific project information, is to obtain community feedback as early as possible before the design is finalized.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

24.262
Subject: Fw: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street Project
Hi everyone
Could someone please respond to each of these questions below? I'd like to circle back with this neighbor.

I'll also bring these to our meeting with Workbench that is scheduled for tomorrow.

Best,
Shebreh
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson (she/her)
Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz District 3
[email protected]
(831) 420-5022
From: Tony Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]> Cc: Patti B <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street Project
****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 Shebreh,
I’m writing this message in the hopes that you may be able to take some reasonable action on the 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Workbench Project. My wife and I (cc’d here) moved to 525 Palm Street about 8 years ago and lived in Soquel for 23 years before moving here. Both of us realize we live next to a busy Mission Street corridor, but we love being able to walk to restaurants, coffee shops, bakeries, etc. We have attended a couple of zoom calls about this new project and we were ok with the original plan for a three-story development, which is still the design standard for Mission Street. When we learned that the new plan calls for six story development (over 70’ tall) we were shocked and still are. Surely six story buildings are meant for downtown or the South of Laurel development. We have two family households close to Palm and Mission with wonderful women firefighters in each house. It saddens us greatly that both families are very upset about the size of this project and are even considering moving away from the neighborhood.

During the last zoom call there were some really valid questions about this project, including the following:

1. How can this six-story building be considered consistent design with the rest of the neighborhood? The project will be subject to objective design standards. With density bonus projects, the applicant can request waivers and incentives/concessions to objective design

24.263
standards.

2. With zero setback on the neighbor’s fence line how is this building even constructed and maintained? This will be something that will be reviewed with the formal submittal.

3. Where is trash picked up from (the Dufour neighbors will not be happy with large trash bins on their street). This will be something that will be reviewed with the formal submittal.

4. How do firefighters access the back of the building during a fire with no setback. This will be something that will be reviewed with the formal submittal.

5. The planners mentioned that this would be good housing for UCSC students, but isn’t the future plan to house UCSC students on campus? At this point in time, staff have not received any information that the building will be leased to UCSC, and the properties are not owned by UCSC, so this building should not be used as a dormitory.

6. With very limited parking, where do Lyft and Uber drivers pick up? The property is located within a half mile of a major transit stop so no off-street parking or loading requirements apply. The applicant can voluntarily provide a loading space. There is also an existing loading area located adjacent to the Starbucks across Dufour.

7. For Palm and Dufour neighbors there is already very limited parking. Will there be parking permits for these neighbors only? There is a neighborhood parking permit program that the neighbors can initiate and apply for through the Public Works Department. However, Public Works will need to review the application to see if this parcel could be excluded.

Please acknowledge receipt of this message and let me know what action you can take. Please include others on your reply that may be able to help.

Thanks,
Tony
Tony Barnett
525 Palm Street
831 345-0517
Sent from Mail for Windows

24.264
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: Re: CP25-0002 1811-1819 Mission St
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 1:39:16 PM
Attachments: image001.png
****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 Rina,
Thank you for the heads up. I've alerted the Dufour and Palm street neighbors accordingly. --Bruce
On 2025-01-27 14:33, Rina Zhou wrote:

Hi Bruce,
Happy New Year! I hope you’re keeping well. I just wanted to send you an email informing you that the applicant for the 1811-1819 Mission St project has submitted their formal application for review. The website is updated now and e-notifications should be sent out as staff is working on that but I thought I’d let you know. Please see below to the project webpage:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/significant-projectapplications/1811-1815-1819-mission-street Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.265
From: Craig Medlen
To: Rina Zhou; City Plan; Kristi Medlen; James Danaher; lori medlen; Brucet; Craig Medlen Subject: Re: Mission Street abomination
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2025 4:20:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
****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.**** To Rina Zhou and the Planning Commission:

In looking up the "bonus" law, I found an article by Jon Goetz and Tom Sakai, "Guide to the California Density Bonus Law." On page 5, they note that "The city or county is not required to waive or reduce development standards that would cause a public health or safety problem, cause an environment problem, harm historical property or would be contrary to law." (page 5). It is hardly necessary to say that the proposed Mission Street 6 story--no parking abomination would significantly reduce the property values--and the livability of what is now an "historic" neighborhood. The article also mentions that "If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail." Does Santa Cruz have a "general plan?" If not, get on it and put in stop-gaps that would halt this on-going craziness of 6 story buildings with no parking in a predominantly one-story housing neighborhood.

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 1:18 PM Craig Medlen <[email protected]> wrote:

Again Rina--you and the Planning Commission's enabling of the Mission street 6 story building is absolutely disgraceful. The idea that cities have "very limited discretion" is nonsense. Fight back--yes, the city will lose free money for the developers. The Planning Commission apparently works for Workbench. Disgraceful. You are supposed to be a representative for our city and its denizens. Craig Medlen On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:36 AM Rina Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Craig,
Thank you for your comments. This project is subject to State Density Bonus Law (which allows for waivers and incentives/concessions to waive/vary from the Municipal Code requirements), Housing Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 330, and cities have very limited discretion when reviewing density bonus applications.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner

24.266
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: Craig Medlen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 6:31 PM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>; Rina Zhou <[email protected]>; Brucet <[email protected]>; Craig Medlen <[email protected]>; Kristi Medlen <[email protected]>; James Danaher <[email protected]>; lori medlen <[email protected]>
Subject: Mission Street abomination
****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.**** That the Mission street mega story has gotten this far with violations on height (double the standard) with no parking in a generally one-story neighborhood speaks volumes about your incompetence and lack of concern for our city. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, seriously. Workbench along with you guys are a disgrace. Craig Medlen

24.267
From: Monica M
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: request for features on Mission St, 1811, 1815, 1819 project Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 9:36:56 PM
****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.**** Dear Ms. Zhou,
I'm a resident on Baldwin Street two houses away from the corner with Mission St. I have a few requests for things to include in the planning and design of the building at 1811-1819 Mission St. I appreciate the idea of a walkable and bikeable community with restaurants accessible on foot, and would like to ensure that their addition enhances life in the neighborhood instead of creating unwanted smells and sounds.

First, at the community zoom meeting in September, several of the neighbors had concerns about noise from the rooftop terrace. I share these concerns. I have a suggestion that may address this. Could the rooftop terrace be made into covered seating for a rooftop restaurant that does not serve liquor and closes at the time noise restrictions go into effect at night? To maintain security for the residents, the restaurant could have its own elevator so that the public does not have access to the resident floors. I think this would also build goodwill for the neighbors, as they would have the opportunity to dine at the restaurant and share the ocean views. Since commercial leases are generally more profitable than residential leases, this may make the building more profitable for the owner. This also raises the possibility of leasing out a space that would otherwise not be leased.

Second, please set the volume of any crossing aid at that intersection to be audible only by the people standing at the crosswalk and not audible by the surrounding houses. With that many residents in the new building and the target demographic being people that work or study at a lot of different times, I anticipate that any crossings will get heavy use most hours of the day.

We work from home, and hearing chirps or "Walk sign is on to cross... Walk sign is on to cross..." in the background at all times will be very disruptive to our ability to work and sleep.

We are very much in favor of traffic crossings where they improve pedestrian safety (and we will use them too), so we ask here that the volume is kept to the minimum needed to function in accordance with accessibility standards.

Third, all restaurants with outdoor service should ensure that their music is not audible beyond their footprint. Perhaps this volume limit can be designed into the sound systems of the restaurants. This would also benefit the residents on the floors above.

Similarly, please build an odor control system into the restaurant kitchens to vent the smells away from the neighborhood and the resident floors. Could the project engineers conduct a study on whether venting exhaust from the top floor or other heights would result in better dispersion of smells away from ground level? We all love a hot meal close to home, but we would like to have a choice in whether to smell it within our house. Odors are already an issue with the Jersey Mike's sandwich shop on Mission and Berkshire at certain times of day.

24.268
I strongly encourage the City to consider all of these and in particular the ones about noise from the terrace. A rooftop restaurant would serve both the community's interest and the owner's interests and would do a lot to mitigate concerns about parties from the neighbors. It could be a win-win solution.

Thank you for handling the planning process. I know you have many competing voices vying for your attention and I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,
Monica Moritsch
115 Baldwin St.

24.269
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 2:29:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your comments and apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office and catching up. I’ve added these to the public record and also forwarded them to the applicant so they are aware of your comments.

To provide some more background regarding the application received so far, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

With regards to the first comment, does the link provided below open for you? It contains the preapplication plan set.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/101358/63858538256957 0000
For the community meeting tonight, it would be helpful to provide specific feedback to them so that the applicant can evaluate and see what’s feasible to incorporate.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you’d like to call to discuss further.

Thank you!
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development

24.270
809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 2:35 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/20/2024 2:34 PM
Response #: 21
Submitter ID: 112715
IP address: 2601:647:cb00:c990:4a1:7e3c:3177:1759
Time to complete: 27 min. , 31 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

I have several comments: 1) I am unable to download the plans. Not sure, but perhaps you can recheck the link to the plans because it doesn't want to open.
2) I live at 456 Palm St. A six story building on Mission St. is deplorable. The max height for a unit like this should be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Everywhere on Mission St buildings are 1, 2 or 3 stories. Nowhere is there a 6 story building. You should not allow a 6 story structure to be built on Mission St.

24.271
3) Why do projects such as this try to get through without any parking or any green space left on the lot? This is not downtown where people could conceivably live without a car. Anyone and everyone who lives in these apartments is going to have a car(if not two). Where are you going to find parking for 100+ cars? And, why in this time of global warming would you allow a developer to come in can completely pave over an entire city block?
4) From the pictures I can see, the designers/architect have put ZERO effort into making this structure aesthetically pleasing.

In conclusion, I am 100% opposed to a concrete monolith like this. If a developer has bought this and wants to put housing there, I would prefer that they consider keeping green space and landscaping as part of the project. I would prefer that they provide a minimum of 1 parking space per unit, plus and additional 10% or so for workers, guests, and visitors. And, while I prefer a 1-2 story structure here, I can see that there is precedent for 3 stories....And, I believe that some effort should go towards making any new structure there attractive
Thank you,
Kevin Gallagher
456 Palm St.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 334-9995
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.272
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 11:15:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good morning,
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office the week your question was sent and catching up. To provide some more background regarding the application received so far, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Some of your questions are specific to project review. Once the applicant submits a formal application, the City will review the proposed project and its compliance with the Municipal Code, and I can discuss the proposed open space with you at that point in time.

Your questions have also been forwarded to the applicant so they are aware of the design feedback.

For the community meeting tonight, it would helpful to provide specific feedback to the project applicant so that they have specific information to review and evaluate if it’s feasible to incorporate. For example, what design elements would you rather see incorporated into the design of the building rather than the way it looks now, etc.? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP

24.273
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:37 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/17/2024 10:37 PM
Response #: 4
Submitter ID: 112644
IP address: 2a0a:ef40:887:501:4888:88f2:c430:f3ae
Time to complete: 8 min. , 45 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Why is the building so ugly and cramped this is low quality building for developer and building profit This is not family nor community friendly
Where is the greenery? Where are the green spacesWhere are the outside spaces? Where are the play areas? Where are the community isocial nteraction spaces?

24.274
Horrible, horrible horrible
Why is this building so horribly designed
How are the materials environmentally friendly in the building? Why does the building look like a prison?

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 346-4450
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.275
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 1:46:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office and catching up. To provide some more background regarding the application received so far, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Some of your questions are specific to project review. Once the applicant submits a formal application, the City will review the proposed project and its compliance with the Municipal Code, and we can provide more information regarding fire access etc.

I also checked with the Public Works Department and the proposed development of 68 residential units will not generate enough trips to require a traffic study.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development

24.276
809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:21 AM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/19/2024 10:20 AM
Response #: 6
Submitter ID: 112671
IP address: 2600:1700:87f0:b2d0:7d0f:c63e:474b:48c
Time to complete: 20 min. , 8 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What about all the traffic on mission street? It’s gridlock now. We are seeing building at Almar/ Mission /Rankin
And now this high density. Also better build is university housing off Ingalls. Huge impact on Westside traffic. What happens when there is a fire like Maui and there’s no way to escape. It’s a huge concern for all neighbors .

Will there be a traffic study?

24.277

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 247-4908
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.278
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 10:53:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good morning,
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in response as I was out of the office the week your question was sent and catching up. To provide some more background regarding the application received so far, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

Because the properties are located within a half mile of major transit stop, no parking is required for the proposed project, as per State Law (Assembly Bill 2097) and Municipal Code Section 24.12.220. The Municipal Code was updated to be in compliance with State Law. With that being said, the applicant has indicated on the SB330 preapplication plans that they are proposing to provide 14 parking spaces. A formal application has not been submitted yet.

With regards to water availability, projections for the City’s growth are included in the City’s water supply planning. Due to modern water efficiencies and Santa Cruz’s commitment to conservation, the modest growth in water demand that’s projected does little to increase our need for water supply. Santa Cruz has had water shortages for the last several decades, driven by droughts. Even with 30% growth since the 1980s, we’re using approximately the same amount of water now as we were then, thanks to conservation efforts including plumbing code changes and water efficient appliances and landscapes. Once the formal application is submitted, the City’s Water Department will be routed the plans for review and comments.

24.279
Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/16/2024 2:44 PM
Response #: 1
Submitter ID: 112615
IP address: 2601:647:cb00:3460:14c0:2a50:11ff:3a4a
Time to complete: 31 min. , 56 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

24.280

2. Question/Comment:

Does this project include parking for the 68 housing units planned? The residents will surely have cars and street parking is already restricted and at a premium so close to the university campus.

Another question we have is about water availability for this number of dwellings. What is the projected need and how do the developers plan to provide it?

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 600-5489
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.281
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 5:33:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email. To provide some more background regarding the application received so far, the proposed project at 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street was submitted as a Preapplication under California State Senate Bill 330 (SB330). Because of this, limited information has been provided to date regarding project specifics. Submittal of this type of Preapplication, as provided by law, requires that the City review the submitted application only for completeness pursuant to a prescriptive list of requirements. A determination of Preapplication completeness vests, or “locks in” projects to the City standards in place at the time that the complete Preapplication was submitted.

The properties are zoned C-C. In the C-C zone district, a 0’ setback is required for the rear yard, unless the yard abuts an R-District, then the rear yard setback requirement is not less than the minimum yard required for the adjacent yard in the said R-District and subject to the requirements of Section 24.12.185(9) as applicable. 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission St abut properties that are also zoned C-C, so there is no setback requirement.

Since the plans submitted are an SB330 only preapplication, as explained above, the plans were not reviewed for compliance with the Municipal Code so I’m not sure what the proposed setbacks are. Once the formal application is submitted, the project webpage will be updated with the formal application plans, and we can discuss what the proposed setback are at that point in time.

For the community meeting tonight, it would be helpful to provide specific feedback to them so that the applicant can evaluate and see what’s feasible to incorporate.

Thank you,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP

24.282
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5104
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:12 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/25/2024 3:11 PM
Response #: 25
Submitter ID: 112799
IP address: 63.249.79.93
Time to complete: 6 min. , 18 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

Is there really 0' (or nearly 0') setback proposed? How will they do construction, maintenance, etc? The plans make it look like Workbench is once again showing complete disregard for adjacent neighbors.

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

24.283
Email: [email protected]
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.

24.284
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:45:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email! The community meeting is being held virtually via Zoom webinar so there is no physical location for the meeting. There is an option to call into the meeting for those with no internet connection. I’ve copied that information below. There is also free wifi available at public libraries. We’ve found that conducting these meetings virtually seem to allow for more people to attend who would otherwise not be able to attend in person and seems to be more inclusive by providing different methods of joining the meeting (either through Zoom or calling in).

Community members can click the link below to join the community meeting:

When: September 30, 2024 6:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Virtual Community Meeting for Project 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122) Webinar Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85322601044
Webinar ID: 853 2260 1044
Call: 669 444 9171
Please let me know if you have any further questions.

24.285
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/20/2024 9:30 AM
Response #: 20
Submitter ID: 112707
IP address: 2a09:bac3:6358:1232::1d0:2d
Time to complete: 3 min. , 12 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

What is the physical location of this meeting for those without internet access??

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 749-6001
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.286
From: Rina Zhou
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:58:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your comments and questions! There is no builder’s remedy in the City of Santa Cruz.

However, the proposed project is being proposed with a density bonus. Cities have very limited discretion when reviewing density bonus applications. Cities are generally obligated to grant a density bonus and incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions in development standards to the developer so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers or incentives/concessions meet certain standards. Projects that include a specified amount of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus, even if the density bonus would allow a project to exceed the maximum density under the City’s general plan and zoning code. The applicant is requesting a density bonus waiver to the height requirement in order to allow for the six-story building. Case Law has established that a City’s ability to deny waivers is extremely limited. The court explicitly rejected with contention, stating: “Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.” As such, Cities have very limited ability to request deviations from the plan as designed to reduce the need for a waiver. This means that the City cannot deny waivers to development standards such as height limit, setbacks, open space requirements, and so on, as long as waiving these standards will allow for the construction of the project, as proposed, to the density that is allowed per the State Density Bonus Law. The City cannot require an applicant to redesign a project to no longer require the requested waivers either.

With regards to your question about parking on Dufour St, the neighborhood can establish a permit parking program. To provide some more information regarding the permit parking program, below are links to Municipal Code Chapter 10.41 regarding Citywide Permit Parking, as well as the residential parking permit program webpage. Gaven Hussey, the Parking Program Manager, would be the best point of contact regarding starting a neighborhood permit parking program, the process, how to apply, and whether residents of the new proposed building would be allowed to purchase parking permits or if they could be excluded from that. The permit parking program process is one that neighbors can initiate and apply for through the Public Works Department. Gaven can be reached at 831-420-5184 or [email protected]. There was a condition of approval from the previous iteration of the project that will be added to this project as well which is the following:

City Staff will provide information to the head of the Dufour Neighbors group, Bruce Thomas, regarding the requirements to establish a neighborhood parking permit program on the first block of Dufour Street as measured from Mission Street, and should the neighborhood choose to pursue the program, staff will make the head of the Dufour Neighbors group aware of the developer’s offer to pay for two years of the parking permit program and the developer’s consideration of paying for up to five years of the program. This neighborhood

24.287
benefit will be available to neighbors to initiate up to one year after the building permit is finaled and will also be dependent upon the administrative procedure for permit parking described in Municipal Code Section 10.41.040 which involves input from the participating neighborhood area. (Revised at PCH 06/15/2023).
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/public-works/parkingservices/residential-parking-permit-program https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/SantaCruz10/SantaCruz1041.html#10.41 With regards to the construction noise impacts, the construction does have to follow the City’s Noise Ordinance with regards to the timing of noise, which is located in Chapter 9.36 Noise:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0936.html#9.36 Please let me know if you have any further questions/comments or if I can clarify anything further.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 01/28/2025 1:58 PM
Response #: 39
Submitter ID: 114467
IP address: 24.6.89.252
Time to complete: 24 min. , 28 sec.

24.288
Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

We live on 525 Palm Street and my wife and I are very upset about this proposed development for the following reasons:

1. This does not fit with our neighborhood which is zoned for three story maximum. This development is meant to be downtown like the development on Front Street (not Mission Street that is a residential neighborhood). What can be done to bring this project back in line with the original proposal?

2. In a recent forum to discuss this project there was someone from Workbench present that indicated they want to do right for the community, and they are often neighbors. How can any neighbor in good conscience feel good about encroaching on other neighbor's privacy with such a tall building? The original plan calling for four storys was more acceptable.

3. With the builder's remedy what good is it to have City Planners that have no say height restrictions?

4. What new parking restrictions will be made to Dufour and Palm Street to assure that these streets are not overrun by new tenant parking?

5. How will the developer minimize construction noise and dirt blowing nearby properties?

6. We have very nice neighbors (two are firefighters that live close to Palm and Mission, and I understand they are already considering moving because of how this development will impact their privacy. We have the same concern since we will see and hear this tall building from our backyard.

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

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 345-0517
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

24.289

24.290
From: Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
To: [email protected]
Cc: andy goldberg; Rina Zhou; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Request for Privacy Measures Clarifications Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:40:50 PM
Thank you both for the clear communication approach you’re engaging in and for keeping in the loop as the project evolves.

Best
Shebreh
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 10, 2025, at 12:30 PM, [email protected] wrote:
****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 Andy,
Thank you for the clarifications. Your building will be imposing but it looks like you are indeed taking Privacy Concerns seriously. I will credit you on this at the meeting. :-) Some of the neighbors still have concerns that you will hear about at the meeting. Hopefully you can address their remaining concerns.

Thank you Andy,
--Bruce
On 2025-07-10 10:03, andy goldberg wrote:

Hi Bruce,
Thanks for reaching out.

Please see responses below
Andy Goldberg
[email protected]
831 588 7615
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 3:34 PM "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Andy,
Happy middle of Summer to you. Upon reviewing the latest set of plans for "Mission Studios" I've run into questions that relate to efforts you've made

24.291
to respond to many of the Privacy Concerns I've raised. First off, thank you for listening to these Privacy Concerns. Alas, I need some clarifications before the July 17 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please clarify the following things that have an impact on Dufour and Palm Street neighbors' privacy:
1) Do all of the East-facing rectangular windows open outwards or are they up/down sliders?
I'm asking this because the floor plans seem to indicate that East-facing windows open outwards (see second attached graphic).

All are up/down sliders - the graphic on the floor plan showing casements in an oversight
2) Will all of the East-facing rectangular windows be double-hung windows? Yes
3) Please clarify which windows in the East Elevation will have Translucent/Fritted glass (see blue annotations in first attached graphic).

All the square windows on the east elevation will have obscure / frosted glass to a height of 51"
4) Please clarify if the East-facing rectangular windows on level 5 will have Translucent/Fritted glass on both the bottom pane and a portion of the top pane (see red annotations in first attached graphic).

The obscure glass will be to a height of 51" regardless of level of sash 5) For record's sake, can you please publicly clarify what the 5'1" markings on the East Elevation call out. -
the level of obscureglass
6) Please clarify what privacy measures are being done on the East-facing Juliet balcony windows?
These appear to be part of living rooms and hence are the most likely to have people standing next to them with direct view of the properties below.

Obscure glass to 51"
Thank you Andy for listening to the Dufour and Palm Street privacy concerns. I'm prepared to commend you at the Planning Commission meeting if fully clarified and clearly specified measures to ensure neighbors' privacy are enunciated in the agenda packet for the Planning Commission meeting of July 17 (i.e. if all East-facing rectangular windows are doublehung up-down sliders with translucent/fritted glass up to a height of 61" from the floor [including on portions of the top window panes on Level 5]).

We will be conforming to this. Thanks again for your hard work and diligence in helping find a solution to the privacy concerns
Thank you again,
--Bruce Thomas
Lead Contact for Dufour and Palm St Neighbors

24.292
From: Rina Zhou
To: Brucet
Cc: Matt Starkey
Subject: RE: CP25-0002 1811-1819 Mission St
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 1:10:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Abram Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated April 3, 2025.pdf Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your email! Regarding your first question, a trip generation memo was prepared for the project by Abram Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated April 3, 2025 which estimated that the project could result in approximately 29 PM-peak hour trips, therefore a Traffic Impact Study is not required to be prepared for the project. See attached.

Regarding your second question, the screenshot below is from the City’s GIS web, which shows the major transit stop layer. The pin is where 1811 Mission St is located and the transit stops are shown as the blue bus symbol at Bay/Mission and along Mission St. The orange layer is the half-mile buffer and 1811-1819 Mission St is located within a half mile of a major transit stop.

I cc’d Matt Starkey, Transportation Manager, to this email if you have any further questions.

24.293
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 2:56 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Cc: Brucet <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CP25-0002 1811-1819 Mission St
****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 Rina,
I have two questions.

The "Q&A Summary" on the city's project page makes the following statement: "This project is likely under the 50 trip threshold so it is anticipated that a traffic study is not required." Q1: How was it determined that "this project is likely under the 50 trip threshold", who makes this determination and what method is used?
The "Q&A Summary" also states the following: "Since the project site is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, no parking
is required for the proposed project."
Q2: Where is the 'Major Transit Stop' that is located within one-half mile of the project site?
Thank you,
--Bruce Thomas
On 2025-06-25 22:23, Rina Zhou wrote:

24.294
Hi Bruce,
I hope you’re keeping well! I just wanted to give you a heads up that we’re working on scheduling this item for the July 17 Planning Commission hearing.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

24.295
July 9, 2025
Ms. Rina Zhou
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz Planning Department
[email protected]
Re: 1811,1815 and 1819 Mission Street Project
Dear Ms. Zhou,
I understand the mandates handed down by the state apparently force local governments to allow the construction of monstrosities like this 6-story apartment building in an area of mostly single story family homes. In a more rational society this wouldn’t be the case. And I understand the many benefits of denser housing, but there are much better ways to do this.

This apartment building in this location will pose staggering privacy issues to the nice neighborhood below and stand as a monument to the power and influence of wealthy developers.

For all the neighbors, this building will make everyone feel like they have drones hovering over their heads 24 hours a day.

Given the current situation, the planning department must do everything it can do to protect whatever little remaining scrap of privacy that remains. I’m not a designer, and I don’t know all the ways to protect privacy. But I would think at a bare minimum, if there are any outside stairwells, storage areas, porches or landings of any kind, these should be visually and acoustically blocked from the neighborhood with non-removable and permanently fixed barriers.

Because of the location of the proposed apartment building in reference to my house, the north end of the building will provide a clear view down into my backyard and the porch behind the main house and down into the patio behind the ADU. This is really unacceptable, but the problem can be minimized by providing a solid visual barrier at the north end of the building up to the sixth floor. This will also provide privacy for my neighbors to the west.

Given the nature of the intrusion into the neighborhood that this building represents, these are minor requests, but the proposed protections are crucial.

Again, by any reasonable planning standards, this building would not be allowed. But if it is going to be built, please insist that every effort is made to protect what little privacy will remain for our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
James Danaher

24.296
From: [email protected]
To: Rina Zhou
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:43:54 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 07/10/2025 2:43 PM
Response #: 50
Submitter ID: 117547
IP address: 73.222.37.230
Time to complete: 5 min. , 7 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street (CP24-0122).

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

2. Question/Comment:

It seems really horrible to build 6 story building adjacent to single family homes that are right next to this site. As someone who owns a home on the West Side of Santa Cruz, it's very alarming that the City would even consider this. Will the adjacent owners be compensated for the abysmal impact on their privacy and property values?

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.

24.297

24.298

24.299

24.300

24.301

24.302

24.303

24.304

24.305

24.306

24.307

24.308

24.309

24.310

24.311

24.312

24.313

24.314

24.315

24.316

24.317

24.318

24.319

24.320

24.321

24.322

24.323

24.324

24.325

24.326

24.327

24.328

24.329

24.330

24.331

24.332

24.333

24.334

24.335

24.336

24.337

24.338

24.339

24.340

24.341

24.342

24.343

24.344

24.345

24.346
Jul 17, 2025
Santa Cruz
809 Center St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
By Email: [email protected];
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Re: Proposed 67 unit development at 1811-1819 Mission Street Dear Santa Cruz Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 67-unit housing development project at 1811-1819 Mission Street, which includes 5 very low income units, 1 low income unit, and 5 moderate income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible (id. at subd. (d)) or reduce the project’s density (id. at subd. (j)) unless, again, such written findings are made. As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

24.347
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to building height and story limits, floor ratio, parking space dimensions, class 2 bicycle parking spaces, common usable space per dwelling unit, build-to lines and setbacks, private open space per dwelling unit, depth of commercial space, and commercial spaces on corner lots. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the 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.” (Bankers Hill 150 v.

City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here). Finally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to section 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.

County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it 2 of 3

24.348
will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

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

24.349
Brittany Inclan
From: David Carlson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 10:21 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Rina Zhou Subject: Agenda Item 24, Regular Meeting September 9, 2025 Attachments: 1811-1819 Mission St Project letter.pdf; 24CV02414 - City of Santa Cruz Responding Brief.pdf; 24CV02414 - Judgment.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley and Members of the City Council,
Please find attached public comment related to the 1811-1819 Mission St. Project.

Sincerely,
David Carlson

24.350
September 7, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz CA, 95060
Subject: Agenda Item 24, Regular Meeting September 9, 2025 1811-1819 Mission St. (CP25-0002)
Mission St. Project
Approve a 67 Unit Project with 11 Affordable Units
Dear Mayor Keeley and Members of the City Council:

The number of units that would fit the Mission St. Project site consistent with current rules and surrounding development is 33 units. This is the base density calculation. The project is described as consisting of 67 residential units, 34 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 11 on-site affordable restricted 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 79 units, 12 more units than allowed by law. The 12 additional units are labeled on the plans approved by the Planning Commission as “amenity” or “storage” spaces. In the Planning Commission staff report the stated intent is to convert these “spaces” to additional units incorrectly citing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law.

Such conversions are not allowed under State ADU law and expressly prohibited by the Municipal Code. Conversion ADUs are only allowed in existing multifamily projects, they are not allowed in proposed multifamily projects. State ADU law and DBL were never intended to be combined in this way in a proposed multifamily project. This is confirmed by the City Attorney in a brief filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court in response to the Food

24.351
Mission St. Project
Pg 2
Bin Project’s lawsuit against the City Council (Attachment A). The Food Bin Project is another multifamily project utilizing DBL just like the Mission St. 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 12 illegal units from the Mission St. 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 12 illegal units from the Mission St. Project, two other projects are proposing the same thing at 1024 Soquel Avenue and the Clocktower Project.

While State and local law do not allow approval of the Mission St. project as designed and intended for illegal ADU conversion, there is also the impact on the neighborhood from the oversized building. Removing the 12 illegal units from the building could potentially lower the height of the building by an entire floor. It is not true that the Council’s hands are tied by State housing laws.The Council has the authority to remove the illegal units, it is not constrained by the Housing Accountability Act or DBL. In fact, DBL specifically prohibits granting any incentive, concession, or waiver for something that is a violation of State law. The Council is not compelled to approve something that is illegal just because it is part of a housing project. It is the Council’s duty to ensure that the projects it approves comply with the law.

Please do not fall for the lies surrounding this project and be open and honest with the public about what is really going on here. Everybody at the City and the applicant knows exactly what is intended regarding the illegal ADU conversions. The applicant is lying on the plans and the City is turning a blind eye. Just ask the applicant to agree to a condition of approval that the spaces remain amenity and storage space and prohibit future ADU conversion. The answer you get will proved this point. Legal precedents protecting amenity spaces in multifamily DBL projects address true amenity space, not fake amenity space and any court would easily see the difference. The spaces are not being labeled as future ADUs because that would be illegal and the City and the applicant know it. Playing games by mislabeling the spaces on the plans and kicking the

24.352
Mission St. Project
Pg 3
can down the road where the plans will be changed to include ADUs does not magically make something legal that never was legal to begin with.

Please require removal from the project the spaces labeled “amenity” and “storage” that are actually intended for later ADU conversion and approve a 67-unit project with 11 affordable units.

Sincerely,
David Carlson
CC: Rina Zhou, 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. Judgement

24.353
-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 Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
4/18/2025 4:36 PM
Clerk of the Court by Deputy,
Erik Campos

24.354
-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

24.355
-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

24.356
-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

24.357
-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.

24.358
-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.

24.359
-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”).)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

24.360
-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

24.361
-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.

24.362
-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).)

24.363
-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)

24.364
-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

24.365
-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

24.366
-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.

24.367
-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.)

24.368
-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.)

24.369
-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

24.370
-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.

24.371
-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

24.372
-1-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
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
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

The Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioners DOUGLAS WALLACE, an individual, and WORKBENCH, a California corporation, came for hearing on June 9, 2025, in Department 5 of the above-titled court, the Honorable Rebecca Connolly presiding. Petitioners were represented by Ryan Patterson and Brian O’Neill. Respondents, CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND CITY COUNCIL, were represented by Anthony P. Condotti and Alexander Geise.

Having reviewed the arguments and papers submitted by the parties; the cause having been argued and submitted for decision; and having issued on July 15, 2025, an Order Denying Exempt from filing
fees pursuant to
Government Code
section 6103

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
8/5/2025 12:00 PM

24.373
-2-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
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 Petition for Writ of Mandate, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Judgment;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

1. Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED in its entirety;

2. Judgment is entered for Respondents against Petitioners.

Dated: ____________________ By: ____________________________________________

HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

24.374

EXHIBIT A

24.375
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

24.376
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

24.377
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

24.378
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

24.379
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

24.380
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

24.381
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

24.382
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

24.383
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

24.384
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

24.385
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

24.386
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

24.387
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

24.388
-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

24.389
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

24.390
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

24.391
Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 5:08 PM
To: Brittany Inclan
Subject: Fwd: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:

From: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Date: September 8, 2025 at 4:29:48 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Cc: Viviane Pearson <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received Hi Bonnie,
Just wanted to forward you some public comments that I received regarding the above-noted project.

Thank you!
Rina
Rina Zhou, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5104 | Main Line: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 4:27 PM
To: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Question/Comment Received A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

24.392
Form Name: 1811, 1815, 1819 Mission Street - Significant Project Date & Time: 09/08/2025 4:27 PM
Response #: 53
Submitter ID: 118859
IP address: 136.226.79.116
Time to complete: 3 min. , 36 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Santa Cruz City Council
September 9, 2025