Santa Cruz City Council
March 24, 2026

SURVEY RESULTS
This memorandum is an accompaniment to the data visualizations and Appendix C is a summary of the free response data. Key points are summarized below:

Demographics. Community members who responded to the survey were generally reflective of the larger Santa Cruz community in terms of race. In 2018, an estimated 63 percent of Santa Cruz residents were White, consistent with the 67 percent ofWhite survey respondents.

However, the survey may not have captured a representative snapshot of Asian or Latino/Hispanic respondents compared to demographic estimates. In addition, respondents were underrepresented in the following categories, as compared to demographic estimates:
individuals under 34 years old; households with incomes less than $35,000; and households with three or more members.

Support for taller buildings. When asked what the maximum height they would support on commercial corridors, 60 percent of respondents selected a height option taller than four stories.When asked what trade-offs might be made for less expensive housing, the most popular answer was increased building height limits. Free response answers suggested a similar degree of support for taller buildings; however, respondents also expressed concerns about shading impacts on existing homes and streets.

Support for decreased restaurant parking. 45 percent of respondents said they supported decreasing the parking requirement for restaurants. An additional 28 percent said that they supported decreases only for small restaurants or restaurants with good bike or bus access.

Desire for active ground floors and spaces. The majority (85 percent) want commercial uses or other active uses on the ground floor, and several respondents described “wider sidewalks” and outdoor amenities as a priority in their free response answers. Similarly, there was strong support for outdoor dining in front setback areas. Most respondents (51 percent) wanted most buildings in a commercial area to have ground-floor commercial space. Black/African American respondents and respondents under 20 prioritized this feature more than other demographics (31 percent and 45 percent, respectively), while Latino/Hispanic respondents ranked groundfloor commercial as the lowest priority (7 percent). However, when asked what a good tradeoff would be for less expensive housing, the second most popular answer overall was “exclusively residential buildings in commercial areas” (327 responses). The 327 people who support exclusively residential buildings is greater than the number who prefer ground-floor shops or restaurants even if they increase housing costs (232 respondents).

Preference for architectural freedom and variety. On commercial streets, respondents overwhelmingly preferred an eclectic building look over a uniform one (67 percent versus 11 percent). When asked how much control the City should exercise over architectural details, respondents largely preferred giving architects creative freedom or creating a menu of options from which to work. Respondents felt that there should be the highest levels of freedom in choosing building color and decoration and more control over building materials and landscaping. These preferences are true for both commercial and residential areas and are reflected in survey-takers’ free responses—17 respondents mentioned material quality or application as a priority.

23.106
Sarah Neuse
July 12, 2021

Mixed feedback on architectural features. Respondents most commonly reported that certain architectural features (e.g., varied roof forms, bay windows) should still be required even if they increase the cost of housing. However, the number of respondents who accepted tradeoffs on building form (e.g., flat roofs, minimal variation in building face) was roughly equal to the number who wanted architectural details to be required (252 compared to 250).The support for taller buildings and decreased parking makes building decoration more feasible. Focus group feedback will be important to determine how to regulate building articulation and form given there is not support for creating a strict standard but there is a desire to still see architectural details.

Support for making housing more feasible. When asked about smaller residential projects that are harder to pencil, 51 percent of respondents preferred standards to make rental projects easier to build, while 36 percent prioritized standards that mitigate the bulk and massing of such projects. Of the 99 survey-takers who opted to provide free responses in response to this question, 54 responses were neutral or ambivalent to the answers; 25 supported policies to increase housing, and 20 were opposed to policies increasing housing.Accounting for free responses does not result in a substantive shift in survey-takers’ feedback. Similarly, 146 respondents said that the City should not ask for anything that makes housing more expensive and only 66 respondents said that they would not accept any tradeoffs in return for less expensive housing.

Differences in priority across language. When asked whether certain features should be prioritized over less expensive development, Spanish-language respondents prioritized more parking spaces and high-quality building materials over other features (37 percent and 33 percent, respectively) compared to English-language respondents, who were more evenly divided across all possible tradeoffs. When asked what standards could be loosened to reduce housing costs, more Spanish-language respondents indicated that building heights could be increased (45 percent) compared to English-language respondents (22 percent). However, the plurality of Spanish-language respondents (44 percent) also supported a maximum height of four stories along major commercial streets. Four stories is the minimum height necessary to comply with State Law given the current planned housing capacities in the City’s 2030 General Plan, indicating that there may be a conflict between respondents’ support for less expensive housing and their desire for lower-intensity development.

Differences in priority east of the river. Residents in the eastern neighborhoods were the only groups that did not choose increased building height limits as their top tradeoff for less expensive housing. Among Eastside residents, allowing exclusively residential buildings in commercial areas was the top tradeoff, and for Upper Eastside residents, simpler building shapes and less expensive materials were chosen more often than increased building heights.

Similarly, respondents who live east of the river prefer regulations that mitigate the bulk and mass of new, small residential buildings over policies that would make rental projects more feasible.All other neighborhoods favored policies to increase rental feasibility.

Race, age, and neighborhood are not predictors. Except for some discrete areas mentioned above, preferences tended to be similar across racial, generational, and neighborhood groups.

One noteworthy difference is larger support for four-story buildings in the Eastside and Upper

23.107
Sarah Neuse
July 12, 2021

Eastside compared to other neighborhoods and Upper Westside residents were less likely to identify more parking as a desired feature for future housing projects.

IMPLICATIONS ON FUTURE WORK
The survey data will be used to inform the draft objective standards, which will then be presented to the community during the final community engagement stage, Shape and Refine Objective Standards. The consultant team will also utilize focus groups to fill gaps in our knowledge and hear from voices that are missing in the survey sample, especially students, the Latinx community, young adults, and low-income households.

CONCLUSION
The survey furthered the desired outcomes of this stage of the community engagement strategy, to Define and Measure Community Character. Survey results did not represent a complete crosssection of Santa Cruz residents, but improved upon past engagement events and identified communities where further outreach will be focused. The survey was also effective in obtaining community consensus about specific design features or identifying areas where additional community input is needed to refine our objective standards approach.

Attachments:
▪ Data Visualizations
▪ Appendix A: Online Survey Questions
▪ Appendix B: Data Cleaning Summary
▪ Appendix C: Free Response Compendium

23.108

APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONS – ENGLISH AND SPANISH

23.109
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
Introduction
Your input will help us create a first draft of the Objective Development Standards. This survey will take you 12 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time!
With new State regulations, more multi-family housing (apartment or condo buildings) and mixed-use buildings (buildings with retail or office on the ground floor and apartments above) will be developed in Santa Cruz. Cities can still shape the design of these buildings, but must apply the rules evenly and fairly, without personal judgement. These rules are called ‘Objective Development Standards’.

This survey will ask you about your priorities, concerns, and preferences related to the design of multi-family buildings along commercial streets like Water, Ocean, or Soquel (see 908 Ocean) and in residential neighborhoods. We will present the draft standards to the community for feedback in late Summer/early Fall and refine the standards for City Council approval in Winter 2021.

1. Do you want more information about the project context before you start? Yes, show me more.

No, I am ready to start.
1 23.110
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
Resources
Please check out the resources below. These links provide additional context and could also serve as good preparation to take the survey.

State Legislation. California has a housing shortage crisis, and the State has passed laws that limit local control and make it easier to build new housing.

All cities, towns, and counties are required to plan for and approve their fair share of housing.

Housing 101 Guide. Explains State legislation and defines key terms. Might be helpful to have this open in another browser window in case there are terms you don’t know.

Watch the recording or view the slides from our webinar Designing a Santa Cruz for All: The Past and Future of Housing Policy to learn about zoning and racial equity.

Think about Santa Cruz and how different buildings contribute to its identity. There are specific questions to consider on the City’s website under “Warm Up for Participation – Visit your hometown.” 2 23.111
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
The Big Picture
To start, we have some broad questions about your priorities and the development patterns you prefer.

Something else (please explain)
* 2. Think of the apartment-style and mixed-use buildings on commercial streets (e.g., Water, Ocean, Soquel).

Which of the following items do you think are most important for a new building on these streets to include, even if they increase housing costs?* We know it’s a hard choice, but you can only choose two items.

Ground floor shops or restaurants
More parking spaces
Architectural details (e.g., varied roof forms, bay windows) Community gathering spaces
High quality building materials (e.g., stone, wood, brick) None of these: the City shouldn’t ask for anything that makes housing more expensive * The City can require that buildings meet certain requirements, but each additional ask can make a building more expensive to build, which can impact the cost of renting or purchasing housing.
3 23.112
Something else (please explain)

3. The City can also loosen some requirements to reduce building costs, potentially making units less expensive to rent or buy. Which of the following items do you think are good trade-offs for less expensive housing? Choose all that apply.

Increased building height limits
Simpler building shapes (e.g., flat roofs, minimal variation in the building face) Less expensive materials (e.g., stucco)
Fewer parking spaces
Exclusively residential buildings in commercial areas
None of these: I’m not concerned about housing affordability Something else (please explain)

4. The parking regulations currently require twice as much parking for restaurants as other kinds of retail or commercial uses, which makes it harder to build restaurants. Would you support decreasing the parking requirement for restaurants?
Yes
No
Only for small restaurants (e.g., Charlie Hong Kong Restaurant) Only if the site is accessible by bus or bike
4 23.113
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
Look and Feel of Buildings
This section digs into how you want future buildings to look and feel.

Options for Question #5
5 23.114
Something else/it depends (please explain)

5. Consider what it’s like to walk down blocks on commercial streets. Do the buildings create a consistent edge along the sidewalk, or are they broken up with spaces in between for landscaping or stoops? What do you prefer?
A consistent, solid edge along the entire block (with landscaping and street trees included in the public right of way, rather than on private property)
Variety of the edge, moving in and out (landscaping is on the private property adjacent to the sidewalk) The edge doesn’t matter to me as long as the sidewalk is wide enough Don’t care/haven’t noticed
Options for Question #6
6 23.115
7 23.116
Something else/it depends (please explain)

6. On major commercial streets like Ocean, Soquel, and Water, do you prefer buildings that have a uniform look along the street, or an eclectic mix?
More uniform
More eclectic
Don’t care/haven’t noticed
Options for Question #7, below

7. Community feedback for previous projects indicated that Santa Cruz residents prefer that buildings be located at or close to the sidewalk edge. However, a larger front setback might be better for certain uses and features. What uses (if any) should be allowed to have a larger setback? Choose all that apply.

Outdoor dining
Vehicle parking
Publicly-accessible open space
Landscaping
Bicycle parking
None of the above
8 23.117
Leave open for architects to decide
Create some options for architects
to choose from City dictates a tight standard
Building materials
Building colors
Breaks in blank walls*
Roof shape*
Building decorations*
Landscaping
Building entry
Something else (please explain)

8. The City wants to set a high quality of design for new development without stifling designers’ creativity or budget. How strictly should the City regulate the following features of future multi-family buildings? *Examples for Question #8
9 23.118

9. On streets like Ocean or Soquel, how much retail space (shops, restaurants) would you like to see on the ground floor?
I don’t care
Some buildings should have shops or restaurants
Most buildings should have shops or restaurants
All buildings should have shops or restaurants
I want some sort of activity on the ground floor (e.g., gym for residents, leasing office), but doesn’t need to be a shop or restaurant
10 23.119
Options for Question #10
11 23.120
Something else/it depends

10. For the larger buildings allowed on Water, Ocean, and Soquel, four (4) stories is the minimum height necessary for the City’s zoning code and General Plan to be consistent as required by State Law (according to test fits conducted by an urban design professional). For apartment buildings with a mix of market-rate and affordable units, what is the maximum height that you support on major commercial streets? Choose one.
4 stories
5 stories
6 stories
No maximum height
12 23.121
Other (please specify)
* 11. Affordable housing developers get to choose regulatory incentives to help them build affordable units,* but the City may be able to encourage certain incentives. What types of incentives should the City try to encourage for these 100% affordable housing developments? We know it’s a hard choice, but you can only choose up two items.

Reduced parking requirements
Reduced off-street loading requirements
Reduced setbacks
Reduced open space requirements
Streamlined approval process
Increase in lot coverage
Reduction in required landscaping area
Increased height beyond three (3) additional stories
Reduced building amenities (e.g., storage space, laundry, bike parking)
* For 100% affordable housing, State law grants a height increase of up to three (3) additional stories for projects in transit-rich areas. These 100% affordable projects are also allowed four (4) more regulatory incentives to help reduce building costs and facilitate affordable housing construction.
1 2
3 12. In addition to the features discussed above, what other topics would you like to see considered in the Objective Development Standards? List up to three below:
13 23.122
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
Small Residential Projects
This survey has primarily focused on buildings along commercial corridors. However, there are also sites within residential neighborhoods that are planned for and can accommodate small apartment or townhome projects, like this four-unit townhome at 1133 East Cliff Drive Something else/it depends

13. Technical studies have shown that the economics of these sites makes them harder to develop with multifamily apartments. Instead, these types of sites often develop as single-family homes, for-sale condos, or townhomes. When considering what design standards to use for these smaller residential sites in single-family neighborhoods, which is more important to you? Policies that could make rental apartments more feasible on these sites and create a greater number of housing units Standards that will mitigate the bulk and massing of the buildings but could constrain the amount of possible new residences. 14 23.123
Leave open for architects to decide
Create some options for architects
to choose from City dictates a tight standard
Building materials
Building colors
Breaks in blank walls*
Roof shape*
Building decorations*
Landscaping
Building entry
Something else

14. The City wants to set a high quality of design for new development without stifling designers’ creativity or budget. How strictly should the City regulate the following features of future multi-family buildings? *Examples for Question #14
15 23.124
16 23.125
Something else/it depends (please explain)

15. The upper stories of buildings are typically what we hear the most feedback about from neighbors concerned with shadows, privacy, or the bulkiness of a building. Which strategy below do you prefer to promote a good neighbor policy? We know it’s a hard choice, but the City will need to make tough decisions on these tradeoffs and you can only choose one.

Upper-story side setbacks that would reduce massing impacts on adjacent properties and street* Upper-story front setbacks that would reduce massing impacts from the street* Upper-story rear setbacks that would reduce massing impacts in backyards* Limiting the extent of blank walls to make buildings more aesthetically and architecturally interesting.

Limiting the location of balconies that could look into existing homes.

Don’t care.
* Massing refers to the way a building is distributed on a site. It influences how you perceive a building’s size and shape, such as if it’s narrower and taller, wider and shorter, or pushed more to one side than another.

Thank you for participating in shaping the new housing development in Santa Cruz. Go to the next page to tell us about yourself and sign up for the raffle!
17 23.126
Defining Santa Cruz's Community Character
Demographics
One of our goals is to hear from a representative cross-section of Santa Cruz. Responses to this are optional and kept strictly confidential.

16. What neighborhood do you live in?
Downtown
Eastside
Upper Eastside
Westside
Upper Westside
Outside of Santa Cruz

17. What races/ethnicities do you identify with? Select all that apply.

American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Latino/ Hispanic
White/Caucasian
Multiple Races
Other (please specify)

18. How many people are in your household?
1 2
3 4 or more
18 23.127

19. What is your age?
Under 20
20 to 34
35 to 54
55 to 64
65 or older

20. What is your household income?
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to 24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Prefer not to say

21. Did you attend or watch the video from the Designing a Santa Cruz for All webinar? Yes
No

22. Have you participated in the City’s previous planning and/or housing projects, such as the Corridors Plan or Voices on Housing?
Yes
No
Email Address

23. Would you like to sign up for project updates? Respondents who sign up will automatically be entered in a raffle to win a $50 gift card to New Leaf Community Markets! 19 23.128
Definir el carácter de la comunidad de Santa Cruz
Sus respuestas a esta encuesta nos ayudarán a crear un primer borrador de los Estándares Objetivos de Desarrollo Urbano.

Le tomará 10 minutos terminar esta encuesta. ¡Gracias por tomarse el tiempo de darnos su opinión! Historia
Con nuevos reglamentos del Estado, se creará más vivienda multifamiliar (edificios de apartamentos o condominios) y edificios de uso mixto (edificios con tiendas u oficinas en la planta baja y apartamentos arriba) en Santa Cruz. Las ciudades aún pueden moldear el diseño de estos edificios, pero deben aplicar las reglas de forma pareja y justa, sin juicio personal. Estas reglas se llaman ‘Estándares Objetivos de Desarrollo Urbano’. Por ejemplo, vea a continuación:

Esta encuesta le preguntará sobre sus prioridades, inquietudes y preferencias en relación con el diseño de edificios multifamiliares a lo largo de calles comerciales como Water, Ocean o Soquel (vea 908 Ocean) y en vecindarios residenciales.

Presentaremos el borrador de los estándares a la comunidad para que nos dé sus impresiones a fines del verano/comienzos del otoño y refinaremos los estándares para la aprobación por parte del Consejo de la Ciudad en el invierno de 2021.

23.129
2 EL PANORAMA GLOBAL
Para empezar, tenemos preguntas generales sobre sus prioridades y los patrones de desarrollo urbano que prefiere.

1. Piense en los edificios estilo apartamentos y de uso mixto en calles comerciales (por ejemplo, Water, Ocean y Soquel). De la siguiente lista, ¿cuáles piensa usted que son más importantes incluir en un nuevo edificio, aún si eso aumenta los costos de vivienda?* Sabemos que es difícil decidir, pero solo puede escoger dos elementos.
Tiendas o restaurantes en la planta baja
Más espacios de estacionamiento
Detalles arquitectónicos (por ejemplo, variedad de formas de techos, ventanas tipo mirador) Espacios de reunión comunitaria
Materiales de construcción de buena calidad (por ejemplo, piedra, madera, ladrillo) Ninguno de estos: la Ciudad no debería pedir nada que haga que la vivienda sea más cara Otro (por favor explique)
*La ciudad puede exigir que los edificios cumplan con ciertos requisitos, pero cada pedido adicional puede hacer que un edificio sea más caro de construir, lo cual puede afectar el costo de alquilar o comprar una vivienda.

2. La Ciudad también puede aflojar algunos requisitos para reducir los costos de construcción, potencialmente haciendo que las unidades sean menos caras de alquilar o comprar. ¿Cuáles de los siguientes elementos piensa que son buenas concesiones para que la vivienda sea menos cara? Seleccione todos los que correspondan.
Aumento de la altura de edificios
Formas más simples de edificios (por ejemplo, techos planos, variación mínima en la fachada) Materiales menos caros (por ejemplo, estuco)
Menos espacios de estacionamiento
Edificios exclusivamente residenciales en áreas comerciales Ninguno de estos: no me preocupa la asequibilidad de vivienda Otro (por favor explique)

23.130
3 CÓMO SE VEN Y CÓMO SE SIENTEN LOS EDIFICIOS
Esta sección trata sobre cómo usted quiere que los edificios futuros se vean y se sientan.

3. Considere cómo es caminar a lo largo de cuadras en calles comerciales. ¿Crean los edificios un borde constante a lo largo de la acera, o está interrumpido con espacios intermedios para plantas o entradas? ¿Qué prefiere? (Escoja uno) Un borde constante y sólido a lo largo de toda la cuadra (con plantas y árboles en la calle en la vía pública, en lugar de en propiedad privada)
Variedad del borde, que se mueve hacia adentro y hacia afuera (las plantas están en propiedad privada adyacente a la acera)
El borde no me importa siempre y cuando la acera sea lo suficientemente ancha No me importa/no lo he notado
Otro/depende (por favor explique)

23.131
4 4. En las principales calles comerciales como Ocean, Soquel y Water, ¿prefiere edificios que se ven uniformes a lo largo de la calle, o una mezcla ecléctica? (Escoja uno)
Más uniforme

Más ecléctico
No me importa/no lo he notado
Otro/depende (por favor explique)

23.132
5 5. En calles como Ocean o Soquel, ¿qué tanto espacio comercial (tiendas, restaurantes) le gustaría ver en la planta baja?
No me importa
Algunos edificios deberían tener tiendas o restaurantes La mayoría de los edificios deberían tener tiendas o restaurantes Todos los edificios deberían tener tiendas o restaurantes Quiero algún tipo de actividad en la planta baja (por ejemplo, gimnasio para los residentes, oficina de arrendamiento), pero no necesita ser una tienda o restaurante

6. Para los edificios más grandes permitidos en Water, Ocean y Soquel, Para edificios de apartamentos con una mezcla de unidades al precio del mercado y asequibles, ¿cuál es la altura máxima que usted apoya en las principales calles comerciales? (Escoja uno)
 4 plantas,
 5 plantas
 6 plantas
 Ninguna altura máxima
 Otro/depende:

23.133
6 7. Los urbanizadores de vivienda asequible pueden escoger incentivos reglamentarios para ayudarles a construir unidades asequibles*, pero tal vez la Ciudad pueda alentar ciertos incentivos. ¿Qué tipo de incentivos debería la Ciudad tratar de alentar para estos proyectos de vivienda 100% asequible? Sabemos que es difícil decidir, pero solo puede escoger hasta dos elementos. Reducción en los requisitos de estacionamiento
Reducción en los requisitos de carga fuera de la calle Reducción en los retranqueos
Reducción en los requisitos de espacios abiertos
Proceso de aprobación agilizado
Aumento de la cobertura del lote
Reducción en el área que debe tener plantas y jardines Aumento de la altura más allá de tres (3) plantas adicionales Menos servicios en el edificio (por ejemplo, espacio de almacenamiento, lavandería, estacionamiento para bicicletas)
Otro (por favor explique)
* Para la vivienda 100% asequible, la ley del Estado otorga un aumento de altura de hasta tres (3) plantas adicionales para proyectos en áreas ricas en transporte público. A estos proyectos 100% asequibles también se les permite cuatro (4) incentivos reglamentarios más para ayudar a reducir los costos de construcción y facilitar la construcción de vivienda asequible.

8. Además de las características mencionadas anteriormente, ¿qué otros temas le gustaría que se consideren en los Estándares Objetivos de Desarrollo Urbano? A continuación enumere hasta tres:

1. 2.

3. 23.134
7 PROYECTOS RESIDENCIALES PEQUEÑOS
Esta encuesta se ha enfocado principalmente en edificios a lo largo de corredores comerciales. Sin embargo, también hay sitios dentro de vecindarios residenciales que están planificados para pequeños proyectos de apartamentos o casas adosadas y que tienen el espacio para ellos, como este conjunto de cuatro casas adosadas en 1133 East Cliff Drive.

9. Los estudios técnicos han demostrado que los factores económicos de estos sitios hacen que sean más difíciles de urbanizar con apartamentos multifamiliares. En lugar de eso, estos tipos de sitios a menudo son urbanizados como viviendas unifamiliares, condominios para la venta o casas adosadas. Al considerar qué estándares de diseño usar para estos sitios residenciales más pequeños en vecindarios unifamiliares, ¿cuál es más importante para usted? Políticas que podrían hacer que los apartamentos de alquiler sean más factibles en estos sitios y crear un mayor número de unidades de vivienda
Estándares que mitigarán el tamaño y la escala de los edificios pero que podrían restringir la cantidad posible de nuevas residencias.
Otro/depende (por favor explique)

23.135
8 10.El tema sobre el que generalmente recibimos más impresiones de los vecinos son las plantas superiores de los edificios. Les preocupan las sombras, la privacidad o el tamaño del edificio. ¿Qué estrategia a continuación prefiere para promover una política de buen vecino? Sabemos que es una decisión difícil, pero la Ciudad necesitará tomar decisiones difíciles sobre estas concesiones y usted solo puede escoger una.
Retranqueos laterales de los pisos superiores que reducirían los impactos de la masa del edificio a propiedades adyacentes y a la calle.
Retranqueos delanteros de los pisos superiores que reducirían los impactos de la masa del edificio a propiedades adyacentes y a la calle.
Retranqueos traseros de los pisos superiores que reducirían los impactos de la masa del edificio a propiedades adyacentes y a la calle.
Limitar la extensión de paredes sin ninguna característica para que los edificios sean más interesantes estética y arquitectónicamente.
Limitar la ubicación de balcones desde los que se podría mirar al interior de viviendas existentes.
No me importa.
Otro/depende (por favor explique).
*La masa se refiere a cómo un edificio está distribuido en un sitio. Eso influencia cómo usted percibe el tamaño y la forma de un edificio, es decir, si es más angosto y más alto, más ancho y más bajo, o arrimado más a un lado que al otro.
¡Gracias por participar en el proceso de moldear la creación de nueva vivienda en Santa Cruz!
CARACTERÍSTICAS DEMOGRÁFICAS
Uno de nuestros objetivos es tener las opiniones de una muestra representativa de los habitantes de Santa Cruz. Las respuestas a esto son opcionales y serán estrictamente confidenciales.

1. ¿En qué vecindario vive?
Centro de la ciudad
Eastside
Upper Eastside
Westside
Upper Westside
Fuera de la Ciudad de Santa Cruz

23.136
9 2. ¿Con qué razas/identidades étnicas se identifica usted? Seleccione todos los que correspondan.
Indígena americano/nativo de Alaska
Asiático/isleño del Pacífico
Negro/afroamericano
Latino/hispano
Blanco/caucásico
Razas múltiples
Otra (por favor especifique)

3. ¿Cuántas personas hay en su hogar?
1
2
3
4 o más

4. ¿Qué edad tiene?
Menos de 20
20 a 34.
35 a 54.
55 a 64.
65 años o más

5. ¿Ha participado usted en los proyectos anteriores de planificación o de vivienda de la Ciudad, como el Plan de Corredores o Voices on Housing (Voces sobre Vivienda)?
Sí
No

23.137

APPENDIX B

DATA CLEANING SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Cruz staff and Urban Planning Partners began to suspect fraudulent survey entries based on the following:
 Responses to text box questions that had nothing to do with the question or the project (e.g., “Nordic,” “contracted,” “médicos")
 Multiple entries that used the same phrases in the free‐response text boxes, oftentimes with awkward wording or capitalization (e.g., “Rational use of cities,” Increase More Parking Place,” “The construction density should not be too high, which requires the height of the floors to be increased”)  Unlikely combinations of letters and numbers used in email addresses (e.g., xvmn, jtmaqj)  Survey response times under 5 minutes
 Surveys taken at odd hours of the night (i.e., between midnight and 5 am)  Answers in English to text‐box questions on the Spanish‐language survey

DATA CLEANING METHODOLOGY
Urban Planning Partners ran the data set through ipapi, a bulk IP address lookup service, and removed all records located outside of California. It is possible, especially given remote work capabilities during the pandemic, that some of the records from non‐California IP addresses were people who typically live and/or work in Santa Cruz. However, given the size of the data set and the effort that would have been required to comb through each record, this bulk removal was considered the best option.

After removing records outside of California, Urban Planning Partners removed entries that had nonsensical and/or repeat entries in the free responses. After this, there remained dozens of entries that were still suspect due to the factors listed above. We coded remaining entries based on their probability of fraud and worked with City staff to remove remaining entries that were most likely fraudulent. In all cases, entries that were removed during this phase had more than one factor to substantiate their removal (e.g., a suspicious email address and a short response time, free response data that did not make sense and a late‐night survey submission).

See below for the full list of how entries were removed.

ENGLISH SURVEY DATA

1. Remove all records outside of CA

2. Remove all records where the respondent did not answer a single question

3. Remove all records with answer “yes” or “no” in columns BI‐BK (ie the free responses specifying what other things the development standards should address)

23.138
a. Note: all of the records deleted with a yes/no answer also either a) had IP addresses outside Santa Cruz or b) had survey completion times of 3 minutes or less

4. Remove repetitive records with “Nordic” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

5. Remove repetitive records with “contracted” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

6. Remove repetitive records with “Add more and orderly parking Spaces” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

7. Remove repetitive records with “Increase per capita green plant area” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

8. Remove repetitive records with “Increase More Parking Place” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

9. Remove repetitive records with “Rational Planning of Space” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

10. Remove repetitive records with “sports ground” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

11. Remove repetitive records with “The construction density should not be too high, which requires the height of the floors to be increased, and the houses should not be too close.” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

12. Remove repetitive records with “To increase the height of a house, its safety must first be ensured.” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

13. Remove repetitive records with “Environmental aspects”, “transport”, or “Housing construction” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

14. Remove repetitive records with “Health environment” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

15. Remove repetitive records with “Security fence” or “Rest bench” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

16. Remove repetitive records with “I want to see more surprises” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

17. Remove repetitive records with “Economic material benefit”, “The transportation is convenient', or "Near the school" as an answer in columns BI‐BK

18. Remove repetitive records with “Comfortable residential environment” or “Perfect transportation” as an answer in columns BI‐BK

19. Remove repetitive records with other similar questionable answers in BI‐BK.

20. Remove repetitive records that took less than 5 mins to complete

21. Remove all records with a survey start time between 11pm and 5am if one of the following also applies
a. The email address includes letters and number combinations that do not appear to be real names or words (e.g., “xvmn” or “jtmaqj”)
a. The free response answers did not use traditional English grammar, were not relevant to the question asked, or showed up verbatim in multiple responses b. Every single race was selected in the demographic questions

SPANISH LANGUAGE DATA

1. Remove repetitive records outside of CA

2. Remove repetitive records with answer “yes” or “no” in columns BI‐BK (ie the free responses specifying what other things the development standards should address)

3. Remove repetitive records with the following answer in the free response “Increase of parking Spaces”

4. Remove repetitive records with the following answers in the free response: transporte, comedor, médicos

5. Remove repetitive records with the following answers in the free response: “Rational use of cities”, “Need to add some local architectural features or other”

6. Remove repetitive records with a response time of under five minutes

23.139

7. Remove all records with survey start times between 11pm and 5am if one of the following also applies:
b. The email address includes letters and number combinations that do not appear to be real names or words (e.g., “xvmn” or “jtmaqj”)
c. The free response answers did not use traditional English grammar, were not relevant to the question asked, or showed up verbatim in multiple responses d. Every single race was selected

23.140

APPENDIX C

FREE RESPONSE COMPENDIUM
1 SUMMARY
Survey-takers were able to provide up to three free responses identifying topics that they would like to see considered in the Objective Development Standards. In total, 825 English-language comments and 4 Spanish-language comments were recorded (not including fraudulent data).

We identified 601 responses that may be implementable through Objective Design Standards (e.g., setbacks or lighting) or are related to the physical feasibility of the development (e.g., unit size, ground floor uses). We then counted these applicable responses across 25 relevant topics.

The top five topics are as follows:
▪ Green Building Standards (75 responses). Comments related to energy efficiency, solar requirements, green materials, etc.
▪ Open Space/Amenities (73 responses). Comments related to recreational and community facilities, open space requirements, etc.
▪ Parking (66 responses). Comments related to parking impacts on neighborhoods, parking ratio, etc.
▪ Density/Unit Size (44 responses). Comments related to unit typology, density, etc. ▪ Walkability (44 responses). Comments related to pedestrian experience, accessibility, etc.

Other frequent themes included community compatibility and neighborhood character; bicycle infrastructure; height; water usage; and setbacks. Because many of the responses were unique or lacked context, we did not differentiate topics further (e.g., responses for or against height).

This appendix includes an interactive spreadsheet, where free responses answers can be sorted by topic and/or applicability to the Objective Design Standards’ scope.

23.141
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code (GC) Section 65589.5) was strengthened and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (and subsequent bills changing GC Section 65905.5, 66300, 65940, and many others):
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;
3) prevent cities from imposing or enforcing standards that are not objective, while freezing the standards applicable to projects to those in place at the time a preliminary application is submitted; and
4) prohibit cities from reducing the residential capacity in their general plan.

Housing Accountability Act Updates & Housing Crisis Act of 2019 State laws have substantially shifted local control of city planning in recent years. Over 200 housing-related laws passed since 2017 aim to facilitate housing production and improve housing affordability by seeking to reverse a forty-year-long downward trend of housing production.

California Housing Laws:

Key Changes Impacting Santa Cruz
Updated State Density Bonus Law Doubles Incentives for Housing Near Transit 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
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. (Developers can still propose parking, they just are not required to provide it.) Key Changes:

23.142
Key Changes Impacting Santa Cruz
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Many ADU laws were updated to facilitate and streamline production of ADUs on single-family and multi-family properties, including removal of owner-occupancy requirements, allowing up to four ADUs on single family properties, and allowing up to eight ADUs and up to 25% of the number of multi-family units on a multi-family property.

Small Lot Subdivisions
Small lot subdivisions were facilitated through bills like those listed below, all of which allow these uses by right, with no discretionary approvals required:

Senate Bill (SB) 9 & SB 450, allowing single-family lot splits and four units; SB 1123, allowing up to 10 lots and 10 units on vacant single-family lots; and SB 684 (allowing 10 or fewer lot splits and 10 or fewer units on properties zoned for multi-family).

Permit Streamlining
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.

Streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review AB 130 and SB 131 were adopted and took effect immediately on July 1, 2025. They set forth a series of additional CEQA exemptions and streamlining procedures that facilitate housing production.

Impact Fee Limitations
Bills such as AB 2553 and SB 937 limit cities authority to charge impact fees to housing developers and delays the timing of when those fees are collected.

Increase State Enforcement Authority and Non-Compliance Penalties 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.

Similarly, cities face increased liability for attorney’s fees when losing housing-related court cases.

23.143
Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 8:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Agenda Item #23 -- Direction on Objective Design Standards 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.santacruzca.gov

Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.

From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:13 AM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Cc: Lee Butler <[email protected]>; City Plan <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Gabriela Trigueiro <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Susie O'Hara <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #23 -- Direction on Objective Design Standards ****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.****
March 22, 2026
Honorable Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and Director of Planning and Community Development:

I suggest including a current photograph of the nearly completed Delaware Avenue UCSC Housing Project (300 Ingalls Alley) as a prime local example of multi-residential, mixed-use architecture in the proposed “Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout." The current image representing this project in the draft Guidelines is an architectural rendering that does not do it justice.

23.144
Because of its outstanding design, I also recommend giving this project great prominence and visibility in press communications, on city web pages, in social media, and in print as an example of the quality of multi-residential architecture the City seeks.

In my opinion (which is informed by the fact that I attended architecture school at USC and have made my living as a graphic designer, art director, and photographer ever since), this complex is perhaps the best local example of how contemporary mixed-use, multi-residential architecture can have great visual appeal and also possess the ineffable quality that so many armchair critics of the new buildings downtown say is absent: “character.” The distinctive industrial-vernacular design of this project features a variety of massing, color, texture, and geometry.

Because of this, it is visually compelling. And, because of its location right next to the Rail Trail and its close proximity to Metro bus and campus transit routes, the project is also a excellent example of transit-oriented development. And, even though the design is composed of two distinct elements — student housing and staff housing, separated by a paseo -- it reads visually as a fully integrated design.

Link to project on the city’s website: https://www.santacruzca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/pl/documents/significantprojects-planning/cp22-0166/delaware-addition-phase-ii-arch-and-landscape-drawings.pdf I look forward to the City challenging prospective developers of multi-residential housing — especially affordable housing — to bring such high standards of design to their projects. This housing complex is so beautifully realized that I suspect it will win architectural awards. Show it off!
Jim MacKenzie
Resident, City of Santa Cruz

23.145
Brittany Inclan
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:06 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Renee Golder; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara
Subject: Item #23 on council agenda of 3/24/26
Attachments: Resolution No. NS-23-710.pdf; 2015 10 23 H041136-OPINION.pdf; 31 Notice of Entry of Order and Judgment.pdf
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council members,

I am writing in regards to Item #23 on your agenda, Regulations for Removal of Heritage Trees.

The staff report contains inaccuracies and omissions regarding heritage trees that you should be aware of before making any decision to move this agenda item forward.

The Staff Report nowhere cites the Criteria and Standards for heritage tree removal (see attached) which are objective standards. Staff vaguely refers to them but does not quote Criteria 1 (c) (3) which states that a heritage tree can be removed if "a construction project design cannot be altered to protect existing heritage trees or shrubs." There is nothing in the latest state housing laws that preclude the Heritage Tree Criteria and Standards from being applied to new housing projects. No reduction in the number of units is suggested under Criterion 1 (c)(3).

In 2015, a writ of mandate ordered the city to set aside its Heritage Tree Ordinance and resolution amendments and required compliance with CEQA. The Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that the City violated CEQA by attempting to amend the ordinance and criteria and standards without CEQA review. The appellate court’s opinion, and the judgment issued by the Superior Court in that case, are attached. There is no mention of that ruling and judgment in the Staff Report.

Therefore, I recommend you discard Item 6 on Heritage Tree Ordinance changes from the overall item.

Respectfully submitted,

23.146
Gillian

23.147

23.148

23.149
Filed 10/23/15

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SAVE OUR BIG TREES,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

H041136
(Santa Cruz County
Super. Ct. No. CV178084)
In 1976, the City of Santa Cruz (City) sought to protect its urban forest by adopting the “Heritage Tree Ordinance,” which governs the protection of large trees and trees having other significance. The City later adopted the “Heritage Tree Removal Resolution,” which governs the removal of heritage trees. In 2013, the City amended its Heritage Tree Ordinance and Heritage Tree Removal Resolution. The City concluded that these amendments (the Project) were categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)1because they assured the “maintenance, restoration, enhancement, and protection” of natural resources and the environment.

Plaintiff Save Our Big Trees contends the amendments weakened existing heritage tree protections such that the Project is not exempt from CEQA. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its amendments for failure to comply with CEQA.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying its writ petition.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Public Resources Code.

23.150
2 We find the City had the burden to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the Project falls within a categorical exemption to CEQA. The City failed to meet that burden. Therefore, we reverse and direct the trial court to issue a writ of mandate requiring the City to set aside the 2013 amendments to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and Heritage Tree Removal Resolution.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Heritage Tree Ordinance
Protection of heritage trees in the City began with the 1976 adoption of the Heritage Tree Ordinance, which established a permit process governing the preservation of heritage trees. In 1976, the Heritage Tree Ordinance defined “heritage tree” to mean “[a] tree which has a trunk with a circumference of fifty (50) inches . . . or more measured at twenty-four (24) inches above natural grade” or “[a] tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.”
In 1989, the Heritage Tree Ordinance’s protections were extended to “heritage shrub,” and “heritage tree” was redefined to include those trees with horticultural significance and those providing a valuable habitat. Later, “heritage tree” was again redefined as a tree “growing on public or private property within the City limits” if (1) its trunk had a circumference of at least 44 inches; (2) it had “historical significance” for reasons “including but not limited to” the fact that it was commemorative, planted during a particularly significant historical era, or marked the spot of a historical event; or (3) it had “horticultural significance” for reasons “including but not limited to” the fact that it was “[u]nusually beautiful or distinctive,” relatively old, of distinctive size or structure, a rare or unusual species for the area, provided a valuable habitat, or had been “[i]dentified by the City Council as having significant arboricultural value to the citizens of the City.”

23.151
3 B. The Heritage Tree Removal Resolution
In 1998, the City adopted the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution (resolution No.

NS-23,710), which established the “only circumstances” in which a heritage tree or shrub could be “altered or removed.” Those circumstances were: “(1) The heritage tree or heritage shrub has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way; [¶] (2) The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation, warrants alteration or removal; or [¶] (3) A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or shrubs.”
C. The Project
On October 22, 2013, the city council approved amendments to the Heritage Tree Ordinance (ordinance No. 2013-18). The city council also adopted amendments to the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution (resolution No. NS-28,706).2 We refer to these actions collectively as the Project, as the parties agree the revisions constitute a “project” to which CEQA applies unless it is exempt. (See San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1373 (San Lorenzo); §§ 21065, 21080.)

1. The Heritage Tree Ordinance Amendments
The City amended the Heritage Tree Ordinance in various ways, including the addition of a “purpose” section. Among other things, that section states that the purpose of the Heritage Tree Ordinance is “to recognize, protect, optimize and responsibly manage the community urban forest.” It also identifies ways in which trees “contribute

2 The City also amended a number of related ordinances and resolutions, including an ordinance governing the trimming and removal of trees on public property and a resolution establishing fees for permits to perform work affecting heritage trees.

However, plaintiff challenges only the amendments to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution.

23.152
4 beneficially to the urban environment and . . . to . . . the state’s climate action goals,” including by “reduc[ing] heat buildup, noise and air pollutants”; “improv[ing] air quality, reduc[ing] particulates, . . . provid[ing] oxygen”; and “providing erosion control.” As amended, the Heritage Tree Ordinance (section 9.56.020) requires the establishment of replanting requirements and deadlines for heritage tree alterations and removals. The prior version of the Heritage Tree Ordinance required the establishment of more general “mitigation requirements” and did not mention deadlines.

The Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments revised the definition of “heritage tree” in a number of ways, three of which are relevant here. First, the amendments eliminated references to (and protection of) shrubs. Second, the amendments provided trees can acquire the “heritage” designation because of their historical significance only if “designated by City Council Resolution as having historical significance, or listed on an approved City Area Planning Document or designated for protection through an approved zoning entitlement.” Third, the amendments provided trees can acquire the “heritage” designation because of their horticultural significance only if “designated by City Council Resolution as having horticultural significance.”
The prior Heritage Tree Ordinance (section 9.56.050) prohibited property owners from allowing specified conditions to exist because they may be harmful to heritage trees.

The amendments added a new prohibited condition--“[p]hysically damaging any heritage tree by way of topping, over-pruning, girdling, root loss, or poisoning of the heritage tree, or any action which may cause death, destruction or injury to the heritage tree or which places the heritage tree in a hazardous condition or in an irreversible state of decline.” The amendments also enacted various revisions to the Heritage Tree Ordinance’s penalty provisions (section 9.56.110), including the addition of a provision allowing the City to deny a property owner who has violated the Heritage Tree Ordinance any development approval or permit until all penalty fines and damages related to the violation are paid and replanting requirements are fulfilled.

23.153
5 2. The Heritage Tree Removal Resolution Amendments
The City amended the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution’s standards for the alteration or removal of heritage trees in two relevant ways.

First, it removed the provision allowing for removal of a heritage tree that “has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way” and replaced it with a provision allowing for removal of a heritage tree that “has created or is likely to create an unreasonable and substantial hardship for a public or private property owner, such as excessive degradation or damage to real property, an unreasonable financial or economic burden, or an adverse effect on personal health such as allergies or physical mobility.” Second, the City introduced additional circumstances under which heritage nonnative invasive trees may be removed. The amended Hertiage Tree Ordinance defines “non-native invasive species” as “any blue gum eucalyptus . . . or acacia species growing within the city limits of Santa Cruz.” Under the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution, two or more non-native invasive heritage trees growing on a single parcel outside of a biotic resource area may be removed if: “(i) removal is required for defensible space clearance; [¶] (ii) [the] trees are poorly structured or overcrowded; [¶] (iii) [the] tree(s) are likely to cause personal injury or an unreasonable and substantial hardship for a public or private property owner; or [¶] (iv) [the] trees are likely to be invasive and outcompete native vegetation.” Two or more non-native invasive heritage trees growing on a single parcel inside of a biotic resource area3 may be removed if one

3 For purposes of the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution, “biotic resource area” means biotic resource area “as defined in the City’s General Plan or protected by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, SCMC (Santa Cruz Municipal Code) Title 24, including designated riparian corridors, regulated slope areas and/or within areas requiring a coastal permit within the State Coastal Zone.”

23.154
6 of those four circumstances is satisfied and “a qualified biologist . . . [confirms] that removal or significant alteration will not adversely impact or degrade existing habit.” C. Administrative Proceedings
The City’s parks and recreation commission (the Commission) began considering changes to the Heritage Tree Ordinance after the position of urban forester was reduced from a full-time position to a three-quarter position in early 2009. With the goal of reducing the urban forester’s workload, the parks and recreation staff (Staff) recommended excluding from the Heritage Tree Ordinance heritage shrubs and nonnative invasive species (blue gum eucalyptus and acacia) living outside the biotic resource area. The Commission created a subcommittee to consider amendments to the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

In addition to excluding non-native invasive species living outside the biotic resource areas from the Heritage Tree Ordinance, the subcommittee recommended eliminating or revising the provisions designating trees with historical or horticultural significance as heritage trees. The latter recommendation was based on the subcommittee’s view that those subdivisions were subjective. Staff opposed the latter recommendation and opined that “[t]he change would . . . trigger a need for further review and approvals including CEQA and an environmental determination.”4The subcommittee’s proposed revisions were discussed at a May 2009 commission meeting.

At that meeting, the City fire chief spoke in support of excluding non-native invasive species from the Heritage Tree Ordinance due to the fire hazard those species pose.

The Commission considered revising the Heritage Tree Ordinance at two additional meetings in 2009; it next addressed the issue in November 2011. At that time,

4 Staff’s use of the phrase “the change” renders its comment ambiguous. It is unclear whether Staff believed only eliminating the historical and horticultural significance provisions would require CEQA review or if it believed merely revising those provisions also would trigger CEQA.

23.155
7 Staff opined that the proposed exclusion of non-native invasive species living outside biotic resource areas from the Heritage Tree Ordinance “would trigger significant environmental review and possibly an EIR [(environmental impact report)].” In June 2012, Staff informed the Commission it would cost $52,000 to perform “a defensible environmental review” of the proposal to exclude non-native invasive trees from the Heritage Tree Ordinance because the City would need to determine the “number of non-native trees that could hypothetically be removed.” Staff recommended the Commission not move forward with the proposed exclusion of non-native invasive species from the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The Commission disagreed, electing to retain the proposed provision excluding non-native invasive species from the Heritage Tree Ordinance’s definition of heritage tree.

Accordingly, Staff devised what it described as “an alternative approach to include the removal of heritage size non-native invasive species that satisfies environmental review requirements.” Rather than excluding non-native invasive trees from the definition of heritage trees in the Heritage Tree Ordinance, Staff proposed amending the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution to allow for the removal of non-native invasive heritage trees growing outside biotic resource areas and those growing inside biotic resource areas with confirmation from a qualified biologist that removal would not adversely impact or degrade existing habitats. Staff also proposed amending the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution to permit the removal of a heritage tree that “has created or is likely to create an unreasonable and substantial hardship for a private property owner such as, excessive degradation or damage to real property, an unreasonable financial or economic burden, or an adverse effect on personal health such as allergies or physical mobility.” Staff characterized the later proposed revision as giving “Commissions and City Council . . . increased discretion.”
Staff concluded that, as modified, the Project was exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemptions set forth in sections 15307 and 15308 of the CEQA guidelines

23.156
8 (Guidelines).
5 Those exemptions apply to actions taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15307, 15308.) In support of that conclusion, Staff noted that while the proposed revisions to the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution “may allow for the removal of additional non-native trees,” they “would not necessarily have the potential for causing a cumulative impact or significant effect on the environment” because “[t]he City is not requiring the removal of non-native invasive tree species[,] . . . [and] removing large trees is frequently financially limiting [such that] it is unlikely that the probability of large numbers of trees being removed would increase.”
On January 14, 2013, the Commission voted to recommend the proposed Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments and the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution amendments to the city council.

The city council considered the Project at its September 24, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the City’s urban forester explained that blue gum eucalyptus and acacia trees are considered invasive because “[t]hey can out compete native habitats, and they are very prolific about propagating.” She also noted that those species “can contribute to dangerous fire conditions because of the fuel load that’s produced by these trees, the rate of growth, the fact that the embers can . . . smolder on the leaves and start new fires.” Members of the public spoke at the meeting, including an individual representing plaintiff, who argued CEQA review was necessary. Those who opposed the Project largely expressed the view that it would be too easy to cut down heritage trees under the proposed revised scheme. They said blue gum eucalyptus trees benefit the environment

5 The term “CEQA Guidelines” refers to the regulations for the implementation of CEQA authorized by the Legislature (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083), codified in title 14, section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations, and “prescribed by the Secretary of Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of [CEQA].” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15000.)

23.157
9 by serving as wind breaks; providing habitats for butterflies, birds, and other wildlife; and removing carbon dioxide from the air. Those who spoke in favor of the Project addressed their desire to remove blue gum eucalyptus trees because they crowd out native plants and trees and generate a significant amount of debris, making them difficult to maintain and a fire hazard. The fire chief spoke about the fire danger associated with eucalyptus trees. He explained that “[t]he big issues with the eucalyptus are the litter and the volume of litter beneath the tree that doesn’t get cleaned up. And when that catches fire, it burns very hot, and it’s very oily.” With respect to defensible space, the fire chief explained that the concern generally is not with removing trees but with “cleaning out the undergrowth.”
Also on September 24, 2013, counsel representing plaintiff sent the city council a letter arguing the Project was not exempt from CEQA and a letter from Travis Longcore, Ph.D., a geographer, ecologist, and professor of bioresource management, environmental impact analysis, field ecology, and environmental science. In his letter to the city council, Dr. Longcore opined that the Project would result in the removal of trees and shrubs, which could lead to the destruction of bird nests and could impact storm water runoff, carbon sequestration, and energy consumption. He also noted that eucalyptus trees provide a habitat for butterflies and birds.

At an October 22, 2013 meeting, the city council again considered the Project.

Staff presented three options for amending the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution.

Option No. 1 was Staff’s original proposal. It included “changing [the] restrictions for non-native invasive trees” and “a damage or a hardship clause” permitting the removal of a heritage tree that has “created, or is likely to create an unreasonable and substantial hardship for private property owners such as excessive damage or degradation of property, unreasonable financial or economic burden, or an adverse effect on personal health such as allergies and physical mobility.” Option No. 2 was “almost identical to the existing policy,” but was a “little bit broader,” according to the urban forester. It did not

23.158
10 include the additional criteria allowing for the removal of non-native invasive trees, “so blue gum and acacia would be treated as any other heritage tree,” and it did not allow for the removal of a heritage tree based on unreasonable financial or economic burden.

Option No. 3, described as “a compromise” between options Nos. 1 and 2, included the additional criteria allowing for the removal of non-native invasive trees, but did not allow for heritage tree removal due to unreasonable financial or economic burden.

With respect to the CEQA issue, one councilmember, who ultimately voted against the Project, stated: “I guess what I’m thinking about this is that it’s a weird sort of circular thing because for me, the only reason to change the ordinance is to allow people to cut down trees more, you know, if we want to prioritize human uses, whether it’s allergies, or protecting property, or whatever. And I think that’s a reasonable thing to do. I mean, you know, that’s a reasonable judgment call on the part of the Council and the community. [¶] But then I understand that if we’re allowing more people to cut down more trees, that we’re in trouble with the Environmental Quality Act. So, you know, I feel kind of stuck.”
The city council approved the Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments and option No. 1 for amending the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution. The city council adopted and approved Staff’s determination that the Project was exempt from CEQA.

The City filed a notice of exemption from CEQA on October 24, 2013.

D. Judicial Proceedings
Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate on November 1, 2013. The trial court denied the petition, ruling that substantial evidence supported the city council’s determination that the Project was exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308, and entered judgment in favor of the City. Plaintiff timely appealed.

23.159
11 II. DISCUSSION
A. Overview of CEQA
“ ‘[T]he overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage.’ ” (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 687.) The statute and its implementing regulations, the CEQA Guidelines, “prescribe[] review procedures a public agency must follow before approving or carrying out certain projects.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1091-1092 (Berkeley).) CEQA review procedures can be viewed as a “ ‘three-tiered process.’ ” (San Lorenzo, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1372.) The first tier requires an agency to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed project. (Ibid.) If CEQA applies, the agency must proceed to the second tier of the process by conducting an initial study of the project. (Id. at p. 1373.) Among the purposes of the initial study is to help “to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an environmental impact report (EIR).” (Ibid.) If there is “no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment,” the agency prepares a negative declaration. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(2).) Alternatively, if “ ‘the initial study identifies potential significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans “would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur” and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be used.’ ” (Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1101.) Finally, if the initial study uncovers “substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd.

23.160
12 (b)(1)), the agency must proceed to the third tier of the review process and prepare a full EIR. (San Lorenzo, supra, at p. 1373.)
This case concerns the first tier of review--whether the Project is subject to CEQA review. Several categories of projects are statutorily exempt from CEQA review for policy reasons. (Berkeley, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1092, citing § 21080, subd. (b)(1)- (15).) Other classes of projects are “ ‘categorically exempt’ ” from CEQA review because the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency “ ‘has found’ . . . [they] ‘do not have a significant effect on the environment.’ ” (Berkeley, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1092; CEQA Guidelines, § 15300; § 21084, subd. (a).)
Among the categorical exemptions is the class 7 exemption for “actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15307.) Another categorical exemption, the class 8 exemption, is very similar; it exempts “actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” (Id., § 15308.)
“[A categorical] exemption can be relied on only if a factual evaluation of the agency’s proposed activity reveals that it applies.” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.) “[T]he agency invoking the [categorical] exemption has the burden of demonstrating” that substantial evidence supports its factual finding that the project fell within the exemption. (Ibid.) B. Standard of Review
“When faced with a challenge to an agency’s exemption determination, the court considers whether the agency proceeded in the manner required by law and whether its determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (San Lorenzo, supra, 139

23.161
13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1381.) The interpretation of an exemption presents a question of law subject to our independent review. (Id. at pp. 1382, 1387.) “But ‘the substantial evidence test governs our review of the [agency’s] factual determination that a project falls within a categorical exemption.’ ” (Id. at p. 1382.) In the CEQA context, substantial evidence “means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (id., subd. (b)), but not “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment.” (Id., subd. (a).)
C. The Scope of the Class 7 and Class 8 Exemptions
Our first task is to independently interpret the class 7 and class 8 exemptions.6 Specifically, at issue here is the meaning of the phrase “actions . . . to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement” as it is used in those exemptions.

6 The two exemptions, set forth in full below, are nearly identical. Class 7 applies actions to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource; class 8 applies actions to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. For simplicity, we consider the exemptions together, asking whether the Project constitutes an action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement” of the environment.

The class 7 exemption provides, in full: “Class 7 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Examples include but are not limited to wildlife preservation activities of the State Department of Fish and Game.

Construction activities are not included in this exemption.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15307.)
(continued)

23.162
14 Case law is instructive as to which actions fall within these exemptions, and which do not. The prohibition of an activity that evidence shows is associated with “environmental problems, [such as] the contamination of farmland,” constitutes an action to assure “protection of the environment.” (Magan v. County of Kings (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 468, 476 [ordinance phasing out “the land application of sewage sludge” fell within class 8 exemption].) By contrast, actions that remove existing wildlife protections, authorize and regulate hunting, or relax existing environmental safeguards do not assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125 (Mountain Lion) [action that “removes rather than secures . . . protections [of animal species]” does not fall within class 7 or class 8 exemption]; Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205 (Chickering) [setting of hunting seasons does not fall within class 77 exemption because such an action “cannot fairly or readily be characterized as a preservation activity in a strict sense”]; International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265, 276 (International Longshoremen’s) [amendment doubling the allowable emissions of gases the Legislature has determined are dangerous substances did not fall within class 7 or class 8 exemption8
].)

The class 8 exemption provides, in full: “Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15308.)
7 Chickering involved a prior version of the class 7 exemption that was substantially similar to the current class 7 exemption. (Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 204; CEQA Guidelines, § 15307.)
8 International Longshoremen’s applied prior versions of the class 7 and class 8 exemptions that were substantially similar to the current class 7 and class 8 exemptions. (continued)

23.163
15 These legal guideposts indicate that, consistent with its plain language, the phrase “actions . . . to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement” embraces projects that combat environmental harm, but not those that diminish existing environmental protections. The parties acknowledge as much, recognizing that the Project is exempt only if it does not weaken existing heritage tree protections. However, as discussed below, they dispute how this court should determine the Project’s impact.

D. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support the City’s Determination That the Project is Categorically Exempt From CEQA
According to the City, we must look at the Project “as a whole” to determine whether it will strengthen or weaken existing heritage tree protections. By contrast, plaintiff argues that if the Project will have any “unfavorable” impact on a natural resource or the environment then it is not exempt, regardless of whether it will also have other, “favorable” impacts.

The CEQA Guidelines’ definition of “project” as meaning “the whole of an action” appears to provide at least some support for the City’s view that only the Project’s overall impact matters. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378.) However, the City does not cite to that provision, nor to any other authority, to support its position. Plaintiff relies on the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Chickering that the class 7 exemption did not apply to an action with “the potential for a significant environmental impact, both favorable and unfavorable.” (Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 206 [“[w]hen the impact [of a project] may be either adverse or beneficial, it is particularly appropriate to apply CEQA which is carefully conceived for the purpose of increasing the likelihood that the environmental effects will be beneficial rather than adverse”].) But, in Berkeley, the Supreme Court distanced itself from that portion of Chickering, describing it as

(International Longshoremen’s, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 276; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15307, 15308.)

23.164
16 “unnecessary to resolve the case . . . [and] summary.” (Berkeley, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1107.)
We need not decide which approach is correct. Even if we consider the full complement of revisions together, as the City urges, substantial evidence does not support the City’s determination that the Project constitutes an action “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement” of the environment for the reasons discussed below. We begin by discussing each aspect of the Project separately, before addressing whether--taken together--they strengthen or weaken existing heritage tree protections.

1. The Heritage Tree Ordinance Amendments
With respect to the Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments, the City concedes that the revisions mean trees can no longer be designated as heritage “based on little more than a whim,” such as a person’s decision to plant a tree as a “commemorative” to a deceased pet. Instead, as revised, the Heritage Tree Ordinance requires a city council resolution before a tree can acquire the “heritage” designation because of its historical or horticultural significance. According to the City, “[r]eplacing subjective standards with objective and scientific criteria does not weaken tree protections.” But the implication of the City’s own brief is that, under the amended Heritage Tree Ordinance, a “commemorative” tree planted for a deceased pet will not acquire heritage tree protection. Thus, the Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments remove protection from such trees, much like the delisting at issue in Mountain Lion removed protection for Mojave ground squirrels.

The City emphasizes that other revisions to the Heritage Tree Ordinance strengthen the protection of heritage trees. For example, the Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments require the imposition of deadlines for the planting of new trees when a heritage tree is removed; add new restrictions on the treatment of heritage trees to protect them from death, destruction, or injury; and add additional penalties for property owners who violate the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Other revisions merely clarify the Heritage

23.165
17 Tree Ordinance, the City points out. For instance, as revised, the Heritage Tree Ordinance specifies that measuring standards defined by the International Society of Arboriculture should be used in determining whether a tree meets the heritage tree size requirement.

2. The Heritage Tree Removal Resolution Amendments
The Heritage Tree Removal Resolution amendments made two significant changes to the City’s heritage tree scheme. First, the amendments introduced new justifications for removing any heritage tree, including that the tree “has created or is likely to create . . . an unreasonable financial or economic burden [on a public or private property owner]” or “has created or is likely to create . . . an adverse effect on [the] personal health [of a public or private property owner] such as allergies or physical mobility.” The urban forester and city council members recognized that these new justifications relaxed the limitations on removing heritage trees. The urban forester explained that her ability to consider a particular heritage tree removal permit application would be “broader” under the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution because she could “consider unreasonable financial or economic burdens.” One councilmember described the new justifications as “allow[ing] people to cut down trees more” and “prioritiz[ing] human uses, whether it’s allergies, or protecting property, or whatever.” Another councilmember characterized the resolution as “loosening” the heritage tree removal criteria.

Second, the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution introduced additional justifications for removing two or more non-native invasive heritage trees growing on a single parcel. For example, the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution permits the removal of two or more non-native invasive heritage trees growing on a single parcel outside of a biotic resource area if the trees “are likely to be invasive and outcompete native vegetation.” Record evidence shows non-native invasive heritage trees are, by definition, invasive because they outcompete native vegetation. As Staff explained to the

23.166
18 city council in a June 2013 agenda report, acacia and blue gum eucalyptus trees “were isolated because they grow at a high rate of speed and can spread prolifically, outcompeting the vegetation in native habitats.” Accordingly, the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution appears to effectively remove heritage tree protection from groves of non-native invasive trees growing outside of a biotic resource area. One councilmember reached the same conclusion, noting that the resolution “lists [as] one of the criterions for cutting down presumably the entire grove [of eucalyptus] . . . that trees are likely to be invasive and out compete native vegetation. [¶] Well, the trees have already been described as non-native invasive trees, so it would appear purely on the [resolution] . . . that any of the non-native invasive trees could be cut down based on being invasive and non-native because by definition they’re invasive and non-native.” The amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution expands opportunities to cut down protected trees. Stated differently, it relaxes existing protections for heritage trees, just as the amendment at issue in International Longshoremen’s relaxed emissions standards. Both the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution’s plain language and the record evidence discussed above support that conclusion.

The City does not deny that the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution allows for the removal of heritage trees in circumstances where removal was not previously permitted. Instead, the City argues that its intent is not to “encourage” tree removal. But that is irrelevant. In Mountain Lion, the Fish and Game Commission did not encourage the killing of Mojave ground squirrels, it merely took the species off the threatened species list. Nevertheless, our Supreme Court concluded that, because the action “remove[d] rather than secure[d] . . . protections, the categorical exemption for actions assuring the maintenance, preservation or enhancement of a natural resource set forth in sections 15307 and 15308 of the Guidelines [did] not apply.” (Mountain Lion, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 125.) Likewise, in Chickering the Fish and Game Commission did

23.167
19 not encourage the hunting of black bears, it merely allowed it, an action held not to be exempt.

The City further argues that, in practice, the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution will not result in more heritage tree removals because (1) an applicant must file an application for a heritage tree removal permit (the granting of which is subject to appeal), (2) the urban forester stated she will continue to evaluate removal permit applications from an arboricultural and fact-based perspective, and (3) tree removal is costly. The City goes so far as to suggest the revisions it spent years formulating were not necessary. In support of its argument, the City notes plaintiff has not cited any evidence that the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution will “encourage or require the removal of any one particular tree or group of trees” or that such removal would “constitute a significant environmental impact.”
We are unpersuaded by this attempt to cloak the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution with the protection of the class 7 and class 8 exemptions for three reasons.

First, because the City is invoking the class 7 and class 8 exemptions, it bears the burden to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the Project constitutes an action to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 386.) Plaintiff bears no burden to show the Project will degrade the environment or deplete a natural resource, as the City implies.

Second, the question before us is not whether the Project will have a significant effect on the environment but whether substantial evidence supports the determination that it will assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. In the past, our Supreme Court appeared to suggest that whether a project is categorically exempt turns on whether it may have a significant effect on the environment. For instance, in Chickering, the court noted that because “[t]he secretary is empowered to exempt only those activities which do not have a significant effect on the environment”

23.168
20 (Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 205), “[i]t follows that where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper.” (Id. at p. 206.) The court echoed that point in Mountain Lion, stating “a categorical exemption represents a determination by the Secretary that a particular project does not have a significant effect on the environment”; “[i]t follows that an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt.” (Mountain Lion, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 124.) However, the court recently characterized those statements as “tangential,” “unnecessary,” and “summary.” (Berkeley, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1107, 1109.) The Berkeley majority rejected the contention that “a showing of a fair argument of a potential environmental effect precludes application of all categorical exemptions.” (Id. at p. 1102.) Thus, under Berkeley, whether the Project will have a significant effect on the environment is not the standard for determining whether it falls within a categorical exemption. Here, the standard is whether substantial evidence supports the determination that the Project will assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. Even assuming the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution will not actually result in additional tree removals (despite allowing for them), that does not render it an action to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment.

Third, to the extent the number of likely tree removals is relevant, the City has failed to show the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution will not increase that number. Common sense dictates that permits to remove heritage trees under the circumstances introduced by the amended Heritage Tree Removal Resolution can and will properly be granted by the urban forester. As one councilmember put it, “if you’re going to cut down trees because of allergies, then you’re going to have more trees cut down because that’s different from how it was before. So, you know, whether we think that’s a good idea or not, in terms of trying to figure out whether it would result in more trees being cut down, that seems pretty clear.” And members of the public expressed a

23.169
21 desire to remove heritage blue gum eucalyptus trees at the city council meeting; it would be speculative to conclude they cannot afford to do so. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a) [substantial evidence does not include speculation].)

3. The City Failed to Carry its Burden to Demonstrate the Project is an Action to Assure the Maintenance, Preservation, or Enhancement of the Environment
Viewed “on the whole,” as the City says is proper, the Project (1) removed heritage tree protection from certain trees, (2) expanded opportunities to cut down protected heritage trees, and (3) strengthened the protection of those trees that continue to qualify as heritage and are not subject to removal. In other words, it enacted a scheme that protects fewer heritage trees more effectively. “Because [the Project] removes rather than secures . . . protections” from some undefined number of heritage trees, “the categorical exemption[s] for actions assuring the maintenance, preservation or enhancement of a natural resource [or the environment] set forth in sections 15307 and 15308 of the Guidelines do[] not apply.” (Mountain Lion, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 125.) The City’s replanting requirement--under which every heritage tree removed with City approval must be replaced by three 15 gallon trees or one 24 inch size boxed specimen tree--does not alter our conclusion. The City identifies no evidence that those replacement trees will contribute beneficially to the urban environment in the same way as the removed heritage tree by, for example, storing the same amount of carbon.

Accordingly, the City has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the Project will assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support application of the class 7 and class 8 exemptions.

III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to grant plaintiff’s petition and to issue a writ of mandate directing the City of Santa Cruz to set aside (1) its

23.170
22 adoption of the Heritage Tree Ordinance amendments (ordinance No. 2013-18) and the Heritage Tree Removal Resolution amendment (resolution No. NS-28,706) and (2) its October 24, 2013 notice of exemption. Plaintiff is awarded its costs on appeal.

23.171

Walsh, J.*
WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Elia, J.

Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz et al.

H041136

*
Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

23.172
Trial Court: Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Superior Court No. CV178084
Trial Judge: Hon. Paul M. Marigonda
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:

Save Our Big Trees
Wittwer Parkin
William P. Parkin
Jonathan Wittwer
Counsel for Defendant/Respondent:

City of Santa Cruz
Remy Moose Manley
Sabrina V. Teller
Jeannie Lee
Atchison, Barisone, Condotti &
Kovacevich
John G. Barisone
Lauren C. Valk
Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz et al.

H041136

23.173

23.174

23.175

23.176

23.177

23.178

23.179

23.180

23.181

23.182
Brittany Inclan
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:54 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 3-24 City Council Meeting Comment Letter
Attachments: 2026-03-24 SCCC Agenda Item #23 .pdf
Please find attached Santa Cruz YIMBY's comment letter in support of the staff recommendations pertaining to Discussion of Potential Approaches to City Council Direction on Objective Design Standards, Expanding the Concept of the Downtown Density Bonus, and Regulations for the Removal of Heritage Trees (CD)

23.183
March 24, 2026
Re: Support for Staff Recommendations on Design Standards, Density Bonus, and Heritage Tree Regulations
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of Santa Cruz YIMBY, we are writing to express our strong support for the staff recommendations contained in the March 19, 2026 agenda report regarding objective design standards, the Downtown Density Bonus, and heritage tree regulations. Santa Cruz continues to face a severe housing shortage, and the City’s ability to meet its housing goals—particularly across income levels—depends on adopting policies that make housing production more feasible, predictable, and timely. We believe the staff recommendations move the City meaningfully in that direction.

The Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout is the most practical tool available given how broadly the State Density Bonus Law preempts local standards. Pairing it with real incentives — expedited review, ministerial approval — is the key. Because the State Density Bonus Law allows developers to waive or modify local standards, rigid or overly prescriptive requirements are often ineffective. By contrast, voluntary guidelines paired with meaningful incentives can influence project design without undermining feasibility. Guidelines without incentives don't get used.

We agree with the decision not to pursue a citywide density bonus expansion. The economics don't pencil outside of downtown, developer feedback confirmed that, and spending $500K+ on an EIR for a program that likely won't be competitive with the state density bonus law isn't a good use of resources. The alternative approach — ministerial approval for State DBL projects that meet Council design priorities — achieves the same goals more efficiently and without triggering CEQA.

On heritage trees: the current subjective standard isn't enforceable because of state law anyway. New objective standards with strong replacement ratios and real retention incentives will provide more consistent protection than what the City has now.

We encourage the Council to adopt the staff recommendations and we look forward to the community engagement process this summer.

Respectfully,
Janine Roeth, Volunteer Lead,
Rafa Sonnenfeld, Volunteer Lead

23.184
Brittany Inclan
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:56 PM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Fred Keeley; Gabriela Trigueiro; Renee Golder; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara
Subject: Issue regarding Latino reference in Item #23
Dear Mayor and Council members,
In the Agenda report for item #23 on tomorrow's agenda, there is a section describing the objective standards process in 2022. I participated in that process; attending all the meetings, responding to surveys and submitting comments on the final documents submitted to council for review and adoption.

At that time, I commented on the fact that while outreach was done to the Latino community to solicit their input, their input was omitted from the final report. Specifically, Latinos did not favor the tall buildings option. Their preference was captured in the pie graphs but omitted from the narrative. I pointed out that discrepancy and was told it would be corrected.

The current staff report includes mention of that outreach to the Latino community but once again silences their voice. The current Agenda Report summarizing the work from 2022 says the community expressed support for taller buildings with no mention that Latinos did not choose that option.

In my opinion, to do outreach to a marginalized community and then omit what they say is not commendable.

Sincerely,
Gillian

23.185
Brittany Inclan
From: Blake milam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:04 PM
To: Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder; City Council
Subject: Agenda item 23, Council meeting of March 24, 2026 Regarding Agenda item 23, Council meeting of March 24, 2026 Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
When considering proposals from the Planning Department to alter the Heritage Tree Ordinance, one should remember that the citizens (voters) of Santa Cruz have consistently expressed their desire that our heritage trees and environment should be protected. While attitudes in City Hall seem to have changed into a pro-development fervor regardless of the consequences, I and many voters of the City of Santa Cruz would not favor the Planning Department's attempts to weaken the Heritage Tree Ordinance under the guise of improving it. Please send a strong message to Planning that the objective details and intent of the Heritage Tree Ordinance must be preserved.

Thank you,
Blake Milam

23.186
Design Guidelines,
Downtown Density Bonus
Expansion & Heritage Trees
Community Development
City Council | March 24, 2026

23.187
Project Context
Responding to Council Direction in 2025:

1. Objective Design Standards

2. Downton Density Bonus Expansion

3. Objective Standards for Heritage Tree
Removals

23.188
Proposed Approaches

1. Objective Design Standards
I. Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout
II. Council determined priorities
III. Design professional and community outreach

2. Downtown Density Bonus Expansion
I. Explore utilizing incentives associated with the Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout to achieve Council goals

3. Objective Standards for Heritage Trees
I. Objective standards and incentives to regulate heritage tree removal
II. Community outreach

23.189
Objective Design Standards
1 23.190
Objective Design Standards:

Adopted 2022 and updated 2025

23.191
Council Direction: Objective Standards Toolkit
“A proposal to develop an objective design standards toolkit to ensure our standards are readily accessible by developers and members of the public and can be updated on a regular basis to respond to evolving community perspectives on design values.”

23.192
State Density Bonus Law:

1. Incentives/Concessions

2. Waivers

3. Inclusionary Housing

23.193
State Density Bonus allows deviation from:

Height limits Floor Area Ratio requirements
Setback requirements Architectural design requirements

23.194
Proposed Approach:

23.195
Draft Handout:

To be informed by
design professionals
and the community

23.196
Draft Handout:

23.197
Compliance Incentives

23.198
Downtown Density Bonus Expansion Concept
2 23.199
Council Direction: Expanding the Downtown
Density Bonus
“A proposal to evaluate an expansion of the Downtown Density Bonus citywide, including leveraging the Architectural Review Committee outside of the Downtown Plan Expansion area.”

23.200
Options Explored:

Development Priorities:
• Regulated building heights
• Required rear property line setbacks
Potential Incentives:
• Modified inclusionary housing
requirement
• Option to provide inclusionary
housing offsite

23.201
State Density Bonus Law:

Allows for up to a 100%
increase in density
Allows a broad range of
deviations from
development standards
No restrictions on height
or required setbacks

23.202
Recommendation: Cease further exploration
Triggers Environmental
Impact Report – a costly
two-year process
Other time-sensitive
work plan items will be
delayed
Outcompeting the State
Density Bonus would
come at too great a cost
to City values around
inclusionary housing

23.203
Proposed Alternative:
• Leverage State Density Bonus
• Utilize Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout and allow ministerial approval for projects that comply with
Council Priorities

23.204
Why the proposed alternative could work:

Does not trigger an
Environmental Impact
Report
Aligns with Council goals
by promoting use of the
Design Guidelines &
Priorities Handout
Ministerial approvals are
the way to outcompete
the State Density Bonus

23.205
Objective Standards for Heritage Tree Removals
3 23.206
Council Direction: Review Heritage Tree Ordinance
“Taking into account the many recent changes to state law that limit cities’ abilities to preserve heritage trees, particularly for multi-family housing projects, direct staff to consider Council and community feedback from this item and related items and return to the City Council within six months to review options for proposed revisions to the heritage tree removal requirements that promote the City’s environmental values, including at a minimum an analysis of the creation of objective standards for heritage tree removals and clarification of the processes related to heritage tree removals.”

23.207
Existing Heritage Tree Ordinance
The construction project design cannot be altered
to accommodate existing heritage trees or shrubs

23.208
State law restrictions for multifamily housing
Cannot be subjective Cannot vaguely require
redesign
Cannot decrease density
or make a project
infeasible

23.209
What can the City do?
Objective Standards:
• Tree removal criteria
• Replacement trees
• In-lieu fees
• Protection of retained trees
• Productive lumber re-use
Incentives:
• Development standard deviation

23.210
Proposed Approach
• Leverage existing work on ministerial review of
100% affordable housing
• Community input

23.211
Next Steps

1. Objective Design
Standards
• Conduct engagement with
the community and industry
professionals
• Return to Council in Fall
2026 to present updates
and for priority and
incentive setting
• Update the Design
Guidelines & Priorities
Handout with incentive
program

2. Downtown Density
Bonus Expansion
• Cease exploration of
expanding the downtown
density bonus to other
areas of the city
• Explore alternative:
leveraging State Density
Bonus, Design Guidelines &
Priorities Handout, and
ministerial approvals for
projects in compliance

3. Objective Standards for
Heritage Trees
• Additional analysis
• Community outreach
• Ordinance development

23.212
Motion to:
1) Proceed with the proposed direction for the Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout; 2) Further develop the handout through engagement with design professionals and the community;
3) Return to Council in Fall 2026 for Council’s priority setting, coupled with incentives for complying with the Council’s priorities;
4) Not further explore the feasibility of expanding the Downtown Density Bonus concept to other areas of the City;
5) Explore an alternative to expanding the Downtown Density Bonus concept through incentives associated with the Design Guidelines & Priorities Handout that achieve similar City Council goals related to the Downtown Density Bonus expansion concept; and 6) Prepare draft updates to heritage tree regulations for housing development projects and direct staff to return to Council with a proposed ordinance in Fall 2026.

Recommendation

23.213