Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, June 23, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

What Is the Prohousing
Designation?
• Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) program • Gives priority/points for grants
• Eligibility for programs (such as PIP)
The City received a Prohousing
designation in 2023  expires
January 1, 2027

30.7 Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 3 of 8 ends

Prohousing Designation Application
This action does not:
• Approve any new housing projects
• Change zoning, policies, or
development standards
• Increase housing targets
• Authorize construction
Council Action:
• Authorize City submittal of a NEW app
 unlocks access to funding
incentives/priority points

30.8 Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 4 of 8 ends

As of April 1, 2026:
74 Designated jurisdictions statewide
Out of 58 counties and over 450+ municipalities

30.9 How the Designation
has been used
Already helped leverage state funding:
• $500K award: Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
• Supports rental assistance and emergency
eviction prevention for lower-income
households
• Community Action Board (CAB)
Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 5 of 8 ends

30.10 Prohousing Incentive Program
• Prohousing allowed the City to apply for another round of PIP
Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 6 of 8 ends

PIP
AHSC Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities
• Gave the City bonus points to be competitive and successful for funding HE Housing Element
• References City’s Prohousing designation
Other ways Prohousing helps the City
Other Affordable Housing projects can leverage this too.

30.11 Additional Grant Incentives • Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) • Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
• Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG)
• Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
• Solutions for Congested Corridors
• Local Partnership Program
• Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
• Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (STPG)
Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 7 of 8 ends

30.12 Recommendation
Motion to:

1. Adopt a resolution to apply for a new Prohousing Designation from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD); and

2. Authorize the Director of Community Development to execute and deliver the application and any related program documents required for participation in the Prohousing Designation Program.

Prohousing Designation Program | City of Santa Cruz

Page 8 of 8 ends

30.13 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 06/01/2026
AGENDA OF: 06/23/2026
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Two Resolutions Ordering an Election on November 3, 2026: 1) To add Four Charter Amendment Ballot Measures, and 2) To add a Mayoral Election (CC)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution ordering an election to be held on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the voters four measures to amend the City Charter; and 2) Adopt a resolution ordering an election to be held on November 3, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the voters the two Mayoral candidates who received the most votes in the June 2, 2026 Primary election.

BACKGROUND:

Measure: At a public hearing held on April 14, 2026, staff presented to the City Council (Council) a list of proposed amendments to the City Charter (Charter) that, if directed by Council, would be placed on the November 2026 ballot for consideration by the electors of the City. As required by the Government Code, a second public hearing was held on May 26, 2026, during which staff presented the same proposed amendments, along with two suggested changes submitted by a member of the public.

Prior to the second public hearing, staff’s outreach efforts consisted of the creation of a dedicated page on the City’s website containing the materials presented at the April 14 meeting and used social media to share information with the public, expanding opportunities for the public to review the proposed amendments and submit input to the City Clerk via email. In addition, the Mayor addressed the proposed amendments and the process in the Mayor’s Message published in the Sentinel. Following the close of the May 26 public hearing, Council directed staff to return with a resolution to place a Charter amendment measure on the November ballot without modifications to the amendments presented by staff.

31.1 The City Attorney’s Office recommends that the proposed Charter amendments take the form of four distinct ballot measures, so that each measure more clearly covers a single subject or theme, consistent with Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution.

Mayoral election: On June 2, 2026, the City held an election for three Council seats – Districts 4 and 6, and Mayor. Districts 4 and 6 each had two candidates, which ensures a victor at that election. However, the Mayoral election consisted of five candidates. In the event that not one singular candidate receives 50% plus 1 of the votes, a runoff election on November 3, 2026 will be needed.

DISCUSSION: A resolution is required to call an election for consolidation with any election.

One resolution being presented to Council would place four Charter Amendment ballot measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The resolution also requests consolidation of the election and requests that the County Elections Department conduct the election. Arguments for or against this measure are due August 13, 2026. Council may provide guidance on and appoint signers for the measure, if desired. Rebuttals to the arguments for or against are due August 20, 2026.

A second resolution being presented to Council is to call an election for the purpose of electing a Mayor. The County Elections Department could not legally certify the election results in time for this City Council meeting; therefore, it has not yet been determined whether a runoff election is needed, or, if so, which two candidates would appear on the ballot. Due to the July recess, and because Council will not meet again before the deadline to submit a resolution to the County Clerk, staff has brought forward a resolution for adoption in the event a runoff Mayoral election is necessary. If no runoff election is required and a single candidate receives 50% plus 1 of the votes, staff will return to Council in August with an item to rescind the adopted resolution.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a "project" under CEQA.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): This aligns with the HiAP Equity pillar as elections provide an opportunity for broad community engagement in local initiatives and policy decisions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The total cost of the election is estimated to be in the range of $96,540 to $193,080 ($2.50 - $5 per voter), based on figures provided by the County Elections Department. This cost has already been accounted for in the FY 2027 budget.

Prepared By:

Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

31.2 ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURES.DOCX

2. RESOLUTION FOR MAYOR SEAT.DOCX

31.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ORDERING AN

ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING FOUR MEASURES ON THE BALLOT TO

AMEND THE CITY CHARTER, REQUESTING COUNTY ELECTIONS TO CONDUCT

THE ELECTION, AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the governing body of any city may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city relating to the conduct of an election; and WHEREAS, the resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz shall specify the services requested; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the city shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, such election for cities and special districts may be either completely or partially consolidated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot, acknowledging that the consolidation election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10418, if consolidated, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election boards appointed, voting precincts designated, candidates nominated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, voter challenges determined, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, certificates of election issued, recounts conducted, election contests presented, and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election, or the election held pursuant to Section 1302 or 1303, as applicable; and

31.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
WHEREAS, the resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and WHEREAS, various district, county, state and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on November 3, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 3, 2026 insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same as the City of Santa Cruz and requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz to order such consolidation under Elections Code Sections 10401, 10403 and 10418.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to permit the Santa Cruz County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election and agrees to pay for said services.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz County Elections Department shall conduct the election for the four attached and below-described measures to be voted on at the November 3, 2026 election.

Measure “___” City Charter Amendment (see Exhibit A for full text) Shall a measure amending the City of Santa Cruz’s Yes
Charter to correct clerical errors and edit language for clarity, internal consistency, and gender neutrality be adopted?
No
Measure “___” City Charter Amendment (see Exhibit B for full text) Shall a measure amending the City of Santa Cruz’s Yes
Charter to make the Charter consistent with Council
districts and runoff elections, and to add detail related to mayoral and councilmember residency requirements, be
adopted?
No

31.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Measure “___” City Charter Amendment (see Exhibit C for full text) Shall a measure amending the City of Santa Cruz’s Yes
Charter to update Council administrative practices,
including requiring roll call votes; adding detail related to ordinance publication; adding flexibility related to creating City commissions; adding flexibility related to the frequency and manner of Council meetings; requiring that City audits be published on the City’s website; and specifying that the Council must receive an annual (as
opposed to monthly) financial reports consistent with
current practices, be adopted?
No
Measure “___” City Charter Amendment (see Exhibit D for full text) Shall a measure amending the City of Santa Cruz’s Yes
Charter provisions related to the certain staff positions, specifying that the City Clerk is not directly appointed by Council (consistent with current practices), and deleting City Manager residency and anti-nepotism requirements
that are inconsistent with the California Constitution
and/or antidiscrimination law, be adopted?
No
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED THAT Santa Cruz County Elections Department is requested to print in the November 3, 2026 Voter Information Guide the full text set forth in Exbibits A, B, C, and D. Cost of printing and distribution of the measures’ text will be paid for by the city.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED THAT in accordance with section 9313 and 9280 of the California Elections Code, the City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare an impartial analysis of each of these measures.

31.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

31.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit A
Text of proposed Charter Amendment Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City of Santa Cruz:

Proposal to amend the City Charter to apply edits, as specified below:

Amendments to City of Santa Cruz Charter. The Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby submits to the registered voters of the City the following proposal to amend the Charter of the City of Santa Cruz, with amended text shown in underlined text, and deleted text shown in strikeout text.

SECTION 603. SALARY.

The salary of City Councilmembers commencing on January 1, 1999 and continuing thereafter unless adjusted in accordance with this Section shall be $1,000.00 per month. The salary of the Mayor commencing on January 1, 1999 and continuing thereafter unless adjusted in accordance with this Section shall be $2,000.00 per month.

At any municipal election, the question of whether City Councilmembers or the Mayor shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of electors voting at the election favor it, all of the Councilmembers and the Mayor shall receive the compensation specified in the election call. Compensation of Councilmembers and the Mayor may be increased beyond the amount provided in this Section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.

Compensation of Councilmembers and the Mayor is set by the Municipal Code and may be increased beyond the amount provided in this Section by an ordinance enacted by the City Council or by an amendment to an ordinance enacted by the City Council but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended by the City Council which provides for automatic future increases in salary.

Any amounts paid by the City for retirement, health and welfare, and Federal Social Security benefits shall not be included for purposes of the determining salary under this Section provided the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees.

SECTION 608. ORDINANCES.

The enacting clause of every ordinance shall be: “Be it ordained by the City of Santa Cruz as follows:”.

No ordinance, except an emergency ordinance,- or an ordinance that which takes effect upon adoption referred to in this article, - shall be finally adopted by the Council on the day of its introduction, nor within five (5) days thereafter, nor at any time meeting other than a regular meeting, nor until its been published publication as required in this Charter. If any ordinance is altered after its introduction, except for the correction of typographical or clerical errors, the

31.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
ordinance shall require a further reading not less In the event that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, the same shall not be finally adopted except at a regular meeting held not less than five (5) days after such alteration. the date upon which said ordinance was so altered. The correction of typographical or clerical errors shall not constitute the making of an alteration within the meaning of the foregoing sentence.

SECTION 610. AUTHENTICATION OF ORDINANCES.

All ordinances shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by and filed with the City Clerk. Each ordinance shall be headed with a brief title which shall be indicative of the purporset thereof.

Ordinances shall be numbered consecutively when adopted.

SECTION 617. QUORUM. PROCEEDINGS.

Four members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a less number may adjourn from time to time. The City Council shall judge the qualifications of its members as set forth by the Charter and shall judge all election returns. Each member of the City Council shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations in any investigation or proceeding pending before the City Council.

The City Council may establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings and may impose appropriate penalties onpunish any member or other person for disorderly conduct at any meeting.

It shall have the power and authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them under oath, and to compel the production of evidence before it. Subpoenas may be issued in the name of the City and be attested by the City Clerk. Disobedience of such subpoena, or the refusal to testify (other than upon constitutional grounds) shall constitute a misdemeanor.

SECTION 708. DISTRICTS.

The City shall be divided into six districts, the names and respective boundaries of which shall be as established by ordinance.

Following the national census and each tenth year thereafter the City Council may appoint a committee to study and report to the City Council on the advisability of redistricting the City.

Upon receipt of any such committee report, and at any other time deemed necessary or desirable in order that the district boundaries be fair and logical, the City Council may by ordinance change and/or redefine the boundaries of any or all of the six districts herein established. The boundaries so defined shall be established in such manner that the districts shall, as nearly as practicable, constitute natural areas of contiguous and compact territory and provide fair representation on the City Council. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 602, no redistricting shall disqualify any Councilmember from serving the remainder of his or hertheir term, if elected, or until the next general municipal election, if appointed. Any territory hereafter annexed to or consolidated with the City shall, at the time of such annexation or consolidation, be added by ordinance of the City Council to an adjacent district or districts.

SECTION 711. TWO ROUND ELECTION SYSTEM.
(a) The Mayor and the by-district Councilmembers shall be elected using a Two Round

31.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Election System, also known as runoff voting. At the first round of elections, any candidate receiving a majority of the vote cast (i.e., 50% + 1) for all candidates for that office shall be declared elected.
(b) If, after the first round of elections, there is any office to which no person was elected, then the two candidates for such office receiving the highest number of votes for such office shall be the candidates, and the only candidates, for such office whose names shall be printed upon ballots to be issued at the second or General Municipal Election; provided that, in any event, all persons receiving a number of votes equal to the highest or second highest number of votes received by any candidate shall also be candidates at such second election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast for all candidates for that office at the second or General Municipal Election shall be declared elected. (c) For purposes of the election of a Mayor and Councilmembers in the year 2022, for timing reasons, only one round of elections will be held (i.e., the General Municipal Election on November 8, 2022), and the winner of said election shall be the candidate who receives the most votes from eligible voters in that election.
(dc)Whenever practical, the first round of elections shall occur on the date of and be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election.
(de) The Council may, by ordinance, establish administrative rules and procedures for the City’s Two Round Election System that are not inconsistent with this Section.

SECTION 809. NO INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND CITY

MANAGER
Neither the Council, nor any member, shall direct or request the appointment or removal of any person to, or from office by the City Manager or by any other appointing officer, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of an officer or employee in the administrative service of the City. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative services solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any City officer, either publicly or privately. Any member of the Council Councilmember who violates this provision, or votes for a resolution or ordinance in violation hereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall cease to be a Councilmember.no longer serve as a member of the Council.

SECTION 1119. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE DISPUTES.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Santa Cruz that strikes by firefighters are not in the public interest and should be prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to such strikes.

If any firefighter employed by the City of Santa Cruz willfully engages in a strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or hertheir employment and may not be

31.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
reinstated or returned to City employment except as a new employee. No officer, board, council or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City.

Remainder of Section to be left unchanged.

SECTION 1431. VOTER APPROVAL FOR DESALINATION PROJECTS.

Only 1. Purpose is proposed to be amended. 2 - 6 to remain unchanged.

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Charter Amendmentsection is to enact a comprehensive policy ensuring that the City of Santa Cruz does not approve, permit, or fund a desalination project without voter approval. Accordingly, this Charter Amendment would require an affirmative vote by a simple majority of Santa Cruz voters at a statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled municipal election before any such desalination project could be implemented.

Exhibit B
Text of proposed Charter Amendment Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City of Santa Cruz:

31.11 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Proposal to amend the City Charter to apply edits, as specified below:

SECTION 601. COUNCIL, NUMBER, TERM.

Sections (a) and (d) to remain unchanged.
(b) Candidates for City Council shall be nominated from and by the electors of each of the six districts referred to in Article VII of this Charter. The term of office shall be four years.

The term of each City Council member shall commence on the date of the City Council meeting, following his or her election, at which the council receives the certification of election results from the City Clerkthe date of the second regularly scheduled Council meeting after the November general municipal election.
(c) Candidates for Mayor shall be nominated from and by the electors of the City and elected by the voters of the City at-large. The term of office shall be four years. The term of Mayor shall commence on the date of the City Council meeting, following his or her election. at which the Council receives the certification of election results from the City Clerkon the date of the second regularly scheduled Council meeting after the November general municipal election.

SECTION 602. QUALIFICATIONS.
(a) A person shall be eligible to be nominated for, or to hold office as a Mayor, only if such person is a resident and registered qualified voter of this City, and shall have been for at least thirty (30) days preceding nomination or appointment., a resident of the City of Santa Cruz, or of territory annexed thereto Should the Mayor cease to reside within the City during their term, the office of Mayor shall be deemed vacant immediately. (b) A person shall be eligible to be nominated for, or to hold office as a member of the Council, only if such person is a resident and registered qualified voter of this Citythe district from which that person has been nominated or appointed, and shall have been for at least thirty (30) days preceding nomination or appointment. Should a Councilmember, during a term with two years or less remaining, no longer reside within the district in which they were elected to but are still within City limits, they may continue to serve the remainder of the term. , a resident of the district from which that person has been nominated or appointed.

SECTION 604. PRESIDING OFFICER – MAYOR.

Sections (b), (c), and (d) to remain unchanged.
(a) The Mayor shall be elected at-large, shall preside at the meetings of the Council, shall be a voting member of the Council, shall have a voice and vote in all Council proceedings, and shall be recognized as the titular head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for purposes of military law but shall have no regular administrative duties.

31.12 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
(e) The City shall maintain a “Council-Manager” form of government, and the Mayor possesses only such authority over the City Manager and the administrative branch as he or shethey possesses as one member of the Council.
(f) The Council shall elect a Vice-Mayor, who shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. The Vice-Mayor shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor's absence or disability. The Vice-Mayor shall be elected by the Council at the regular meeting in December. second meeting in November in each non-election year, and at the first regularly or specially scheduled evening Council meeting following the County election official’s certification of the general municipal election results in each election year. The Mayor and Vice-Mayor so elected shall serve until their a successors hasve been elected. Nothing herein shall prevent a Councilmember from serving consecutive terms as Vice-Mayor.

SECTION 605. COUNCIL VACANCIES.

A councilmember vacancy from whatever cause arising, shall be filled by appointment by the City Council, or by special election called by the Council.

If a vacancy is filled by appointment, the appointee shall be a qualified person from the district in which the vacancy has occurred and shall hold office until the second regularly scheduled evening meeting following the next municipal election and until a successor is elected and takes the oath of office. At the next general municipal electionDuring the next election cycle following any vacancy, a Councilmember shall be elected to serve for the remainder of any unexpired term. If a vacancy is filled by special election, the person receiving the highest number of votes in the subject district shall, upon taking the oath of office, serve for the remainder of the unexpired term of the former incumbent and until a successor has been elected and takes the oath of office.

In the event a vacancy has not been filled by appointment or an election called within sixty (60) days after such office shall have been declared vacant, the Council shall forthwith call an election to fill such vacancy.

A vacancy in the office of Mayor from whatever cause arising, shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by a special election called by the City Council to be held not less than 88 days nor more than 103 days after the effective date of the vacancy, except the special election may be conducted within 180 days of the effective date of the vacancy in order to consolidate with the City's general municipal election. An election shall not be ordered, and the office of Mayor shall remain vacant, if the term expires within the timeframe for holding a special election.

A City Council or Mayoral office shall become vacant and shall be so declared by the Council if a person elected or appointed fails to take the oath of office within sixty (60) days after the election or appointment, is absent from all regular meetings of the Council for sixty (60) days unless expressly permitted by the City Council in its official minutes, ceases to be an elector of the City, or is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

31.13 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
SECTION 701. GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

General municipal elections shall be called in the event of 1) measures to be voted on and/or 2) that no one candidate is elected to any office after the first round of elections. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes for such office shall be the candidates, and the only candidates, whose names shall be printed upon ballots to be issued at the second or General Municipal Election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast for all candidates for that office shall be declared elected. for the filling of elective offices and for such other purposes as the Council may prescribe, shall be held in the City of Santa Cruz on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each evennumbered year. Members of the City Council shall serve for a term of four (4) years commencing on the date of the second regularly scheduled Council meeting after the general municipal election. Any ties in voting shall be settled by the casting of lots.

31.14 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit C
Text of proposed Charter Amendment Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City of Santa Cruz:

Proposal to amend the City Charter to apply edits, as specified below:

SECTION 607. VOTING.

The Council shall pass ordinances and adopt resolutions by ayes and noes, entered upon its minutes, and a roll-call may vote shall be had upon any order or motion on demand of any member. All members present at any meeting must vote unless disqualified, in which case the disqualification shall be publicly declared and a record thereof made.

SECTION 613. PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES.

The City Clerk shall post and publish an ordinance summary that consists of the title, a short summary of contents, the date of introduction, the vote taken, and a list of the places where the proposed ordinance is posted. cause Eeach ordinance summaryproposed ordinance, other than an emergency ordinance or an ordinance which takes effect upon adoption, shall to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation at least three (3) days before its adoption; or, as an alternative method of publication, the Council may order copies of any proposed ordinance to be posted at least three (3) days prior to its adoption in three (3) prominent places in the City, one of which may be the City’s Internet web page, and cause a single publishedcation in a newspaper of general circulation of a notice .setting forth the title of the ordinance, a short statement of its contents, the date of its introduction and a list of the places where copies of the proposed ordinance are posted.

The City Clerk shall cause each emergency ordinance or ordinance which takes effect upon adoption to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

SECTION 614. REGULAR MEETINGS.

The City Council shall hold at least one regular meetings at least twice each month, except in the month of July. The regular meeting dates shall be established annually by resolution of the City Council. at such times as it shall fix by ordinance or resolution and may adjourn or readjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so adjourned, each adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes.

31.15 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
SECTION 616. PLACE OF MEETING.

All meetings shall be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, except when, by reason of special circumstances, the Council, Mayor or City Manager determines that the public interest will best be served by holding a meeting elsewhere within the City. If, by reason of fire, flood or other emergency, it shall would be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings may be held for the duration of the emergency virtually (to the extent permitted by state law) or at such place as is designated by the Mayor or City Manager, or, if the Mayor or City Manager should fail to act, by four members of the City Council.

SECTION 813. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. POWERS AND DUTIES.*
Sections (a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) to remain unchanged.

There shall be a Department of Finance, the head of which shall be Director of Finance. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, the Director of Finance shall have charge of the administration of the financial affairs of the City; and shall have the power and be required to:
(b) Supervise and be responsible for the disbursement of all public moneys and have control over all expenditures to ensureinsure that budget appropriations are not exceeded; (e) Submit annually to the City Council through the City Manager, a complete financial statement and report as of the end of each fiscal year that includes a statement of all receipts and disbursements in sufficient detail to show the exact financial condition of the Citya monthly statement of all receipts and disbursements in sufficient detail to show the exact financial condition of the City; and, as of the end of each fiscal year, submit a complete financial statement and report;
SECTION 1002. CREATION.

The boards or commissions provided for herein shall be established by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the City Council. The Council the ordinance creating any board or commission shall set forth its the powers and duties of boards and commissions and shall establish the number, manner of appointment, and term of office of the members of the board or commission, provided, however, that the term of office shall not exceed four (4) years.

SECTION 1427. PROFESSIONAL AUDIT.

At the beginning of each fiscal year the City Council shall employ a qualified public accountant who shall, from time to time during such year, examine the books, records, inventories, and reports of all officers and employees who receive, handle or disburse public funds, and of such other officers, employees, or departments as the City Council may direct. At the end of the year a final audit and report shall be submitted to the City Manager, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney, and three with additional copies to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk and on the City’s Internet web page where they shall be available for inspection by the public.

31.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Exhibit D
Text of proposed Charter Amendment Measure to be submitted to the voters of the City of Santa Cruz:

Proposal to amend the City Charter to apply edits, as specified below:

SECTION 801. APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL.

The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney shall be appointed by and may be removed by the affirmative votes of at least four (4) members of the Council, provided however that no such officer may be removed within sixty (60) days prior to, or within ninety (90) days following a general municipal election except by the affirmative votes of at least five (5) members of the Council. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, and subject to the provisions of Article XI, all other officers and department heads of the City shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.

SECTION 804. CITY MANAGER. APPOINTMENT.

The City Manager shall be appointed upon the basis of executive and administrative qualifications. The City Manager need not be a resident of the City or of this State at the time of appointment, but shall become and thereafter remain a bona fide resident of this City promptly after appointment. The City Manager shall be paid a salary commensurate with the responsibilities of chief administrative officer of the City. No Councilmember shall receive such appointment during the term for which such member shall have been elected, nor within one year after the expiration of such term. Within ninety (90) days after the election of the first Council hereunder, the Council shall appoint a City Manager.

SECTION 806. CITY MANAGER. POWERS AND DUTIES.

Sections b – l to remain unchanged.

The City Manager shall be the chief executive officer and the head of the administrative branch of the City government, shall be responsible to the City Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City, and shall have the power and be required to:
(a) Appoint and remove, subject to the Civil Service provisions of this Charter, and the ordinances, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, all department heads of the City except as otherwise provided by this Charter, and pass upon and approve all proposed appointments and removals of subordinate employees by department heads. No person related to the City Manager by blood or by marriage shall be eligible for office or employment in the City

31.17 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ORDERING AN

ELECTION, REQUESTING COUNTY ELECTIONS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION, AND

REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE GENERAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING THE MAYOR WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the governing body of any city may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city relating to the conduct of an election; and WHEREAS, the resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz shall specify the services requested; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the city shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, such election for cities and special districts may be either completely or partially consolidated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot, acknowledging that the consolidation election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10418, if consolidated, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election boards appointed, voting precincts designated, candidates nominated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, voter challenges determined, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, certificates of election issued, recounts conducted, election contests presented, and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election, or the election held pursuant to Section 1302 or 1303, as applicable; and

31.18 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
WHEREAS, the resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and WHEREAS, various district, county, state and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on November 3, 2026; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 3, 2026 insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same as the City of Santa Cruz and requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz to order such consolidation under Elections Code Sections 10401, 10403 and 10418; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to permit the Santa Cruz County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election and agrees to pay for said services.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz County Elections Department conduct the election for the following offices on the November 3, 2026 ballot:

Seat Open Office Term District (if applicable)
Mayor City of Santa Cruz Four Years n/a
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

31.19 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 06/16/2026
AGENDA OF: 06/23/2026
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 1.18.020 to Adjust the Salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers (CN) LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication the proposed ordinance to adjust the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers; and
2) Direct staff to annually, at or around the same time as the City Council’s budget hearings or budget adoption, prepare a proposed ordinance for City Council’s consideration that would adjust the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers.

BACKGROUND: Santa Cruz City Charter section 603 addresses the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers and provides that those salaries can be increased via ordinance:
“but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted.”
Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) section 1.18.020 currently states:
“effective as of January 1, 2010, each councilmember shall receive a salary of one thousand seven hundred ten dollars and thirty-five cents per month, and the mayor shall receive a salary of three thousand four hundred twenty dollars and sixty-eight cents per month.”
The City Council (Council) passed an ordinance in 2009 to adjust its compensation to the amounts currently listed in the SCMC section 1.18.020. However, the Council acted outside of a formal ordinance process to delay receiving that compensation adjustment; the adjustment set forth in the Municipal Code was not fully implemented until June 2017.

DISCUSSION: Over the last several fiscal years, the Council has prioritized investments in the City’s workforce, including the implementation of a comprehensive compensation study that was

32.1 conducted in 2021, that resulted in compensation adjustments for staff at all levels of the organization. Further, as part of the last two rounds of labor negotiations, the Council supported a series of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for all labor groups to help ensure that staff compensation is keeping pace with the market and that the City continues to be successful recruiting and retaining a highly skilled workforce.

During this same period, the Council has chosen not to provide themselves with a compensation increase. The Council’s last compensation adjustment was fully effectuated in June 2017 - about nine (9) years ago. Over that period of time, the cost of living in our area has risen significantly, including the cost of housing, rent, and consumer goods from groceries to gasoline.

Equitable and competitive compensation for the Mayor and Council is critical to removing financial barriers to public service, enabling a more diverse range of community members to govern, and ensuring that the City has prioritized strategic planning and policymaking.

The Council now wishes to consider revising SCMC section 1.18.020 to provide for more equitable and competitive salaries, consistent with the requirements of the City Charter.

The table below outlines the allowable monthly salary increases for the Councilmembers and Mayor over a 9-year period, based on the 5% annual raise that is permissible under Charter section 603.

Year Councilmember Monthly Salary ($) Mayor Monthly Salary ($) June 2017 1,710.35 3,420.68
June 2018 1,795.87 3,591.71
June 2019 1,885.66 3,771.30
June 2020 1,979.94 3,959.86
June 2021 2,078.94 4,157.86
June 2022 2,182.89 4,365.75
June 2023 2,292.03 4,584.04
June 2024 2,406.63 4,813.24
June 2025 2,526.97 5,053.90
June 2026 2,653.31 5,306.60
The sponsoring Councilmembers recommend that Councilmember salaries be raised to $2,653.31/month and that the Mayor’s salary be raised to $5,306.60/month, consistent with the table above.

Note that there is a legal argument that the Council could adjust its compensation to a higher value, given that the SCMC section 1.18.020 was revised in 2009 with a purported effective date

32.2 of January 1, 2010. However, since that adjustment was not fully effectuated until June 15, 2017, the sponsoring Councilmembers took a conservative approach by recommending that salaries be raised to the amounts consistent with a June 15, 2017 adjustment, rather than starting from the much earlier date listed in the Municipal Code.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): Raising Councilmember salaries is consistent with HiAP principles, specifically the pillars of equity and sustainability, by reducing financial barriers to public service. By providing more competitive compensation, the City advances equity, ensuring a more diverse, representative, and inclusive candidate pool that better reflects the community, rather than restricting elected roles to those with independent wealth.

Furthermore, adequate compensation supports the sustainability of local governance by enabling Councilmembers to dedicate the necessary time for complex policy decisions. This change strengthens the ability of the City Council to make informed decisions that promote long-term community well-being.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: Yes FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: Approving this action will result in an on-going increase to the General Fund. For FY 2027, adopting this ordinance will increase annual salary expenditures by $194,220 The increase for July – December 2027 will be absorbed in the Proposed General Fund Budget. If additional appropriations are needed, staff will bring a budget adjustment at mid-year or at the end of FY 2027.

Submitted By:

Susie O’Hara
Councilmember, District 5
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Vice Mayor, District 3
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE - CLEAN.DOCX

2. ORDINANCE - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

32.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SECTION 1.18.020 OF

THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST THE SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR

AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz City Charter section 603 addresses the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers and provides that those salaries “may be increased . . . by an ordinance . . . or by an amendment to an ordinance . . . but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended by the City Council which provides for automatic future increases in salary.” WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) section 1.18.020 currently states:
“Pursuant to Santa Cruz City Charter Section 603, effective as of January 1, 2010, each councilmember shall receive a salary of one thousand seven hundred ten dollars and thirty-five cents per month, and the mayor shall receive a salary of three thousand four hundred twenty dollars and sixty-eight cents per month.”
WHEREAS, the Council passed an ordinance in 2009 to adjust its compensation to the amounts currently listed in the SCMC section 1.18.020. However, the Council later took action outside of a formal ordinance process to delay the Council receiving that compensation adjustment, and the adjustment set forth in the Municipal Code was not fully implemented until June 2017.

WHEREAS, competitive Councilmember and Mayoral salaries are important to the Council because they remove financial barriers to public service, enable a more diverse range of community members to govern, and ensure that the City has prioritized strategic planning and policymaking.

WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to revise SCMC section 1.18.020 to provide for more competitive salaries, consistent with the requirements of the City Charter.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct, and they are incorporated herein by reference as findings.

SECTION 2. Section 1.18.020 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“1.18.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF SALARIES FOR MAYOR AND
COUNCILMEMBERS.

Pursuant to Santa Cruz City Charter Section 603, effective as of the pay period ending September 11, 2026, each councilmember shall receive a salary of two thousand six hundred fifty three dollars and thirty-one cents ($2,653.31) per month, and the mayor shall receive a salary of five thousand three hundred six dollars and sixty cents ($5,306.60) per month.”

32.4 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
2 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption. The salary increase shall be effective as of the pay period ending September 11, 2026, as specified in the amended Municipal Code.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 23rd day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this 11th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2026-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

32.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SECTION 1.18.020 OF THE

SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST THE SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND

COUNCILMEMBERS
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz City Charter section 603 addresses the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers and provides that those salaries “may be increased . . . by an ordinance . . . or by an amendment to an ordinance . . . but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended by the City Council which provides for automatic future increases in salary.” WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) section 1.18.020 currently states:
“Pursuant to Santa Cruz City Charter Section 603, effective as of January 1, 2010, each councilmember shall receive a salary of one thousand seven hundred ten dollars and thirty-five cents per month, and the mayor shall receive a salary of three thousand four hundred twenty dollars and sixty-eight cents per month.”
WHEREAS, the Council passed an ordinance in 2009 to adjust its compensation to the amounts currently listed in the SCMC section 1.18.020. However, the Council later took action outside of a formal ordinance process to delay the Council receiving that compensation adjustment, and the adjustment set forth in the Municipal Code was not fully implemented until June 2017.

WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to revise SCMC section 1.18.020 to provide for more competitive salaries, consistent with the requirements of the City Charter.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct, and they are incorporated herein by reference as findings.

SECTION 2. Section 1.18.020 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended as follows:
“1.18.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF SALARIES FOR MAYOR AND
COUNCILMEMBERS.

Pursuant to Santa Cruz City Charter Section 603, effective as of the pay period ending September 11, 2026, January 1, 2010, each councilmember shall receive a salary of two thousand six hundred fifty three dollars and thirty-one cents ($2,653.31) one thousand seven hundred ten dollars and thirty-five cents per month, and the mayor shall receive a salary of five thousand three hundred six dollars and sixty cents

32.6 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
2 ($5,306.60) three thousand four hundred twenty dollars and sixty-eight cents per month.”
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption. The salary increase shall be effective as of the pay period ending September 11, 2026, as specified in the amended Municipal Code.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 23rd day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 202x-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

32.7 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 06/19/2026
AGENDA OF: 06/23/2026
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street: CP25-0116 (APN 007-031-04) Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus Request to Demolish a Commercial Building and Construct an Eight-Story Mixed-use Building Consisting of Approximately 12,000 Square Feet of Ground Floor Commercial Space, Live/Work Units on the Ground Floor, and 245 Rental Apartments on a Parcel Located in the CBD (Central Business District) Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue/CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay)/FP-O (Floodplain Overlay) Zone Districts and Within the South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan.

Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Applicant: Owen Lawlor, Lawlor Land Use Owner: 421 E 18th Street Property Partnership. (CD)
LOCATION: District 4
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution acknowledging the environmental determination (Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66) and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus request based on the findings listed in the draft Resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.”
BACKGROUND: On March 6, 2025, a Preliminary Review (CP25-0028) was submitted for the project and was deemed complete pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. On June 4, 2025, a community meeting was held for the proposed project. Approximately 43 members of the public were in attendance. Discussion topics included concerns of increased traffic and parking with the new arena nearby, potential vacant retail space in the downtown area, floodplain requirements, where the existing Ace Hardware would relocate, and concerns with the overall building design. There were comments supporting the project, encouraging new housing with opportunities for young families, and suggestions for smaller tenant spaces, first floor residential, rain water collection, and solar to be incorporated.

33.1 On October 1, 2025, a formal application (CP25-0116) was submitted for the project. The Planning Commission heard and recommended approval of the item on June 4, 2026, as discussed in the attached Planning Commission Action Summary. The Planning Commission heard public testimony from five speakers. After comments and discussion amongst the commissioners, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (McKelvey absent) to recommend City Council approval of the project. No amendments were made to the recommended conditions of approval.

DISCUSSION: The attached Planning Commission Agenda Report from June 4, 2026 provides an in-depth analysis of the proposed project, including State Laws applicable to the project, site resources and constraints, and community outreach methods. The project site is a single parcel located south of Laurel Street and north of Spruce Street, spanning between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. The project site is surrounded by residential uses, visitor-serving uses, and commercial uses. The subject property is located in the CBD (Central Business District) zone district, and the South of Laurel Area (SOLA) of the Downtown Plan.

The project proposes to demolish the existing commercial building to construct an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor retail, twostory live/work units along Laurel Street, one level of underground parking, and 245 residential units above the first floor. Located in the newly adopted SOLA District of the Downtown Plan, the development meets the criteria to be eligible for the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) for additional height and/or Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The project requires the following entitlements:
 Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish nonresidential buildings that are more than 50 years old;
 Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 16 heritage street trees;  Coastal Permit as the project is located in the Coastal Zone Overlay and does not qualify for any exemptions or exclusions;
 Design Permit for a mixed-use development; and
 Administrative Use Permit for live/work quarters in the Central Business District; While the permits listed above would be heard by the City Zoning Administrator, the Downtown Density Bonus section of the Downtown Plan “Combination Option” for providing inclusionary housing requires approval by the City Council. Zoning Ordinance Section 24.04.150 states that when a project requires more than one permit and the approval of those permits normally rests with more than one decision making body, the body with the highest authority shall take action on all permits concurrently. As such, these permits will be heard at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Downtown Density Bonus. Located in the SOLA district of the Downtown Plan, the project is eligible to use the DDB to pursue development incentives for additional height and/or FAR for buildings meeting certain criteria. The purpose of the DDB is to support a compact urban core while achieving a higher-than-average rate of below-market-rate housing units, promoting high quality design, and generally encouraging building heights of twelve stories or less.

In order to qualify for DDB, projects must meet the following criteria:

33.2 i. The proposal is for a mixed-use or fully residential rental housing development. The DDB is not available to for-sale residential development proposals. ii. The floor area of the proposed development consists of 2/3 or more residential dwellings, while ensuring that the ground floor frontage is reserved for commercial and active, public-facing uses consistent with Sections A and K of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan.
iii. The proposed development meets the required development standards as delineated below in parts h and i and complies with the requirements for Architectural Review as described in part j.
iv. The development proposal meets one of five listed options to provide below-marketrate units.

The project meets the listed criteria in that:
i. The project is a mixed-use rental housing development. ii. The floor area of the proposed development consists of more than 2/3 residential dwellings with ground floor frontage reserved for commercial and active, publicfacing uses consistent with Sections A and K of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, except as modified pursuant to a Downtown Plan Design Variation and in accordance with the Architectural Review Committee recommendations. See attached Table of Compliance with Objective Standards Compliance for more detail. iii. The project development meets the required development standards as delineated in parts 14.h and i of Part K of the Downtown Plan in that the project does not propose the payment of in-lieu fees, and the proposed height of 85-feet is consistent with the Option B for unlimited FAR. The project complies with the requirements for Architectural Review as described in part14.j of Part K of the Downtown Plan. Other objective standards proposed for variation are identified in the attached Table of Objective Standards Compliance (Exhibit 3) and have been reviewed under Section J of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan (Design Variations).
iv. The development provides off-site below-market-rate units pursuant to the listed “Combination Option”. The combination option proposal is discussed below. This combination option may be approved by the City Council based upon the favorable recommendations of the Directors of Planning & Community Development and Economic Development & Housing, if Council finds that the combination of approaches provides an equivalent or greater affordable housing benefit to the community.

Once it is determined a project meets the criteria for the DDB, the section lays out two density bonus options to choose from: Option A and B. For this project, the applicants have chosen Option B which allows for unlimited FAR for development proposals that limit height to the height limits of the Downtown Plan. The proposed project complies with the height limit of this area which is 85-feet.

Also under DDB, pursuant to Section K(14)(k)(viii), “Any project developed using a DDB will be subject to a review of selected exterior materials at the time of Building Permit Plan Check process. This review will be conducted by a subcommittee of the City Planning Commission in

33.3 consultation with the Planning and Community Development Director or his or her designee.” This requirement was not discussed in the Planning Commission staff report and has been added to the conditions of approval since being considered by the Planning Commission.

Affordable Housing – Combination Option. The 201 Front Street project proposes to utilize the Combination Option described in Section K.14.b.iv(5) of the Downtown Plan to meet the affordable unit/inclusionary requirements, which allows for a combination of qualification options to be approved by the City Council based upon the favorable recommendations of the Directors of Community Development and Economic Development, if Council finds that the combination of approaches provides an equivalent or greater affordable housing benefit to the community. Prior to submittal of a formal application, the applicant informed the City that they had partnered with CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development LLC (“CRP”) to facilitate concurrent development of a 100% affordable housing development at the properties located at 407-413 Pacific Avenue (“407 Pacific”) to fulfill the affordable housing requirements for the subject DDB development.

The applicant proposes a plan under the Combination Option that would more closely resemble the Land Dedication Option. The applicant asserts that a revised framework is desirable to reflect the obligations and private agreements that have already been established between the two parties, specifically, that CRP is responsible for acquiring, financing, constructing, and operating the 407 Pacific Project, with 201 Front agreeing to pay CRP for the purchase price of the land in order to zero out CRP’s land basis (i.e. land dedication to CRP).

The proposed revised framework eliminates the requirements for payment of staff time, impact fees, and permit fees that are associated with the Off-Site Option and proposes credit for excess off-site land capacity that is allowed under the Land Dedication Option. Additionally, the proposed combination option includes a plan to enter into a project-specific Affordable Housing Development Agreement between the City, the applicant, and CRP, which will specify the process for holding the money slated for the 407 Pacific project, should the timing of the two projects not align. The proposed combination option is supported for the following reasons:
 The 100% affordable housing project at 407 Pacific was approved by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2026 and includes a 102-unit development with 96,714 square feet of total dwelling unit area. The project is in the process of applying for financing.  The dwelling unit area at the approved project at 407 Pacific is greater than the area required in the downtown plan for the Land Dedication Option (including deductions for required inclusionary housing (11 units) and a manager’s unit):
201 Front = 203,515 sq. ft. dwelling unit area
407 Pacific = 96,714 sq. ft. dwelling unit area
1) K(14)(b)(4)(b): 203,515 x 40% = 81,406 x 75%= 61,054 min. dwelling unit area 2) K(14)(g)(i)(1):
a. K(14)(b)(2)(b) (off-site option): 203,515 x 26.7% = 54,338 x 75% = 40,754 min dwelling unit area.
b. 40,754 + 50% = 61,131 min. dwelling unit area.

33.4  Excess capacity credit will be based on the approximately 24,236 square foot difference between the required and provided dwelling unit area at the 407 Pacific project, which can only be used to facilitate a future DDB project and would expire within seven years of the date of final occupancy for the 201 Front project.  The Affordable Housing Agreement will ensure that the money is reserved for the exclusive benefit of the 407 Pacific project, in that the City will hold the funds with interest proceeds remaining in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and, should CRP become unable to pursue the project, the money would remain in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be applied to future affordable housing projects.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

The project utilizes a Statutory Exemption that was added to section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code in 2025. The exemption allows for eligible Housing Development Projects (HDP) to be exempt from CEQA under certain conditions. The project qualifies for this Statutory Exemption as it meets the list of prescriptive requirements/criteria listed under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a).

Per the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, Native American consultation was required to be done as part of the CEQA process. Notices regarding the proposed project and the request for consultation were sent to all Tribes listed on the formal Native American Heritage Commission contact list on January 6, 2026. The City received one request for consultation from the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People on January 20, 2026. A consultation was held on February 18, 2026. An Enforceable Agreement, dated May 14, 2026, was entered into between the City, project applicant, and the Tribe, which include the Tribe’s requests for the proposed project. Conditions of Approval regarding the Native American Tribe Engagement, Environmental Assessment and Labor Standards have been included with the project.

There are no exceptions to this Statutory Exemption.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The project supports the pillar of equity by providing rental units on a site in a residential area that is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas. The development of residences in this central location encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No

33.5 FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The applicant and appellant have paid fees to compensate for costs associated with staff time processing this application and subsequent appeals. The project will contribute to increased property tax, and City sales tax revenue would likely increase, depending on the use(s) that ultimately occupy the commercial space. The project developer will be required to pay City impact fees as well. The additional revenue generated by the project will help offset the costs of providing municipal services demanded by the project, though many residential uses typically have net negative fiscal effects over time.

Prepared By:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Community
Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. RESOLUTION EXHIBIT A – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.DOCX

3. PROJECT PLANS (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION).PDF

4. JUNE 4, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT (WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS).PDF

5. JUNE 4, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET (REPORT ATTACHMENTS):
https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2770&do ctype=1

6. JUNE 4, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SUMMARY.PDF

7. DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN CHECKLIST.PDF

8. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE.PDF

33.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ACKNOWLEDGING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION (STATUTORY EXEMPTION, SECTION 21080.66) AND APPROVING A

NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION PERMIT, COASTAL PERMIT,

DESIGN PERMIT, ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL

PERMIT, AND DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A

COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE, LIVE/WORK UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND 245

RENTAL APARTMENTS ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) SUBDISTRICT E – LOWER PACIFIC AVENUE/CZ-O (COASTAL ZONE

OVERLAY)/FP-O (FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY) ZONE DISTRICTS AND WITHIN THE

SOUTH OF LAUREL AREA DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN
(APPLICATION NO. CP25-0116)
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2025, Owen Lawlor, Lawlor Land Use (“applicant”), filed an application for the above-referenced entitlements for property located at 201 Front Street also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 007-031-04; and
WHEREAS, the project site and its development is governed by the standards and guidelines contained in California State Law, the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030, the Downtown Plan, and Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code, as described fully in the staff report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2026 to consider the project and by a vote of 6-0 recommended that the City Council to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2026 to consider the application and the full public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council now makes the following findings:

Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

1. The development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program.

The project is consistent with the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) designation, which applies to areas that

33.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents and visitors. Mixeduse development, such as the one proposed, is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.

The subject property is located within the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan, which allows a maximum FAR of 3.5. However, with the use of the Downtown Density Bonus, the FAR is unlimited for development proposals that meet the height limits of the Downtown Plan. In this case, the project meets the 85-foot height limit and therefore is allowed unlimited FAR.

The property is located in an area mapped as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources under General Plan 2030. General Plan policy HA1.2.2 requires projects in this mapped area to complete an archaeological investigation that includes both archival research and site reconnaissance. An Archaeological Due Diligence Records Review and Field Inspection for the subject property was prepared by Colin I. Busby of Basin Research Associates, dated January 6, 2026. The archaeological review concluded that while the site is mapped within a sensitive zone, it appears to have a low sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. This conclusion is based on the lack of recorded resources within and adjacent to the project site; subsurface development impacts over the past 100 years; and, hazardous waste remediation from the 1980s onwards including the removal of 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the southeastern area of the project site in the mid-1990s. The archaeological report submitted does not recommend archaeological monitoring for construction-related soil disturbance. However, a tribal enforceable agreement has been signed that requires Native American TCR sensitivity training prior to construction, and tribal monitoring during ground-disturbance activities at the site. A condition of approval is included that a Native American monitor be present during all soil disturbance, as was agreed upon in the tribal consultation. A precautionary condition of approval also requires the applicant to stop work if excavation results in discovery of an archaeological resource.

33.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
• CD3.6.1: Encourage the use of pedestrian-scale fenestration, awnings, marquees, entrance lobbies, balconies, landscaping, paving materials and other amenities. • L2.1.2: Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrainted by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.
• L5.3: Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes • L5.6: Require land use development to integrate into the larger circulation system by interconnecting its system of roads, pedestrian and bike paths with existing facilities and also design access to nearby areas in a manner that minimizes the necessity for automobile travel and potential automobile and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

2. Maintain views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea; This project is outside of the area between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea; therefore, it does not impact views in this area.

3. Protect vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
A total of 16 Heritage street trees are proposed for removal, but the site does not contain any sensitive habitats or other natural resource areas mapped under the General Plan or Local Coastal Land Use Plan. A total of 31 replacement street trees will be planted as part of the project landscaping.

4. Be consistent with any applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The project is located within the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan and is consistent with the objective development requirements in the Downtown Plan as explained in Attachment 3, the Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Checklist. The building meets the Downtown Plan guidelines for building design in that the exterior materials visually separate the ground floor storefront from the upper floor residences, creating distinct zones on the ground level, the upper-level residences and the top two floors. The building is designed with different building materials, colors, and changes in plane to create visual interest, compatible with surrounding development. The storefront along Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street will incorporate outdoor seating and landscaped areas to enhance the pedestrian experience.

The Downtown Plan limits building height to 85 feet within this area of the South of Laurel Area. The proposed building is 8 stories and 85 feet, which is consistent with the maximum height allowed under the Downtown Density Bonus section.

5. Maintain public access to the coast along any coastline as set forth in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;

33.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
The project site is located inland from the coastline and does not include any public access pathways to the coast; therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing public access to the coast.

6. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate;
The project includes 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space that will be filled by future retail, restaurant, and/or recreational uses, as permitted in the Downtown Plan which will provide visitor serving needs appropriate to the downtown area.

7. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of encouraging coastal development uses as appropriate.

No coastal resources will be impacted in that the development will not impact any coastal scenic viewsheds, the development is located approximately 300 feet from the San Lorenzo River levee, and there are no protected habitat or natural resources on the project site that will be impacted by the development. The resulting building will not be out of character with what is envisioned for the downtown area in terms of mass or height. The project will provide visitor-serving commercial uses on the ground floor and will support existing and future commercial and recreational coastal uses by providing residences within close proximity of the coast.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230.3

8. The cultural resources evaluation is accepted as accurate and complete; and the cultural resources evaluation concludes that the building or structure is not eligible for listing on the city historic building survey.

Planning staff evaluated the existing commercial building on site using planning and building permit records to determine the history of the existing buildings and property. While the building was constructed in 1951 and is over 50 years old, the building has undergone numerous alterations, including additions and fenestration modifications. Due to the significant alterations to the building, the subject property no longer possesses sufficient historic integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling for it to qualify for listing as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The site is not associated with any important historic events or patterns of history, is not associated with any historic people, and due to the substantial alterations to the building, the subject building does not possess any distinctive stylistic characteristics, design or workmanship. Thus, the building is not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

9. The project which will replace the demolished building or structure has been, or is concurrently being, approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been, or is concurrently being, issued; unless some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this requirement inappropriate.

33.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
The proposed mixed-use project is being approved concurrently with the approval to demolish the subject buildings. A condition of approval has been included that requires the building permit for the replacement project to be issued before the demolition permit to demolish the existing building will be issued.

10. The property owner has been advised of the benefits of listing the property on the city historic building survey and incorporating the preservation of the historic resource into the proposed project.

This finding is not applicable as the property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.

11. The cultural resources evaluation determines that the resource is eligible for listing on the city historic building survey, appropriate environmental review has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the zoning administrator can make a finding of overriding consideration that the replacement project will have public benefits which will outweigh the impact of loss of the historic resource.

It has been determined that the building does not qualify as historic resource. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.426

12. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, the site plan and building design are also consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

The project is consistent with the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) designation, which applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents and visitors. Mixeduse development, such as the one proposed, is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.

The subject property is located within the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan, which allows a maximum FAR of 3.5. However, with the use of the Downtown Density Bonus the FAR is unlimited for development proposals that meet the height limits of the Downtown Plan. In this case the project meets the 85-foot height limit and therefore is allowed unlimited FAR.

33.11 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Associates, dated January 6, 2026. The archaeological review concluded that while the site is mapped within a sensitive zone, it appears to have a low sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. This conclusion is based on the lack of recorded resources within and adjacent to the project site; subsurface development impacts over the past 100 years; and, hazardous waste remediation from the 1980s onwards including the removal of 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the southeastern area of the project site in the mid-1990s. The archaeological report submitted does not recommend archaeological monitoring for construction-related soil disturbance. However, a tribal enforceable agreement has been signed that requires Native American TCR sensitivity training prior to construction, and tribal monitoring during ground-disturbance activities at the site. A condition of approval is included that a Native American monitor be present during all soil disturbance, as was agreed upon in the tribal consultation. A precautionary condition of approval also requires the applicant to stop work if excavation results in discovery of an archaeological resource.

The proposed project additionally assists in facilitating attainment of the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan and Housing Element intended to ensure a complementary balance of land uses, advance transportation modes other than travel by private automobile, foster a vibrant local economy, encourage diversity in housing types and range of affordability levels, enhance the quality of housing stock available to residents, and promote urban design encouraging an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearlydefined urban boundaries. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Local Coastal Program, such as the following:
• CD1.1: Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services • CD1.1.1: Focus development in the Central Core, and along arterial and mass transit corridors. (See policies under L2.6.3).
• CD3.6: In pedestrian areas, require building design to be responsive to the pedestrian environment. These areas include but are not limited to Downtown, South of Laurel, the Beach, wharf, shoreline, and commercial shopping areas. • CD3.6.1: Encourage the use of pedestrian-scale fenestration, awnings, marquees, entrance lobbies, balconies, landscaping, paving materials and other amenities. • L2.1.2: Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrainted by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.
• L5.3: Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes • L5.6: Require land use development to integrate into the larger circulation system by interconnecting its system of roads, pedestrian and bike paths with existing facilities and also design access to nearby areas in a manner that minimizes the necessity for automobile travel and potential automobile and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

33.12 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

The project complies with all applicable objective development standards of the Downtown Plan, as discussed in Attachment 3, and all other applicable sections of Chapter 24 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, except as modified by Downtown Variations.

For the nonresidential portion of the project, the location, size, height and design of the commercial space does not adversely impact the surrounding properties and neighborhood as the property is located downtown, and is surrounded by mixed-use development, commercial uses and visitor-serving uses. This type of mixed commercial, residential project is also encouraged in this location.

14. For nonresidential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.

This project is a mixed use project with ground floor commercial and residences above. The project provides for an arrangement of uses, open space, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties. The commercial retail space fronts the sidewalk, with outdoor seating, landscape elements, a larger sidewalk and Class 2 bike parking spaces, making it compatible with the character of adjacent properties.

15. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

The structures in the existing neighborhood provide a variety of architectural styles and there is no established architectural style or character worthy of preservation. The exterior design and appearance of the proposed building fits in and is compatible with the design of existing buildings due to the building materials being stucco, brick veneer, stone veneer, with metal cladding, railings and storefront windows and doors. The building meets the Downtown Plan guidelines for building design in that the exterior materials visually separate the ground floor storefront from the upper floor residences, creating distinct zones on the ground level, the upper-level residences and the top two floors. The building is designed with different building materials, colors, and changes in plane to create visual interest, compatible with surrounding development. The storefront along Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street will incorporate outdoor seating and landscaped areas to enhance the pedestrian experience.

16. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas.

Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rights33.13 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
of-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

The proposed project is designed to be eight stories in height (85 feet) with different building materials proposed that blend in with elements of the surrounding area, such as stucco brick veneer, stone veneer, with metal cladding, railings and storefront windows and doors. The proposed design of the project takes into account a balance of scale, form and proportion and what is envisioned within the surrounding neighborhood.

The project will not impact any significant public view identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Map CD-3 in the Local Coastal Program. The roof design includes a parapet wall which will serve to screen the proposed rooftop equipment so it will not be seen from public rights-of-way. All utility installations are accessible hidden from the public view, including the trash room, transformer room, electrical room, and so on.

17. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.

The project proposes an eight-story tall building adjacent to other properties zoned for mixed-use, including a six story mixed-use development to the north, and one and two story commercial and multi-family residential buildings to the west, east and south of the subject property. The project has been designed to comply with the newly adopted South of Laurel Area of the expanded Downtown Plan. The project takes into account its effect on other land uses nearby as it remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the ground floor commercial unit combined with upper floor residences, similar to the adjacent property.

18. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The subject property is flat and does not contain any heritage-sized trees or shrubs. That being said, 16 Heritage-sized street trees surrounding the parcel are proposed for removal due to project impacts associated with the public improvement requirements of the Downtown Plan (ie. sidewalks, bicycle lanes, etc.). The project will not require significant grading or alteration of landforms. A shadow study was provided for the proposed project which shows that during the winter solstice (December 21st), that some adjacent properties to the west, north and east will be impacted at certain hours of the day. The project has been designed to comply with the newly adopted South of Laurel Area of the expanded Downtown Plan.

33.14 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

19. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserve important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

The project will not impact any significant public view identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Map CD-3 in the Local Coastal Program. The project site is not located adjacent to the coastline or within any scenic view area. The project is not located in a visually degraded area.

20. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.

Any noise or vibrations that may occur as a result of construction are temporary, and there is no long-term intensification in nuisance impacts, including noise or vibration, stemming from the project. General Plan policy HZ3.2.3 requires interior noise in all new multifamily housing to not exceed 45 dBA. An Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis, prepared by Veneklasen Associates, dated November 18, 2025 was submitted as part of the application. This study addresses the noise environment with respect to the acoustical requirements of the City and Building Code. Preliminary recommended sound attenuation measures are included in the report so the project will comply with the noise requirements of the General Plan. Sound-rated windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 30 for typical residential units should be used and the windows will need to be in a closed position to provide the required noise control so an alternative means of achieving outdoor air should be provided such as through mechanical ventilation. A condition of approval will require the building permit plans to identify the STC ratings of all windows, in compliance with the noise study recommendations. As conditioned, the project will comply with the noise requirements of the General Plan.

Regarding privacy of adjacent residents, there are minimal residences nearby, and those residences are in similar mixed-use or multi-family units in a higher density downtown environment where outdoor privacy is not generally expected.

21. Buildings and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.

The new building includes windows on all elevations to allow light and air to pass through the building. There is an outdoor pool area on the 4th floor and a terrace club room with outdoor decks on the 7th floor for the residents to use. Landscaping is proposed around the building which provides a natural cooling effect for the project site with trees to provide shading.

Administrative Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

33.15 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

22. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
An Administrative Use Permit is required to allow Live/Work Quarters in the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan Area. The proposal includes six Live/Work units along the Laurel Street frontage of the 245-unit mixed-use project. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) designation, which applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents and visitors. Mixed-use development, such as the one proposed, is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.

33.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
• CD1.1: Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services • CD1.1.1: Focus development in the Central Core, and along arterial and mass transit corridors. (See policies under L2.6.3).
• CD3.6: In pedestrian areas, require building design to be responsive to the pedestrian environment. These areas include but are not limited to Downtown, South of Laurel, the Beach, wharf, shoreline, and commercial shopping areas. • CD3.6.1: Encourage the use of pedestrian-scale fenestration, awnings, marquees, entrance lobbies, balconies, landscaping, paving materials and other amenities. • L2.1.2: Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrainted by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.
• L5.3: Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes • L5.6: Require land use development to integrate into the larger circulation system by interconnecting its system of roads, pedestrian and bike paths with existing facilities and also design access to nearby areas in a manner that minimizes the necessity for automobile travel and potential automobile and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

23. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
In addition to conditions to ensure consistency with the Downtown Plan, conditions of approval have been included to insure that the residential component of the Live/Work spaces not be located on the ground level.

24. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
The proposed Live/Work units are not expected to constitute a nuisance or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare since the uses will not produce odor, glare, sounds, or other nuisance features.

25. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

The project does not contain a thrift store; therefore, this finding does not apply.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby acknowledges the CEQA determination, finds the project statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code § 21080.66, and approves the Non-Residential Demolition

33.17 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus Request to demolish a commercial building and construct an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, live/work units on the ground floor, and 245 rental apartments on a parcel located in the CBD (Central Business District) Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue/CZO (Coastal Zone Overlay)/FP-O (Floodplain Overlay) zone districts and within the South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan, subject to the Findings listed above and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

33.18 EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
201 Front Street - CP25-0116
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus Request to demolish a commercial building and construct an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, live/work units on the ground floor, and 245 rental apartments on a parcel located in the CBD (Central Business District) Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue/CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay)/FP-O (Floodplain Overlay) zone districts and within the South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan. Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
019693.0002 4905-7579-6400.1

1. If one or more of the following conditions is not met with respect to all its terms, then this approval may be revoked.

2. All plans for future construction which are not covered by this review shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval.

3. This permit shall be exercised within three (3) years of the date of final approval or it shall become null and void. When a building permit is required, a zoning permit shall be considered exercised following the issuance of a valid building permit.

4. The use shall meet the standards and shall be developed within limits established by Chapter

24.14 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code as to the emission of noise, odor, smoke, dust, vibration, wastes, fumes or any public nuisance arising or occurring incidental to its establishment or operation.

5. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may result in the revocation of any approval or permits issued in connection therewith.

6. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans.

Prior to Building Permit Issuance:

7. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement at the bottom of these conditions, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves construction of a mixed-use building (project) with an approved Design Permit CP25-0156. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner which results in a finished building with the same level of detail, articulation, and

33.19 dimensionality shown in the plans submitted for building permits. I hereby acknowledge that failure to construct the building as represented in the building permit plans, may result in delay of the inspections process and/or the mandatory reconstruction or alteration of any portion of the building that is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans, prior to continuation of inspections or the building final.”
Signature of Building Contractor Date

8. Prior to building permit issuance, all requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works, Stormwater, Community Development, Housing, Parks and Recreation, and Water Departments shall be shown and addressed on the final building permit plans.

9. Adequate provisions shall be made to supply water to each of the premises covered by this application. The design of water facilities shall be to standards of the Water Department, and plans therefore must be submitted to the Water Department Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

10. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance.

11. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show all exterior site lighting locations and fixture details. All exterior building lighting shall be shielded and contained in a downward direction. No exterior lighting shall produce off-site glare. Exterior site lighting shall be provided along pedestrian pathways and in the vehicle parking area. Security lighting shall be motion sensor only.

12. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application and will be reviewed by both the Community Development Department and Water Department. The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit. Turf is not permitted in new non-residential landscape projects.

13. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.

14. Prior to building permit issuance, the City Arborist must approve of the proposed street trees.

15. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include landscaping or other screening of the backflow preventor from public view for review and approval by the Community Development Department and Water Department.

16. All utilities shall be placed underground in accordance with the provisions of Section

24.12.700 through 24.12.740 of the Zoning Ordinance. Above ground transformers are permitted within the approved fully enclosed room on Front Street, or an alternative location subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.

33.20 17. Bike parking shall be provided in accordance with Sections 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, all Class 2 bike parking shall be inverted “U” style racks.

18. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.

19. Prior to building permit issuance, the following requirements must be addressed on the building permit plans subject to review and approval from the City’s Bicycle Coordinator:
a) Identify the vendor/make and model for all Class 1 and Class 2 bike parking products proposed for use (link to product sufficient). Class 2 bike parking must be Inverted U racks.
b) Label the dimensions to show 6' by 2' footprint for each bike rack. c) Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in highly visible, well-lit areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
d) Bike parking facilities within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier to protect bicycles from damage by cars, such as curbs, wheel stops, poles or other similar features.
e) The City of Santa Cruz Standard Detail DWG. NO T-7 for Bicycle Rack on Sidewalk:
https://santacruzca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/pw/documents/enginee ring/2025-standard-details-signed-6.30.25.pdf shall be shown on the plans. f) Show how the Class 1 bike storage room will be secured and accessed (key card or code works to restrict access to residents only) on the building permit plans. Security cameras are recommended to be installed in each bike room/bike parking area. g) Add wayfinding signage to all bike parking that is not readily visible from the building entrances and label this on the building permit plans.
h) Label the dimensions for a bike fix-it station within the Class 1 bike storage room and label the following on the plans to be provided in the fix-it station: A fix-it station shall include at a minimum a bicycle pump; 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 mm Allen wrenches; 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 32 mm box wrenches; two tire levers; and a Phillips and flat head screwdriver. i) Label location of e-bike charging stations on the plans to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Bicycle Coordinator.
j) Per Section K.12 of the Downtown Plan, four shared electric bicycles are required to be provided within the proposed building (i.e. bike storage room, garage, lobby, etc.).

Continue to demonstrate compliance with this requirement on the building permit plans.

20. Prior to building permit issuance, all of the following measures must be addressed:
a) The applicant shall provide for a qualified Native American monitor (“Monitor”) designated by the Tribes to be present during all ground-disturbance activities at the Project Site. The tribal monitor shall comply with the applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements. The Applicant shall enter into contract with the Monitor which details the scope of work to be undertaken in connection with the monitoring, site access and workplace safety requirements, and compensation for such work, which shall be at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the Project. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the signed contract to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.

21. The plan for erosion control shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to building permit issuance.

33.21 22. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate compliance with Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) for private and public development projects contained in “Chapter 6B of the Best Management Practices Manual for the City’s Storm Water Management Program” dated March 2014 and the City’s mandatory construction BMPs as detailed in the latest BMP manual published by Public Works Department. Plans shall also comply with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Post Construction Requirements (PCRS).

23. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. visible from the public way and from adjacent properties, shall be screened with material compatible with the materials of the building and shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation confirming that all outdoor mechanical equipment, such as heat pumps, comply with the City’s noise standards.

24. Final colors and materials shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance.

25. The owner/applicant shall satisfy the City's affordable housing requirements under Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 24.16.010 and the Downtown Density Bonus ("DDB") Program through a City-approved affordable housing development and implementation agreement (the "Affordable Housing Implementation Agreement" or "AHIA"). The AHIA shall be executed by the City, the applicant, CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development LLC or its applicable affiliate ("CRP"), and any other parties necessary to implement the transaction, and shall be recorded against the 201 Front Project site, and, as applicable, the 407 Pacific Project site, prior to the first to occur of (i) issuance of the first building permit for the 201 Front Project or (ii) recordation of the final subdivision map for the 201 Front Project. The AHIA shall implement the requirements below. Final squarefootage amounts shall be determined based on the final building permit plans for the respective projects. Conforming numerical updates that do not reduce the affordable housing benefit below the applicable DDB and affordable housing requirements shall not, by themselves, constitute a Major Modification.
a) Compliance structure. The 201 Front Project is approved to satisfy the DDB and inclusionary housing requirements through the DDB Program Combination Option in Downtown Plan Section K.14.b.iv(5), using a combination of the 407 Pacific Project as the project-specific off-site affordable housing component and the funding and backstop obligations set forth in the AHIA.
b) Implementation agreement; required evidence. The AHIA shall memorialize the implementation framework among the City, 201 Front SC LLC, CRP, and any successor or financing entities necessary to implement the transaction; shall describe the required recorded affordability covenants and regulatory agreements; and shall identify the evidence that must be provided to the Community Development Director, or the Director's designee, before each applicable permit or occupancy milestone. c) 407 Pacific Project; CRP responsibilities. The AHIA shall identify the 100 percent affordable rental housing project located at 407-409/413 Pacific Avenue (the "407 Pacific Project") as the affordable housing component associated with the 201 Front Project. CRP shall remain responsible for acquiring, financing, constructing, owning, and/or operating the 407 Pacific Project, except to the extent a different ownership or

33.22 transfer structure is required by the 407 Pacific Project's financing. Once the project is developed, the sale of the project may proceed without City authorization, so long as affordable housing restrictions remain in effect pursuant to the AHDA for that site. d) Minimum affordable housing obligation. The AHIA shall require the 407 Pacific Project to provide at least the affordable housing area required under the DDB Program's Land Dedication Option formula, which is being used for purposes of evaluating the approved Combination Option: 75 percent x 40 percent x the 201 Front Project's net rentable residential area. Based on the current entitlement plans for the 201 Front Project, this equates to a minimum of approximately 61,148 square feet of net rentable affordable housing area, excluding replacement units, inclusionary units, managers’ units (that do not meet affordable housing standards),and any other units or areas required to be excluded under the DDB Program or AHIA. The final minimum shall be recalculated from the final building permit plans. e) Reference calculations. Based on the current entitlement plans, the 201 Front Project contains approximately 203,828 square feet of net rentable residential area, resulting in the following reference calculation:
a. 203,515 x 40% = 81,406 sq. ft.
81,531 x 75% = 61,054 sq. ft. required minimum
b. The 407 Pacific Project currently includes approximately 85,290 square feet of net rentable residential area. These figures are included for reference only; the AHIA shall update all required minimums and any excess-capacity calculations based on final approved plans.
f) Funding obligation. The AHIA shall require the applicant to provide a $4.25 million land-cost contribution for the 407 Pacific Project. If CRP has obtained the financing commitments necessary for the 407 Pacific Project and is ready to close construction financing and obtain a building permit for the 407 Pacific Project before the 201 Front Project is ready for a temporary certificate of occupancy, the $4.25 million contribution shall be paid to CRP or CRP's designated project partner, nonprofit affiliate, ownership entity, or financing designee at the closing of the 407 Pacific Project's construction financing and issuance of its building permit.
g) City-held backstop funds. If CRP has not obtained the financing commitments necessary to close construction financing for the 407 Pacific Project by the time the 201 Front Project is ready for a temporary certificate of occupancy, then, as a condition to issuance of the first temporary certificate of occupancy for the 201 Front Project, the applicant shall deposit $4.25 million with the City. The City shall hold those funds in a segregated, restricted account within the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, or an equivalent dedicated accounting structure approved by the City, for the exclusive benefit of the 407 Pacific Project while CRP remains in compliance with the AHIA.

Interest earned on City-held funds shall remain in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund unless otherwise provided in the AHIA.
h) Release, diligence, and default. The AHIA shall establish objective diligence, reporting, notice, and cure standards for CRP's continued pursuit of the 407 Pacific Project, including continued good-faith pursuit of tax-credit allocations and other financing commitments. While CRP remains diligently engaged in pursuing the 407 Pacific Project, the City-held funds shall remain reserved for that project and shall be released to CRP or its designated project partner, nonprofit affiliate, ownership entity, or financing designee upon CRP's receipt of an LIHTC commitment and the other financing commitments necessary to close financing for the 407 Pacific Project. If CRP

33.23 becomes insolvent, abandons the 407 Pacific Project, loses site control, or fails to satisfy the AHIA's diligence standards after required notice and opportunity to cure, the City may transfer the restricted funds to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund or otherwise apply the funds in accordance with the AHIA. i) Affordability covenant. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the 407 Pacific Project, the 407 Pacific Project site shall be encumbered by a recorded covenant, regulatory agreement, or other City-approved affordability restriction requiring affordability in perpetuity for lower-income households, defined as households earning 80 percent of area median income or less, subject to the specific affordability levels approved for the 407 Pacific Project. The recorded affordability restriction shall be in a priority position, or otherwise structured to survive foreclosure or other default to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law and financing requirements. j) Excess capacity credit. Any affordable housing area in the 407 Pacific Project that exceeds the minimum required affordable housing area for the 201 Front Project, after deducting replacement units, inclusionary units, manager's units, and other required adjustments under the DDB Program and AHIA, may be treated as excess capacity credit only to the extent approved by the City Council and consistent with Section (g)(i)(8) of the DDB Program. Unless otherwise provided by that section, any approved excess capacity credit shall expire seven years after final occupancy of the residential portion of the initial market-rate project unless a complete application for a new project proposing to use the credit has been submitted before expiration. k) City-managed land dedication charges. So long as the 407 Pacific Project remains the project-specific affordable housing component and CRP remains responsible for financing and constructing that project, the $9.54 per-square-foot contribution and oneyear staff-cost payment required for a City-managed land dedication under DDB Program Sections (g)(i)(2) and (g)(i)(7) shall not apply. If the 407 Pacific Project is not delivered because CRP ceases diligent pursuit of the project after required notice and opportunity to cure, then 201 Front and/or LPC shall pay the annually escalated persquare-foot contribution and one-year staff-cost payment required by those sections, as further specified in the AHIA. If the City is required to serve as a co-applicant for 407 Pacific Project funding, the applicant shall reimburse the City for its reasonable timeand-material costs for that role, not to exceed $150,000.

26. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following fees shall be paid:
a) The applicant shall pay the Park and Recreation Facility Tax pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans, unless deferral of payment is allowed pursuant to Gov. Code section 66007.

27. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following Public Works fees shall be calculated and paid:
a) Public Works Inspection Fee: Fee can be calculated by the project Civil Engineer.

Inspection Fee: An inspection fee of the estimated cost to construct the off-site improvements to be inspected shall be paid to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
b) Groundwater Dewatering Fee is applicable when discharging into the City sanitary sewer system.
c) Parking Meter Fees: The project will be responsible for the City parking meter fees when meters get taken off-line for construction purposes.

33.24 28. A demolition permit to demolish the existing commercial building(s) shall not be issued until a permit for the replacement development project has first been issued.

29. If there are any buildings approved for demolition that are currently vacant or that become vacant for longer than 3 months following entitlement, rodent control measures shall be required. Prior to demolition permit issuance, the applicant shall submit evidence of tenancy to confirm the vacancy of existing buildings. If subject to rodent control requirements as determined by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant shall submit evidence of a contract with a licensed pest control company and shall provide a letter or report prepared by the licensed pest control company detailing the measures that will be conducted on the site. The measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and shall be conducted by a licensed pest control company immediately prior to demolition.

Evidence of completion shall be provided to the Community Development Department.

Alternatively, a licensed pest control agency can provide a written attestation that rodents or other pests are not present and no actions are therefore needed.

30. The applicant shall send notices of demolition to all tenants of the commercial building to be demolished at least six months prior to demolition or eviction. The notices shall include contact information for the Economic Development Department for tenants to use as a resource for relocation assistance. Proof of noticing shall be submitted to the Economic Development Department.

31. All washing machines provided for common use among tenants shall be equipped with microplastic filters to reduce plastic pollution. See Operational Conditions for noticing and maintenance requirements.

32. Prior to building permit issuance, the building permit plan set shall demonstrate compliance with the standards of floodplain development as established by the California Building Code, if required for the proposed project.

33. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Archaeological Due Diligence Records Review and Field Inspection, prepared by Basin Research Associates, dated January 6, 2026.

34. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis, prepared by Veneklasen Associates, dated November 18, 2025. Compliance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Environmental Noise Study shall be labeled on the building permit plans prior to building permit issuance, including the recommended STC ratings of all windows.

35. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, dated May 5, 2023

36. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. dated April 18, 2024.

33.25 37. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Stormwater Control Plan prepared by Keir & Wright Civil Engineering and Surveyors dated December 17, 2025.

38. The largest commercial space along Pacific Avenue shall be constructed to support a future food service use. Plans must include ducting and venting plans for all commercial spaces. All ducting and venting shall be designed to be hidden or incorporated into the building design.

Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, and grease storage facilities.

The space may be divided in the future to support a variety of allowed uses.

39. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the developer has agreed to voluntarily contribute $100,000 to the cost of public infrastructure improvements identified in the Downtown Expansion Plan serving the Front Street corridor, including street, utility, and related public facility improvements (the “Downtown Improvements”). The purpose of this voluntary contribution is to fund infrastructure improvements required to serve development within the Downtown Expansion Plan area and the additional demand for public facilities generated by such development.

40. Public art in the form of blade signage and/or façade lighting shall be incorporated into the project and included with the building permit plans.

41. Developer is responsible for traffic signal modifications at Front/Pacific and Front/Laurel, inclusive, but not limited to, pedestrian push buttons, cabinet relocations, and signal post relocations so the signal conforms with the adopted public improvement plans. The developer will provide traffic signal modification plans for review and acceptance by public works prior to issuance of a building permit. Construction of the traffic signal modifications must be coordinated with and accepted by Public Works.

42. The developer shall coordinate with the Public Works Department to accommodate changes to curblines and frontage improvements adopted by the City through the Plan Lines effort, provided that the Plan Lines effort is finally adopted no later than December 31, 2026. Any such accommodation shall be limited to modifications that can be implemented within the existing public right-of-way and without requiring dedication of additional right-of-way from that identified in the Downtown Plan Expansion, reduction in the approved building envelope, reduction in approved floor area or dwelling units, material redesign of the Project, or delay in issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. The developer shall not be required to incorporate any Plan Lines-related modification unless the applicable standards are finally adopted and available in sufficient detail at the time the Project’s public improvement plans are submitted.

43. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with the City’s Bird Safe Building Standards. Adhesive film may not be used to meet fritting or glass standards.

44. Prior to Building Permit issuance, and as part of the Building Permit Plan Check process, a subcommittee of the City Planning Commission in consultation with the Community Development Director or their designee shall review and approve the selected exterior materials for the project.

33.26 Prior to and During Construction:

45. The Project shall comply with any labor standards imposed by Public Resources Code section 21080.66 only to the extent such standards are applicable to the Project as approved. For avoidance of doubt, the City’s approval of the Project is based on the approved plans and entitlement materials demonstrating that the Project does not include any building over 85 feet in height above grade. The final building permit plans shall include height diagrams and calculations confirming that the building does not exceed 85 feet in height above grade, as measured for purposes of Public Resources Code section 21080.66(d)(2), and does not otherwise exceed any applicable 85-foot threshold under the California Building Standards Code. This condition shall not be construed as an admission or determination that the labor standards referenced in Public Resources Code section 21080.66(d)(2) apply to the Project.

46. All refuse and recycling activities during construction shall be done in accordance with Chapter

6.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Be aware that private companies offering refuse or debris box services are not allowed to operate within the City limits, except under certain limited circumstances detailed in Chapter 6.12.160.

47. The project shall comply with the requirements in the Enforceable Agreement dated May 14, 2026.

48. During all ground-disturbing activities, a Native American observer, authorized by the Community Development Department, shall be present to collect and catalog any material uncovered. The cost for this service shall be paid by the applicant.

49. At least one contractor and subcontractor from each trade that will perform earth disturbing activity shall participate in and complete at least 1 (one) hour of Native American tribal cultural resources sensitivity training. The training shall be conducted by a Native American monitor acceptable to the Planning Director in consultation with the Native American Tribes. Such sensitivity training shall focus, in particular, on California Native American tribal cultural resources, shall include descriptions and photographic examples of Native American tribal cultural resources, and what to do when a potential cultural or archaeological resource is identified by site personnel. The Applicant shall submit a certification attesting to the completion of such sensitivity training to the City that includes the names and work affiliations of all those who received training. If certification has already been obtained from a worksite in the city within the prior three years, then the certified contractor or subcontractor shall not be subject to subsequent training.

50. Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.

51. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9.

52. The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial

33.27 grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.

53. Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource or paleontological resource, shall:
a) Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b) Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking;
c) Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d) Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

54. Grading shall be done during periods of dry weather and protective measures shall be incorporated during grading to prevent siltation from any grading project halted due to rain.

55. The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any existing buildings approved for demolition or conversion remain occupied by a tenant or, if any buildings are vacant or become vacant prior to demolition or conversion, that these buildings are adequately secured to prevent break-ins and other vandalism. All windows, doors, and other openings into vacant buildings shall be completely covered and a six-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the property. Graffiti shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours. If a break-in occurs, the applicant and/or property owner shall, within 24 hours, clean the site of trash and debris, and re-secure the site and building(s). Additionally, following a break-in, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Community Development Department, SCFD Fire Marshall and SCPD with a copy of a signed contract with a private security company to provide ongoing monitoring of the site. If a break-in or other public safety concern related to the vacant status of the property/space occurs at the vacant site/space that requires an emergency response, the applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for paying the fully burdened hourly rates for Police, Fire, Code Compliance, or other City Staff to respond and follow up as abatement costs, civil penalties, and/or pursuant to all other rights and remedies the City has. The City will not issue the certificate of occupancy/final permit until all fines, fees, civil penalties, and/or costs are paid.

56. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower shall be zeroemissions or equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final or Interim compliant engines. Alternatively, CARB Tier 2 or 3 compliant engines may be used if CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled equipment.

33.28 Prior to Final Building Permit/Occupancy:

57. The development of the site shall be in substantial accordance with the approved plans submitted and on file in the Community Development Department of the City of Santa Cruz.

All aspects of construction must be completed prior to occupancy. Major modifications to plans or exceptions to completion may be granted only by the City authority which approved the project.

58. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works, Community Development, and Water Departments and the City Arborist shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

59. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.

60. Subsequent to occupancy of the premises, all landscaping shall be permanently maintained.

Such maintenance shall be secured through an 18-month bond prior to occupancy.

61. Prior to building permit final, the Native American Monitor shall provide a follow-up letter to the Community Development Department confirming that they were present on the site to monitor all grading and subsurface excavations and the results of the monitoring. If the property owner fails to comply with the full extent of on-site monitoring requirements, the property owner shall be subject to the Archaeological Monitoring Non-compliance Guidelines which includes supplemental archaeological investigation and monetary administrative civil penalties which could delay final inspections and occupancy.

62. The Applicant shall create a commemorative plaque or mural to be placed on the subject property, as described in Section 5 of the Enforceable Agreement dated May 14, 2026, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

63. Prior to final inspection of a Building Permit, all rental units in the project shall be enrolled in the City of Santa Cruz Residential Rental Inspection Program. The units are exempt from inspections and annual registration fees for the first five years of occupancy (based on the date of building permit’s final inspection) and will be activated automatically after five years.

If the project consists of ownership units, each individual property owner is responsible for enrolling in the Rental Inspection Program prior to renting their unit(s).

64. Prior to temporary or final occupancy, the following fees shall be paid:
a) The applicant shall pay Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) as required by the Public Works Department.

Operational Conditions

65. The residential components of the Live/Work units shall not be located on the ground level.

66. Parking provided for residential units shall be provided in an unbundled fashion, separating the cost of parking from the cost to purchase or rent housing. In no case will a residential tenant or owner be required to purchase any amount of parking space in order to own or rent a housing unit.

33.29 67. Future uses shall submit a disclosure statement for Zoning Administrator review prior to issuance of any occupancy permit regarding materials and chemicals to be used and disposed of from the site.

68. Prior to beginning any new food service operations, complete and submit a Wastewater Discharge Questionnaire to the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility at 110 California Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. The questionnaire requests information about the proposed food service facility, including the hours of operation, seating capacity, and the types of equipment to be used. The information will be used to determine the size of the grease interceptor or trap that must be installed.

69. Prior to commercial/business use of a building or site, owners or tenants shall obtain a Zoning Clearance/Occupancy Permit from the City Community Development Department and a Business License from the City Finance Department.

70. Building owners shall ensure that the microplastic filters on washing machines in common laundry rooms are regularly cleaned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications for the selected filter. Filtered microplastics shall not be disposed of in drains. Rather, they shall be disposed of in the solid waste trash containers, unless municipal facilities become equipped for and readily able to recycle said microplastic materials in the future, in which case the captured plastic shall be recycled through the municipal system.

71. Applicant’s/Property Owner’s Duty to Defend, Indemnify, and Hold Harmless. a) Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (the “City Parties”) from and against all liabilities, losses, liens, damages, judgments, costs, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees (“Losses”), arising in any way related to this Project, but only to the extent arising out of or resulting from: (i) Applicant’s or Property Owner’s construction, use, operation, maintenance, or occupancy of the Project; (ii) Applicant’s or Property Owner’s performance of, or failure to perform, any obligation under these Conditions of Approval or any related Project approval, permit, agreement, or regulatory requirement; (iii) any act or omission of Applicant, Property Owner, or their respective contractors, subcontractors, consultants, agents, employees, tenants, invitees, successors, or assigns in connection with the Project; or (iv) the physical condition of the Project site, except to the extent such Losses are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any City Party.
b) Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (“City Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, and proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) brought against the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or otherwise modify the decision on the Project, permit decision, or environmental review related to the Project; or Actions alleging failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, general plan, or zoning requirements related to the Project. The defense and indemnification obligation includes reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred in connection with such Actions, including but not limited to, costs of suit, expenses, payment of attorney’s fees, City staff costs, court costs, damages, liabilities, judgments, and settlement costs.

33.30 c) Applicant and Property Owner shall also defend, indemnify and hold harmless City Parties for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (such as an EIR, negative declaration, specific plan, general plan amendment, or ordinance) if made necessary by said Actions and if the Applicant or Property Owner seeks to pursue securing such approvals and/or clearances, after initiation of the Actions, which are conditioned on the approval of these documents.
d) City shall notify Applicant and Property Owner of any such Actions and City agrees to cooperate in the defense of the Actions. Upon receipt of such notification, Applicant and/or Property Owner shall assume the defense of the Actions, including the employment of counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, City may employ separate counsel to represent the City; and Applicant and/or Property Owner agrees to pay for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the City’s separate counsel. e) Applicant and Property Owner agree that City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such Actions; but such participation shall not relieve Applicant or Property Owner of any of the obligations herein to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties. If the City Attorney’s Office participates in the defense, all of the City Attorney’s Office fees and costs, and City staff costs, shall be paid by the Applicant and/or Property Owner.
f) In the event that Applicant and/or Property Owner is required to defend City in connection with any Actions, City shall retain the right to reasonably approve: the counsel to so defend City; all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld but which is contingent on the approval of the City council. g) Applicant and Property Owner agree to reimburse and indemnify the City for all of City’s costs, fees, including attorney’s fees and costs, staff costs, and damages incurred in enforcing these provisions to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties. h) Applicant’s and Property Owner’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not apply to the extent such Actions or Losses are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Parties. Applicant’s and Property Owner’s obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that City Parties caused or contributed to the Losses. i) The obligations of Applicant and Property Owner to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Parties, are joint and several.
j) The obligations in this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the Conditions of Approval.

33.31 201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE

SANTA CRUZ, CA
3RD PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2026-02-11

33.32 SITE
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCEST.

FRONT
ST.

PACIFIC
AVE.

CE
DAR
ST.

SANLORENZORIVER

SANTACRUZRIVERWALK
MAPLEST.

LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.

R4 LEVEL : 90% OF R3 LEVEL

GROSS FLOOR AREA
R4 & R5 UPPER LEVEL

TAPERED AREA
R4 & R5 UPPER

LEVEL TAPERED
AREA
R4 & R5 LEVELS
37,688 SF
R3 LEVEL
41,936 SF
JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE G1.1
2024-0428
02-11-2025

PROJECT INFORMATION
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

SHEET INDEX
G1.0 COVER SHEET
G1.1 PROJECT DATA
G1.2 CONTEXT
G1.3 EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS
G1.4 PROJECT RENDERINGS
G1.5 PROJECT RENDERINGS
A2.0 SITE PLAN & G1 GROUND LEVEL.

A2.1 FL. PLAN G0 SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL
A2.2 FL. PLAN G2 LEVEL PLAN
A2.3 FL. PLAN G3 LEVEL PLAN
A2.4 FL. PLAN R1 PODIUM LEVEL
A2.5 FL. PLAN R2 & R3 LEVELS
A2.6 FL. PLAN R4 LEVEL PLAN
A2.7 FL. PLAN R5 LEVEL PLAN
A2.8 ROOF PLAN
A3.0 BUILDING SECTIONS
A4.0 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
A4.1 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
A5.0 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD
A5.1 LIGHT FIXTURES
A5.2 WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS

PROJECT TEAM

APPLICANT

LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANIY
332 PINE STREET | SUITE 500 |
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
951.317.5640
CONTACT: ALLIE MEISTER
[email protected]

ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AO
144 NORTH ORANGE STREET
ORANGE, CA 92886
714.639.9860
CONTACT: RC ALLEY ,
[email protected]

STUDIO REFORM
2406 SOLAZAR WAY,
OCEANSIDE, CA92056,
619.318.9626
CONTACT: Troy Vaughn
[email protected]

VICINITY MAP

CIVIL ENGINEER
KIER + WRIGHT.
3350 SCOTT BOULEVARD, BLDG. 22,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95054
408.727.6665
CONTACT: MARK KNUDSEN
[email protected]

UPPER LEVEL TAPERING
THE STORIES CONTAINING INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR ABOVE 55 FT. IN HEIGHT SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 90% OF THE INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR AREA OF THE HEIGHEST FLOOR BELOW 55 FT.

THE STORIES CONTAINING INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR ABOVE 55 FT. : R4 & R5 LEVELS INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR AREA OF THE HEIGHEST FLOOR BELOW 55 FT. : R3 LEVEL R3 LEVEL INT. FINISHED FLOOR AREA : 41,936 SF.

R4 LEVEL INT. FINISHED FLOOR AREA : 37,688 SF. < 41,936 X 90% = 37,742 SF The proposed 245-unit multifamily mixed-use development is located south of Laurel Street at 201 Front Street in Santa Cruz, California. With its important location, this project is poised to become a unique landmark and a visual statement to the Santa Cruz urban context. The design seamlessly integrates into the urban setting, offering a bold contemporary metropolitan aesthetic, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with the heritage, character and urban vibe of Santa Cruz.

Positioned on Pacific Avenue, the development extends the commercial downtown vibe with 11,890 square feet of commercial space, enhancing the pedestrian-friendly streetscape and linking downtown to the future Spruce Plaza. On Laurel Street, the design includes two-level live-work units with flexible office/commercial spaces at street level. The corner of Front Street and Laurel Street is conceived as an iconic landmark. Front Street functions as a service street, featuring a garage entrance and utilities at the ground level. Responding to Spruce Street's southern exposure, the project includes ground-level amenities including co-working spaces and the leasing office, alongside a 3,430 square foot south-facing roof terrace and clubhouse on the seventh level. The roof terrace offers views of the future plaza, sports arena, San Lorenzo River, and boardwalk at the South side.

As envisioned by the City of Santa Cruz, public open space figures prominently throughout the ground level. Gracious 10' wide sidewalks along Laurel Street, Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street easily accommodate two-way pedestrian traffic. Grade separated designated bike lanes extend along Laurel Street and Front Street, providing safe and viable commuting for cyclists. The addition of convenient on-street parking at Front Street and Pacific Avenue supports commerce and designated loading zones.

In total, 30 street trees adorn all four frontages with high arching canopies that will supply ample shade and enhance the City's urban tree canopy. Nestled among the trees and on-grade planters, two parklets expand public space with seating areas supporting restaurants along Pacific Avenue.

The development provides 245 residential units, with over 30% being two- and three-bedroom units.

It includes 256 parking stalls, offering direct access at a 1:1 ratio per unit. The building comprises five levels of Type IIIA construction atop three levels of Type IA podium, plus a basement. The upper two levels are tapered to limit the floor area to 90% of the floor area below 55 feet, with the overall height remains under the 85-foot limit measured to the plate.

NARRATIVE
A6.0 LIVE WORK UNITS
A6.1 UNIT PLANS
A6.2 UNIT PLANS
A6.3 UNIT PLANS
A7.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
A8.0 SHADOW STUDIES
L1.0 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
L1.1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - PODIUM
L1.2 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AMENITY TERRACE
L1.3 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - ROOF PLAN
L2.0 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTION
L2.1 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTION
L2.2 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTION
L2.3 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTION
L3.0 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD - LANDSCAPE
C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
C3.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN
C4.1 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
C5.1 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL

NOTES AND DETAILS

ENTITLEMENT CONSULTANT

LAWLOR LANDUSE
(831) 457-1331
CONTACT: OWEN LAWLOR
[email protected]

33.33 JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE G1.2
2024-0428
02-11-2025

SITE CONTEXT
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

33.34 JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE G1.3
2024-0428
02-11-2025

EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

33.35 LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.

JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE G1.4
2024-0428
02-11-2025

PROJECT RENDERINGS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
01 01 02
03 04
02 03
04 33.36
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.

JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE G1.5
2024-0428
02-11-2025

PROJECT RENDERINGS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
05 06
07 09
05 08
08 07
06 09

33.37 R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
EL
HC

1.7 5
%

1.5%

0.4%

1.5%

0.9%

1.5 %

0.6%
1 5. %

0.4% 0.9%

0.4%

0.6%

0.5%

0.9%

1.1%
0 6. %

0.5%
0 5. %

1.9% 1.5
%

4.75%

0.6%

0.7%

4.75%

3.2%

3.8%

3.5%

13.8 FF

13.80 12.94

13.5 TC

11.2 TC

11.25 TC

11.4 TC

13.3 TC

12.22 TC

13.25 TC-HP

12.5 TC

12.4 TC

11.9 TC

11.4 TC

12.9 TC

13.60 13.8
FF

13.8 FF

11.5 TC

13.35 TC

13.1 TC

13.25 TC

11.62 TC

11.81 TC

11.93 TC

12.13 TC

12.19 TC

12.51 TC

12.63 TC

12.87 TC

11.76 TC

11.64 TC

12.02 TC

12.21 TC

13.14 TC

13.28 TR

12.85 BR

12.39 BR

12.84 TR

13.08 TR

12.63 BR

10.8 B
3 R

11.37 TR

11.43 TR

10.97 BR

13.05 13.80

13.80 13.80
FF

13.78 11.55

11.55 11.75

12.00 12.90

13.50 13.35
TC

13.65 TC

13.40 TC

13.30 TC

13.65 13.65

12.55 12.75

12.80 TC

12.65 TC

13.30 13.55

13.32 13.57

13.70 12.10

12.40 12.80

13.35 12.96
TC

13.10 13.70

13.55 13.7
13 5
.80
1 A3.0
2 A3.0

MAIL ROOM
ELEV.

EXIT PASSAGE

PET SPA

PARCEL RM
38' - 2"
43' - 3"
24' - 0"

COMMERCIAL
SPACE
9,930 SF
RES. MOVE IN
20' - 9"
OFFICE

LEASING
31' - 2"
TRANSFORMERVAULT 01
LAUREL STREET.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT STREET

SPRUCE STREET
20% RAMP UP
20% RAMP DN
10% RAMP
UP
10% RAMP DN
38 STALLS
22' - 0"

ELECTRIC RM /

UTILITIES
EXIT
32' - 2"
32' - 11"
L/W 2
1,730 SF.

L/W 2
1,730 SF.

L/W 2
Alt.
1,667 SF.

L/W 1
1,844 SF.
24' - 0" 20' - 10"
27' - 9"
6' - 0"
1,370 SF
USPS
20' - 4"
LOUNGE
185 SF

MOVE IN LOADING AREA
GARAGE
ENTRY
RES. TRASH
COMM. TRASH GATE
EXIT
UP
DN
+/- 13.5 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT. +/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 11.0 FT.
24' - 0"

SIDEWALK

6.5 FT. BIKE LANE

6.5 FT BIKE LANE
S
DI E
WA
L
K
S
DI E
WA
L
K

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
9 FT. DEDICATION

PROPERTY LINE
DISTANCE TO THE RESI. PORTION

FROM THE PACIFIC AVENUE

PROPERTY LINE
22' - 4" 12' - 0"
220' - 7"
220' - 6"
8' X 22' PARALLEL

PARKING STALLS
+/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT.

GRAND
ENTRY

RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY
TRANSFORMERVAULT 02
EXIT
T
AIR IN
AIR EXH.

COMM.

E-BIKES
CLASS 1
4' - 9"

5.5 FT DEDICATION
13' - 3"
CLASS 2 BIKE
RACKS 2'X6'
-8 BIKES
3'-6" FT ABANDONMENT
LINE

PROPERTY LINE
30' - 0"
27' - 6" +/- 13.6 FT.

COMMERCIAL 3 COMMERCIAL 2
1,025 SF +/- 13.8 FT.
4 E-BIKES
(10' X 3') RES.

CLASS 1
2 E-BIKES
(10' X 3') RES.

CLASS 1
6 E-BIKES
(10' X 3')
RES. CLASS 1
+/- 13.8 FT. +/- 13.8 FT. +/- 13.8 FT. +/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT.
8' - 0"
1,225 SF
+/- 13.8 FT.
+/- 13.8 FT.
6' - 0"
26' - 10"
5' - 0"

BALCONY ABOVE
AT G3 LEVEL
225' - 5"
CLASS 2 BIKE RACKS
2'X6' - 16 BIKES
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
14' - 11"
14' - 9"
10' - 0"
8' - 0"
9' - 6"
8' - 7"
8' - 7"
19' - 10"
NEW FH
CLASS 2 E-BIKE
3'X10'
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
3' - 0"
10' - 0"
2' - 0"
6' - 0"
2' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0" 2' - 0"

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025
SITE PLAN & G1 GROUND LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
G1- GROUND LEVEL & SITE
REFER PG. A 6.0 FOR ENLARGED

LIVE WORK UNIT PLANS
NOTE:

1. REFER CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.1 FOR LOT LINE DIMENSTIONS

33.38 THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
8 20
24' - 0"
14 15
21 115 STALLS

AIR INTAKE ABOVE
MAINT. RM.

STORAGE
AIR EXH.
22' - 0"
R24' - 0"
R24' - 0"
16' - 0"
R24' - 0"
R24' - 0"
10% RAMP
UP
PERSONAL STORAGE CLOSETS (62sf)
15 11 TANDEM STALLS
22 20% UP
-10' - 6"
UP
AIR IN 24' - 0"
80 BIKES

ON STACKED
80 BIKES

ON STACKED

BIKE RACKS

BIKE FIX-IT

STATION
24 BIKES
EXIT

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.1
2024-0428
02-11-2025
G0 - SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
G0- SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL

33.39 THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB
CB CB
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
20% RAMP UP
20% RAMP DN
10% RAMP
UP
10% RAMP DN
53 STALLS
A6
A6
804 SF.
804 SF.

A6
804 SF.
955 SF.

B4
484 SF.
20' - 10"
S2

COMMERCIAL

SPACE BELOW
L/W 2
1,730 SF.

L/W 2
1,730 SF.

L/W 2
1,760 SF.

L/W 1
1,844 SF.

UP DN
33' - 7"
5' - 9"
6' - 0"
24' - 0"
24' - 0"
24' - 0"
22' - 0"
LAUREL STREET.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT STREET

SPRUCE STREET
+/- 23.0 FT.
+/- 23.0 FT. +/- 23.0 FT.
+/- 23.0 FT. +/- 23.0 FT.

AIR IN
AIR EXH.
54 BIKES

ON DOUBLE STACK BIKE RACKS

COMMERCIAL

SPACE BELOW
LOBBY
BELOW

TRASHRM
6' - 0"
LOBBY

BALCONY ABOVE

COMMERCIAL

LEASING SPACE BELOW
BELOW

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.2
2024-0428
02-11-2025
G2 - LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
G2- LEVEL

33.40 TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CBCB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
CB
15"24"
CB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
1 A3.0
2 A3.0 S2
A1-1
790 SF.

A1-2
565 SF.

A1-2
565 SF.
1,070 SF.

B3
1,075 SF.

B5
S1
495 SF.
1,223 SF.

B2-2
1,223 SF.

B2-2
A jr 1-1
602 SF.

A6
A6
1040 SF.

B1
51 STALLS
20% RAMP DN
10% RAMP DN
24' - 0"
484 SF.
804 SF.
804 SF.

A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN
1,223 SF.

B2-2
A6
804 SF.

A1-2
565 SF.
5' - 9"
955 SF.

B4
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
6' - 0"
S1
495 SF.
1,312 SF.

C1
6' - 5"
POOL EQUIP.

RM.

DNUP
LAUREL STREET.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT STREET

SPRUCE STREET
+/- 35.0 FT.
+/- 35.0 FT.6' - 0"
AIR IN
AIR EXH.

A1
669 SF.

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.3
2024-0428
02-11-2025
G3 - LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
G3- LEVEL

33.41 CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB
15"24"
CB
CB CB
18"24"
CB CB
18"24"

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
955 SF.

B4
1040 SF.

B1
1,075 SF.

B5
746 SF.

A3
A1-1
790 SF.

A1
669 SF.

S1
495 SF.

A1
669 SF.
746 SF.

A3
A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN

FITNESS
@ PODIUM

PASSAGE

PASSAGE
1,050 SF.

B2
A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF. A1
669 SF.

A3-1
696 SF.

A3-2
855 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
A2
628 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.
1,110 SF.

B3
1,312 SF.

C1
R1 LEVEL
1,600 SF.

S1
495 SF.
77' - 0"
5' - 8"
A JR 1
513 SF.

A1-1
790 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1-1
1,223 SF.

B2-2
1,223 SF.

B2-2
A
JR 1
513 SF.
6' - 0"
7' - 0"
73' - 6"
VENT
1 GARAGE
INTAKE
VENT
2 ELEV
3 7' - 4"
6' - 0"
6' - 10"
7' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
DNUP
+/- 46.0 FT.
+/- 46.0 FT.

AIR EXH.
7' - 0"

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.4
2024-0428
02-11-2025
R1 - PODIUM LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
R1- PODIUM LEVEL

33.42 18"24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
18"
24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB
15"24"
CB
CB CB
18"24"
CB CB
18"24"

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
955 SF.

B4
1040 SF.

B1
1,075 SF.

B5
A1-1
790 SF.

A1
669 SF.

S1
495 SF.

A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN
1,050 SF.

B2
A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF. A1
669 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2 1,110 SF.

B3
1,312 SF.

C1
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
A1
669 SF.

A1
669 SF.

A3-1
696 SF.
746 SF.

A3
1,050 SF.

A1-1 B2 A3-1 790 SF.
696 SF.

A3-2
855 SF.

A2
628 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1
R2 & R3 513 SF.

LEVELS
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1-1
1,223 SF.

B2-2
1,223 SF.

B2-2
A1-1
790 SF.
6' - 0"
GARAGE
INTAKE

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.5
2024-0428
02-11-2025
R2 - LEVEL
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
R2 & R3 - LEVELS

33.43 TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
18"24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB
CB
15"24"
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
x 60" " 36
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB
18"24"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
R4 LEVEL
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
TERRACE CLUB RM.
1,850 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
1,000 SF.

B2-1
1,110 SF.

B3
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A2
628 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

S1
495 SF.

S1
495 SF.
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
A3-1
696 SF.
746 SF.

A3
A3-1
696 SF.

A3-2
855 SF.
1,312 SF.

C1
1,050 SF.

B2
S1
495 SF.

A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN
955 SF.

B4
DECK @ R4 LEVEL
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1040 SF.

B1
6' - 0"6' - 0"
A1-2
565 SF.

A1
669 SF.
1,000 SF.

B2-1
A1-2
565 SF.

A1-2
565 SF.
3,430 SF.

ELEVATED
FLOOR.

COVERED
PATIO
GARAGE
INTAKE
415 SF.
1,000 SF.

B2-1

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.6
2024-0428
02-11-2025
R4 - LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
R4- LEVEL

33.44 TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
18"24"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB
15"24"
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
x 60" " 36
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB
18"24"
CB CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
21 C.F.
34"x35"
S/S REF.
1-2 BR
CB
CB
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
R5 LEVEL
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
1,110 SF.

B3
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A2
628 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

S1
495 SF.

S1
495 SF.
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
A3-1
696 SF.
746 SF.

A3
A3-1
696 SF.

A3-2
855 SF.
1,312 SF.

C1
1,050 SF.

B2
S1
495 SF.

A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN
955 SF.

B4
634 SF.

A4
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.
1040 SF.

B1 A1-2
565 SF.

A1
669 SF.

A1-2
565 SF.

DECK BELOW @
R4 LEVEL
DECK BELOW @
R4 LEVEL
1,000 SF.

B2-1
GARAGE
INTAKE
1,000 SF.

B2-1
1,000 SF.

B2-1

ROOF LINE ABOVE

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.7
2024-0428
02-11-2025
R5 - LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
R5- LEVEL

33.45 DN UP

LANDING
1 A3.0
2 A3.0
GARAGE
INTAKE
AIR EXH.

DECK BELOW @
R4 LEVEL

COURTYARD BELOW
DECK BELOW @
R4 LEVEL
BALCONY BELOW @
R5 LEVEL
BALCONY BELOW @
R5 LEVEL
STOREFRONT MTL.

AWNINGS BELOW
@ GROUND LEVEL

BOILERS

ROOF PLANTER

ROOF PLANTER
ROOF

PLANTER

ROOF PLANTER

ROOF PLANTER
ROOF

PLANTER

ROOF PLANTER
ROOF

PLANTER

ROOF PLANTER

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A2.8
2024-0428
02-11-2025

ROOF PLAN
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

ROOF PLAN

33.46 G1 GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
G2 LEVEL
11' - 6"
G3 LEVEL
22' - 6"
R1 PODIUM
33' - 6"
R2 LEVEL
43' - 7"
R3 LEVEL
53' - 8"
R4-LEVEL
63' - 9"
R5 LEVEL
73' - 10"
G0 SUB T. LEVEL
-10' - 6"
10' - 6" 11' - 6" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1"

PACIFIC AVE
FROM AVG. GRADE PLANE TO WALL PLATE 85.0 FT

FRONT STREET
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
G0 - SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
20% RAMP
G3 - GARAGE
G2 - GARAGE
G1 - GARAGE
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT

COMMERCIAL SPACE
G0 - SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
G3 - GARAGE
G2 - GARAGE
G1 - GARAGE

CENTER COURTYARD

TRASH ROOM
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
85 FT. MAX. HEIGHT ALLOWED

TO WALL PLATE
P/LP/L
9 FT DEDICATION
+/-13.8'
FROM AVG. GRADE PLANE TO WALL PLATE 85.0 FT
AVERAGE GRADE PLANE @ 13.12'
RF. LEVEL 84' - 6"
86'-8"
+/-13.8' +/-13.8'
+/-12.10'
G1 GROUND LEVEL
0' - 0"
G2 LEVEL
11' - 6"
G3 LEVEL
22' - 6"
R1 PODIUM
33' - 6"
R2 LEVEL
43' - 7"
R3 LEVEL
53' - 8"
R4-LEVEL
63' - 9"
R5 LEVEL
73' - 10"
G0 SUB T. LEVEL
-10' - 6"
10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 6" 10' - 6" 9' - 0"
85 FT. MAX. HEIGHT

ALLOWED TO WALL PLATE SPRUCE AVE
65' - 0"
LAUREL ST.

R4 LEVEL

CLUB HOUSE
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT RES. UNIT
RES. UNIT

L/W UNIT UPPER LEVEL

COMMERCIAL L/W UNIT GROUND LEVEL
G3 - GARAGE
G2 - GARAGE
G1 - GARAGE
G0 - SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE 20%RAMG0 - SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE P
20%RAMP
20%RAMP
G3 - GARAGE
G2 - GARAGE
G1 - GARAGE

CENTER COURTYARD
+/-13.8'
+/-13.8' +13.8'

AMENITY
FROM AVG. GRADE PLANE TO WALL PLATE 85.0 FT
FROM AVG. GRADE PLANE TO WALL PLATE 85.0 FT
AVERAGE GRADE PLANE @ 13.12'
P/L

3.5' ABANDONMENT
P/L

5.5 FT DEDICATION
RF. LEVEL 84' - 6"
86'-8"

ROOF LEVEL
21' - 6"
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 6" 10' - 6"

AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE @ 13.12'
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.

LEASING & AMENITY

PARKING
LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

LIVE/ WORK UNITS

COMMERCIAL
R4 LEVEL DECK

UTILITY AREA
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A3.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

BUILDING SECTIONS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
SECTION 02
SECTION 01

KEY PLAN
01 02

33.47 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 8" G2 LEVEL
G3 LEVEL
R1 LEVEL
R2 LEVEL
R3 LEVEL
R5 LEVEL
RF. LEVEL
G1 LEVEL
11'-6"
22'-6"
33'-6"
43'-7"
53'-8"
73'-10"
86'-8"
R4 LEVEL
63'-9"
T.O PARAPET
93'-0".
11' - 6"
ELEV. SHAFT
102'-0".

FRONT ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

AVG. GRADE PL

13.12'

13.8'
G2 LEVEL
G3 LEVEL
R1 LEVEL
R2 LEVEL
R3 LEVEL
R5 LEVEL
RF. LEVEL
G1 LEVEL
11'-6"
22'-6"
33'-6"
43'-7"
53'-8"
73'-10"
86'-8"
R4 LEVEL
63'-9"
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 8" 11' - 6"

STAIR TOWER
94' - 0"
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

13.8' AVG. GRADE PL 13.12'
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.
1" =
0 JOB NO.
16' 32' 48' 64' DATE:
16'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A4.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

PACIFIC AVE -

WEST ELEVATION

LAUREL STREET -

NORTH ELEVATION

KEY PLAN
4 1
1 20/30 EXTERIOR STUCCO
4 SMOOTH FINISHED EIFS
3 SMOOTH FINISHED EXT. FIBER CEMENT BOARD
2 SMOOTH FINISHED EXT. STUCCO
5 EXT. BRICK VENEER SYS.
6 EXT. STONE VENEER SYS.
7 EXT. METAL CLADDING SYS.
8 GLASS RAILING.
9 METAL MESH RAILING
10 VINYL WINDOW SYS.
11 EXT. METAL FRAMED GLASS DOOR
12 STOREFRONT SYS.
13 METAL ROLL UP DOOR SYS.
14 METAL VENTILATED UTILITY DOOR
15 METAL AWNING SYS.
8 3 5 10 1 9 7 15 12 3 6 2 1
1 2 10 2 2 15 6 12 10 5 11 2 9
16 EXT. METAL CLADDING SYS.

33.48 G2 LEVEL
G3 LEVEL
R1 LEVEL
R2 LEVEL
R3 LEVEL
R5 LEVEL
RF. LEVEL
G1 LEVEL
11'-6"
22'-6"
33'-6"
43'-7"
53'-8"
73'-10"
86'-8"

STAIR TOWER
R4 LEVEL
63'-9"
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 10' - 1" 11' - 6" R4 DECK
65'-0"
65' - 0"
94' - 0"
PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT STREET
AVG. GRADE PL

13.12'

LAUREL ST.

T.O PARAPET
AVG. GRADE PL

13.12'

13.8'
LAUREL ST.

SPRUCE ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.
1" =
0 JOB NO.
20' 40' 60' 80' DATE:
20'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A4.1
2024-0428
02-11-2025

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

FRONT STREET -

EAST ELEVATION

SPRUCE AVE

SOUTH ELEVATION

KEY PLAN
1 20/30 EXTERIOR STUCCO
4 SMOOTH FINISHED EIFS
3 SMOOTH FINISHED EXT. FIBER CEMENT BOARD
2 SMOOTH FINISHED EXT. STUCCO
5 EXT. BRICK VENEER SYS.
6 EXT. STONE VENEER SYS.
7 EXT. METAL CLADDING SYS.
8 GLASS RAILING.
9 METAL MESH RAILING
10 VINYL WINDOW SYS.
11 EXT. METAL FRAMED GLASS DOOR
12 STOREFRONT SYS.
13 METAL ROLL UP DOOR SYS.
14 METAL VENTILATED UTILITY DOOR
15 METAL AWNING SYS.
3 1 5 12 7 7 12 8 11 9 15 1 12
7 2 14 13 2 14 5 3 1 4 8
16 EXT. METAL CLADDING SYS.
16 16

33.49 JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A5.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

COLOR MATERIALS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

33.50 1" =
0 JOB NO.
20' 40' 60' 80' DATE:
20'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A5.1
2024-0428
02-11-2025

LIGHT FIXUTURES
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

33.51 JOB NO.

DATE:
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A5.2
2024-0428
02-11-2025

WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

33.52 640sf
640sf
680sf
1,070sf
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB

FLEX SPACE FLEX SPACE
2 UNITS AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL

COMBINED ALLOWING

A SINGLE RETAIL SPACE
1,800 SF

RESTROOMS TO

RE-ARRANGE

AS REQUIRED

REMOVE THE STAIRCASE TO
RESIDENTIAL PORTION ABOVE.

BACK OF HOUSE

ACCESS TO

GARAGE FOR

TRASH DISPOSAL

COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE

PROVIDING DIRECT PUBLIC
ACCESS. RE-ARRANGE DOOR
LOCATION AS REQ.

UNIT REMAINS AS

LIVE WORK UNIT

BACK OF HOUSE
ACCESS

SEQUIRED SEPARATION FROM
RESIDENTIAL ELEV. LOBBY
660 SF 660 SF

REMOVABLE WALLS

FLEX SPACE
660 SF
UP TO
G2 LEVEL
UP TO
G2 LEVEL
UP TO
G2 LEVEL
ELEV. LOBBY
EXIT
EXIT
DN
UP
+/- 23.0 FT. +/- 23.0 FT.

G2 LEVEL GARAGE
DEN
LIVING RM.

OPTIONAL

BALCONY
BATHRM.

DEN

KITCHEN
LIVING RM.

OPTIONAL

BALCONY
BEDRM.

BATHRM.

KITCHEN
LIVING RM.

OPTIONAL

BALCONY
BEDRM.

BATHRM. DN TO
G1 LEVEL
LIVING RM.

OPTIONAL

BALCONY
BATHRM.

DEN
1 BED + DEN
UNIT
1 BED UNIT

WITH STAIR
ACCESS TO G1

LEVEL FLEX
SPACE

STAIRCASE TO BE

REPLACED BY A DEN

DIRECT ACCESS FROM

THE CORRIDOR
DN TO
G1 LEVEL
1 BED + DEN
UNIT
1 BED UNIT

WITH STAIR
ACCESS TO G1

LEVEL FLEX
SPACE
DN TO
G1 LEVEL
1 BED UNIT

WITH STAIR
ACCESS TO G1

LEVEL FLEX
SPACE
ELEV. LOBBY
11' - 0" 11' - 6"

PARKING

PARKING
PODIUM
11' - 0"

SUB - T PARKING
10' - 6"

LAUREL STREET

PARKING

COMBINED

FLEX SPACE
RESI. UNIT
10' - 0" 10' - 6"
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
11' - 0" 11' - 6"

PARKING

PARKING
PODIUM
11' - 0"

SUB - T PARKING
10' - 6"

LAUREL STREET

PARKING

FLEX WORK
SPACE
RESI. UNIT
10' - 0" 10' - 6"
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
RESI. UNIT
1" =
0 JOB NO.
8' 16' 24' 32' DATE:
8'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A6.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

LIVE WORK UNITS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

LIVE - WORK UNITS ON

LAUREL STREET
G1- GROUND FLOOR LEVEL
@ LAUREL ST.

G2- 2ND LEVEL @ LAUREL ST.

LAUREL ST.

SECTION O1. SECTION O2.

SEC O1. SEC O2.

33.53 22'-0"
32'-0"

L COATS
UNIT A1: 1BR / 1BA
LIVABLE AREA: 669 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 50 SQ. FT.

STR
L
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

W/D
KIT
GEAR
CB CB
18"
24"
16'-6"
31'-1"
UNIT S1
STUDIO - 1 BATH
UNIT AREA: 513 SQ. FT.

DW
P
ENTRY
SH
W/D
REF
BATH
STUDIO
15'-5"x13'-4"

SLEEPING
9'-3"x 9"
KIT
CB CB
22'-0"
27'-9"
LIVING
ROOM
11'-0"x10'-5"

BEDROOM
10'-0"x11'-0"
ENTRY
BATH
COATS
L
UNIT A1-2: 1BR / 1BA
LIVABLE AREA: 576 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 50 SQ. FT.

STR
L
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

W/D
KIT
GEAR
EL
DRYER
27x31
WASHER
FLOOR TRAY - O.D. 30 X 32
30"x48" CLEARFLOOR SPACE
CB CB
18"
24"
16'-6"
32'-0"
STUDIO
15'-10" x 9'-6"
KIT.

BATH
ENTRY
BED
9'-0" x 8'-6"
A JR-1
LIVABLE AREA: 528 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: N/A
P
36" TUB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60" W/D WASHER DRYER 27x31
GEAR
FLOOR TRAY - O.D. 30 X 32
D/W
24" x 24" 30" SINK WITH
36" BASE
REF.
28"x33"
28'-3 1/2"
24'-4"
13'-6" 10'-10"
STUDIO
12'-7"x12'-8"
BATH
UNIT S2: Studio / 1BA
LIVABLE AREA: 493 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 65 SQ. FT.

PATIO/

BALCONY
KIT
W/D
CB CB
27'-8"
32'-0"
13'-6" 11'-1" 7'-5"
BATH
LIVING
ROOM
12'-0"x11'-0"

BEDROOM
11'-0"x12'-0"
ENTRY
UNIT A2: 1BR / 1BA
LIVABLE AREA: 625 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 65 SQ. FT.

PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

KIT
W/D
CB CB
18"
24"
22'-0"
37'-6"
LIVING
ROOM
12'-4"x16'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-8"x11'-0"
ENTRY
BATH
DINING
L UTIL.

UNIT A1-1: 1BR / 1BA + DEN
LIVABLE AREA: 790 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 50 SQ. FT.

STR
CLO.

PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

W/D
KIT

GEAR WALL
COATS
DEN
CB CB
18"
24"
22'-0"
37'-6"
LIVING
ROOM
12'-4"x16'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-8"x11'-0"
ENTRY
BATH
DINING
L UTIL.

UNIT A1-1: 1BR / 1BA + DEN
LIVABLE AREA: 790 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ DECK AREA: 50 SQ. FT.

STR
CLO.

PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

W/D
KIT

GEAR WALL
COATS
DEN
CB CB
18"
24"
21 C.F.

S/S REF.
34"x35"1-2 BR
24'-10"
29'-1"
COATS
W/D
P REF.

UNIT A4: 1BR / 1BA
LIVABLE AREA: 678 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 76 SQ. FT.

L
BATH

BALCONY
11'-9" x 6'-6"
LIVING
12'-3" x 12'-6"

KITCHEN

BEDROOM
12'-2" x 12'-0"
W.I.C.

CB
CB
1" =
0 JOB NO.
5' 11' 16' 21' DATE:
5'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A6.1
2024-0428
02-11-2025

UNIT PLANS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"

UNIT PLANS

33.54 31'-0"
35'-6"
UNIT A3: 1BR / 1BA
UNIT AREA: 746 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 42 S.F.

CB
CB
29'-0"
32'-4"
36'-4"
ENTRY
REF. W/D
L
UNIT A5: 1BR / 1BA + DEN
LIVABLE AREA: 966 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 71 SQ. FT.

KITCHEN
BATH
LIVING
ROOM
18'-0"x14-4"

BEDROOM
13'-9"x10'-8"

BALCONY
W.I.C. COAT
DEN
13'-7"x7'-4"
S
COAT
CB
CB
34'-0"
24'-0"
ENTRY

BEDROOM
10'-10"x11'-0"
DEN
10'-7"x11'-2"
REF.

W/D
COAT
L
UNIT A6: 1BR / 1BA + DEN
778 SQ. FT. LIVABLE AREA:
54 SQ. FT. PATIO/ BALCONY AREA:

QUANTITY:

KITCHEN
BATH
LIVING
ROOM
11'-4"x11'-1"
PATIO/

BALCONY
STR
W.I.C.

CB CB
36'-0"
38'-7"
BEDROOM 1
11'-3"x10'-6"
BEDROOM 3
11'-2"x10'-0"
BEDROOM 2
10'-10"x10'-0"
UNIT C1: 3BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 1,312 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 168 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

W.I.C. BATH 1
LIVING
ROOM
13'-6"x12'-6"
ISLAND
FIXED
PATIO/

BALCONY
BATH 2
W/D

KITCHEN
& DINING
16'-0"x10'-6"
34'-3"
35'-2"
18'-10"
W/D

KITCHEN
P.

LIVING
11'-8" X 12'-6"

BALCONY/ PATIO
6'-9" X 6'-10"

BEDROOM
11'-0" X 11'-6"
ENTRY
D/W
REF.

COAT
UNIT A3-1: 1BR / 1BA
UNIT AREA: 696 SQ. FT.

PATIO/BALCONY: 42 S.F.

CB CB
33'-7"
29'-1"
31'-3"
LIVING
ROOM
13'-6"x13'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-8"x11'-0"

DEN BATH
9'-6"x9'-3"
W/D

BALCONY/ PATIO
6'-9" X 6'-10"
D/WREF.

COAT
UNIT A3-2: 1BR / 1BA
855 SQ. FT. UNIT AREA:
43 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY:

KIT
W.I.C.

CB CB
1" =
0 JOB NO.
5' 11' 16' 21' DATE:
5'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A6.2
2024-0428
02-11-2025

UNIT PLANS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"

UNIT PLANS

33.55 34'-0"
32'-0"
REF. L
W/D
COAT
NICHE
L
5S
UNIT B2: 2BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 1050 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 54 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

KITCHEN
BATH
BATH
W.I.C.

BEDROOM
11'-9"x10'-7"
LIVING
ROOM
11'-4"x19'-0"
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

STR
CB CB
31'-6"
27'-0"
32'-0"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
ENTRY

BEDROOM
10'-2"x11'-8"

BEDROOM
10'-7"x11'-0"
W/D
UNIT B4: 2BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 877 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 51 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

KITCHEN
BATH
W.I.C.

LIVING
ROOM
11'-7"x12'-11"
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

BATH
P.

CB
CB

UNIT INTERIOR

SWING PUSH

DOOR WIDTH
42" LENGTH

LATCH / STRIKE SIDE

HINGE SIDE

UNIT ENTRY

SWING PULL DOOR
+18" STRIKE WIDTH
44" LENGTH

LATCH / STRIKE SIDE

HINGE SIDE

UNIT ENTRY

SWING PUSH
DOOR +12" CLOSER WIDTH
48" LENGTH
(WITH CLOSER)

HINGE SIDE

LATCH / STRIKE SIDE

SIDE WALL
48" CLEAR WIDTH
36" TO FRONT EDGE OF TOILET

STACKED

WASHER / DRYER

FRONT LOAD
27" x 34"
FLOOR TRAY O.D. 32 X 34
ENTRY

BEDROOM
11'-4"x10'-6"

BEDROOM
11-10"x11'-0"
REF.

W/D L
UNIT B1: 2BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 1041 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 128 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

BATH
W.I.C.

LIVING
ROOM
13'-0"x11'-0"

BALCONY
BATH

KITCHEN
CB
15"
24"
CB
26'-10"
48'-3"
ENTRY
HALL
BEDROOM 1
12'-0"x10'-2"
BEDROOM 2
11'-3"x11'-0"
UNIT B3: 2BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 1,121 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 92 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

W/D
ISLAND
FIXED
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C. BATH 1
BATH 2
LIVING
ROOM
KITCHEN 12'-8"x10'-9"
& DINING
14'-8"x12'-8"
C

CB CB L
25'-6"
44'-0"
24'-0"
27'-0"
ENTRY
BEDROOM 1
12'-0"x10'-2"
BEDROOM 2
11'-3"x10'-6"
UNIT B5: 2BR / 2BA
LIVABLE AREA: 1074 SQ. FT.

PATIO/ BALCONY AREA: 82 SQ. FT.

QUANTITY:

W/D
PATIO/

BALCONY
W.I.C.

BATH 1
BATH 2
LIVING
ROOM
12'-0"x11'-0"

KITCHEN
W.I.C.

DINING
COATS

KEY DROP
CB CB
2 BED / 2 BATH UNIT
820 SF.
3' - 1"3' - 1"
3' - 9"
1" =
0 JOB NO.
5' 11' 16' 21' DATE:
5'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A6.3
2024-0428
02-11-2025

UNIT PLANS
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA

UNIT PLANS
SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"

33.56 R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
EL
HC
1 7. 5%

1.5%

0.4%

1.5%

0.9%
1 5. %

0.6%
1 5. %

0.4% 0.9%

0.4%

0.6%

0.5%

0.9%

1.1%
0 6. %

0.5 %
0 5. %

1.9% 1 5. %

4.75%

0.6%

0.7%

4.75%
3 2. %

3.8%

3.5%
COTG
IE 3.60
CB
CB

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
TUB/SHWR-ROD 30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW
18"x24"
CB
CB
TUB/SHWR-ROD 32" x 60"
CB
CB
TUB/SHWR-ROD 32" x 60"
CB
CB
TUB/SHWR-ROD 32" x 60"
CB
CB
TUB/SHWR-ROD 32" x 60"
18"
24"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"

TUB/SHWR-ROD
36" x 60"
18"
24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB CB
TUB/ HW S R R- OD 30" x 60"
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
VITREO US CHINALAVTO RYRCHEK-235
CB
CB
TUB/SHWR-ROD 36" x 60"
18"24"
REF.
30"x34"
CB
15"24"
TUB/SHWR-ROD 36" x 60"
24" MAX WHEN

BACK OF WALL AT
TOILET IS 36" MIN.

SIDE WALL
48" CLEAR WIDTH
36" TO FRONT EDGE OF TOILET

UNIT ENTRY
+18" STRIKE WIDTH

SWING PULL DOOR
44" LENGTH

LA TCH / STRIK E S IDE

HINGE S IDE

UNIT ENTRY

SWING PUSH
DOOR +12" CLOSER WIDTH
48" LENGTH
(WITH CLOSER)

LA TCH / STRIK E S IDE

HINGE S IDE

UNIT INTERIOR

SWING PUSH

DOOR WIDTH
42" LENGTH
HINGE SIDELATCH / STRIKE SIDE UNIT INTERIOR SWING PULL DOOR +18" WIDTH 42" LENGTH

HINGE SIDELATCH / STRIKE SIDE
36" 22"
24" MAX WHEN

BACK OF WALL AT
TOILET IS 36" MIN.

SIDE WALL
48" CLEAR WIDTH
36" TO FRONT EDGE OF TOILET

STACKED WASHER / DRYER

FRONT LOAD
27" x 34"
FLOOR TRAY O.D. 32 X 34

TUB/SHWR-ROD
32" x 60"
CB

UNIT INTERIOR

SWING PUSH

DOOR WIDTH
42" LENGTH

LATCH / STRIKE SIDE

HINGE SIDE

UNIT INTERIOR
SWING PULL DOOR +18" WIDTH
42" LENGTH
HINGE SIDELATCH / STRIKE SIDE 24"
22"
21"
22"
21"
22"
CB CB
18"24"
LIVING
ROOM
13'-6"x13'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-8"x11'-0"

BATH DEN
9'-6"x9'-3"
CB CB
18"24"

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB

THYSSEN-KRUPP

SYNERGY

SELF-SUPPORTED
3500LB
UPDN

LANDING
UPDN

LANDING
TUB/SHWR-ROD 30" x 60"
REF.
28"x33"
DW EXIT PASSAGE 18"x24"
EXHST

COMMERCIAL
SPACE

LEASING
TRANSFORMERVAULT 01
LAUREL ST.

PACIFIC AVE.

FRONT ST.

SPRUCE ST.

EXIT
35' - 2"
30' - 7"
6' - 0"
TRANSFORMERVAULT 02
GARAGE
ENTRY
GATE
EXIT
UP
DN
8-STORY BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION: 5-STORIES TYPE III-A OVER 3-STORY TYPE I-A NFPA13 SPRINKLER SYSTEM
FDC

AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
WAY - 26 FT WIDE TYP.

AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS WAY - 26 FT WIDE TYP.

AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS WAY - 26 FT WIDE TYP.
28' - 4"
2 2' - 5"
24' - 6"

EXISTING

HYDRANT
FIRE DEPT.

CONNECTION

EXIT FROM UPPER LEVELS AND

SUBTERRANEAN PARKING

EXIT CORRIDOR

EXIT FROM
ELEC. RM

EXIT FROM

UPPER LEVELS

EXIT FROM

SUBTERRANEAN PARKING
TRASH
ELEC.

RM.

LIVE WORK SPACES

PARKING GARAGE
TYPE 1A

EXIT CORRIDOR
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT

EXISTING

HYDRANT

EXISTING

HYDRANT

EXISTING

HYDRANT
150 FT FROM EX'G HYDRANT.
150
FT. FROM

EXISTING
HYDRANT.
150 FT. FROM EX'G HYDRANT
R28' - 0"
R48' - 0"
R28' - 0"
R54' - 0"
R
2 8' - 0"
R48' - 0"
R28' - 0"
R48' - 0"
2 6' - 0
2 "
6' - 0"
26' - 0"
26' - 0"
12' - 11"

PROPOSED

FIRE HYDRANT

COMMERCIAL
SPACE
150 FT. FROM NEW HYDRANT

COMMERCIAL
SPACE
11' - 0" 11' - 6"

PARKING

PARKING
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
PODIUM
UNIT
11' - 0"
10' - 6"10' - 6"

SUB - T PARKING

PARKING
L/W 1
L/W 2
85 FT MAX HT TO WALL PLATE FROM AVG. GRADE
75' - 0"

LAUREL STREET
30' - 0"

70.00°

65.00°
82 FT LADDER
LENGTH
3 HR HORIZ.

FIRE BARRIER

TYPE - III A TYPE - I A
AVG. GRADE 13.12'

AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS
WAY - 26 FT WIDE TYP.

FDC

FIRE APPARATUS

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL

BUILDING EXITS

BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION, PROVIDE
6" MINIMUM TALL LETTERING

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION

EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT

NEW PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT

NEW WET STANDPIPE
FIRE HOSE PULL - 150'-0" MAX.
3 HR RATED FIRE WALLS

STAIRCASE EXIT WITH ROOF ACCESS
A
JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.
746 SF.

A3
746 SF.

A3
955 SF.

B4
1040 SF.

B1
1,075 SF.

B5
746 SF.

A3
A1-1
790 SF.

A1 669 SF. S1
495 SF.

A1 669 SF.
746 SF.

A3
A5
966 SF.
1 + DEN

FITNESS
@ PODIUM

PASSAGE

PASSAGE
1,050 SF.

B2
A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF.

A1-1
790 SF. A1 669 SF.

A3-1
696 SF.

A3-2
855 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
A2
628 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.

B2
1,050 SF.
1,110 SF.

B3 B2
1,312 SF.

C1
R1 LEVEL
1,600 SF.

S1
495 SF.
77' - 0"
5' - 8"
A JR 1
513 SF.

A
JR 1
513 SF.

A JR 1-1
1,223 SF.

B2-2
1,223 SF.

B2-2
A
JR 1
513 SF.
6' - 0"
7' - 0"
73' - 6"
VENT
1 GARAGE
EXHUST
GARAGE
INTAKE
VENT
2 ELEV
3 7' - 4"
6' - 0"
6' - 10"
6' - 7"
7' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
DNUP
+/- 46.0 FT.
+/- 46.0 FT.

A1-1
790 SF.

A JR 1
513 SF.

HOSE PULL 150 FT.

HOSE PULL 150 FT.
3 HR FIRE WALL
FIRE AREA 2 :
+/- 60,200 SF
FIRE AREA 1 :
+/- 58,500 SF
HOSE PULL 150 FT.

HOSE PULL 150 FT.

FIRE AREA 3 : +/- 83,000 SF
37' - 3"
1" =
0 JOB NO.
20' 40' 60' 80' DATE:
20'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A7.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

FIRE ACCESS PLAN
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
G1- GROUND LEVEL

TYPE IIIA - PODIUM LEVEL

HOSE PULL AND EXITS
TYP. STREET FRONTAGE SECTION FOR AERIAL

LADDER REACH

33.57 1" =
0 JOB NO.
80' 160' 240' 320' DATE:
80'
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE A8.0
2024-0428
02-11-2025

SHADOW STUDIES
201 FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA
JUNE 21ST @ 9.00AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE SPRING | AUTUMN EQUINOX WINTER SOLSTICE

9.00 AM

12.00 PM

3.00 PM
JUNE 21ST @ 12.00PM
JUNE 21ST @ 3.00PM
MARCH / SEPT. 21ST @ 9.00AM
MARCH / SEPT. 21ST @ 9.00AM
MARCH / SEPT. 21ST @ 9.00AM
DEC. 21ST @ 9.00AM
DEC. 21ST @ 12.00PM
DEC. 21ST @ 3.00PM

33.58 33.59

33.60 33.61

33.62 8' 16' 24' 32' 1/8"= 1'

33.63 8' 16' 24' 32' 1/8"= 1'

33.64 8' 16' 24' 32' 1/8"= 1'

33.65 8' 16' 24' 32' 1/8"= 1'

33.66 2024-0428
12-12-2025
JOB NO.

DATE SANTA CRUZ, CA
201 FRONT STREET MIXED USE COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD L3.0 LANDSCAPE STREET TREES TREES ON STRUCTURE - (LEVELS 4 & 7)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘PACIFIC
MIST’

PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘HOWARD
MCMINN’

HOWARD MCMINN MANZANITA

ASCLEPIAS SPECIOSA

COMMON MILKWEED

HELICTOTRICHON
SEMPERVIRENS ‘SAPPHIRE’

BLUE OAT GRASS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS ‘BLONDE
AMBITION’

BLUE GRAMA GRASS

NEPETA X FAASSENII
‘SNOWFLAKE’

SNOWFLAKE CATMINT
BUDDLEIA ‘PUGSTER BLUE’

DWARF BUTTERFLY BUSH

PENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM

SLENDER VELDT GRASS

CEANOTHUS MARITIMUS
‘FROSTY DAWN’

MARITIME CEANOTHUS

PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS
‘MARGARITA BOP’

MARGARITA BOP FOOTHILL

PENSTEMON

CUPHEA HYSSOPIFOLIA

MEXICAN HEATHER

PHLOMIS FRUTICOSA

JERUSALEM SAGE
DIANELLA REVOLUTA ‘LITTLE
REV’

LITTLE REV FLAX LILY

SALVIA LEUCANTHA
‘SANTA BARBARA’

SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN

BUSH SAGE

SALVIA SPATHACEA

HUMMINGBIRD SAGE
SESLERIA ‘AUTUMNALIS’

AUTUMN MOOR GRASS
SESLERIA X ‘BRUSHSTROKES’

BRUSHSTROKES MOOR GRASS
VERBENA LILACINA ‘DE LA MINA’

DE LA MINA VERBENA
12-12-2025

AGONIS FLEXUOSA
PEPPERMINT TREE - 36” BOX

ARBUTUS MARINA
STRAWBERRY TREE - 48” BOX

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA
‘DR. HURD’
DR. HURD MANZANITA - 48” BOX

LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
‘NATCHEZ’
NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE - 48” BOX
CERCIS CANADENSIS ‘ACE OF
HEARTS’
EASTERN REDBUD - 48” BOX
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA ‘BLOODGOOD’
LONDON PLANE TREE - 36” BOX
QUERCUS FRAINETTO ‘SCHMIDT’
FOREST GREEN OAK - 36” BOX
OLEA EUROPEA ‘MISSION’
MISSION OLIVE - 84” BOX
ERIGERON GLAUCUS ‘WHITE
LIGHTS’

SEASIDE DAISY

ERIOPHYLLUM LANATUM
‘SISKIYOU’
WOOLLY SUNFLOWER ‘SISKIYOU’

GROUND LEVEL UNDERSTORY PLANT PALETTE
12-17-2025

33.67 HCO SANTA CRUZ LLC
(DOC. NO. 2011-0050643) 52,454 SQ. FT.±
Z:\2024\A24073-1\DWG\ENTITLEMENTS\PD PERMIT\A24073-001 - C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN.dwg [C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN] Plot: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 MAXWELL DEANDREIS 0 Scale 1" = 20'
NORTH
10 20 40 60

ABBREVIATIONS
LEGEND

BUILDING LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER

CONCRETE/BLOCK WALL

DRIVEWAY

ELECTRIC LINE

HANDRAIL

GAS LINE-VALVE & METER

LOT LINE

MONUMENT/MONUMENT LINE

OVERHEAD POWER LINE

OVERHEAD CABLE TELEVISION-TELEPHONE LINE

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC-CABLE TELEVISION-TELEPHONE
LINE

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC-TELEPHONE LINE

PROPERTY LINE

SANITARY SEWER LINE-MANHOLE & CLEANOUT
SANITARY SEWER LINE OVER 24"DIAMETER

SIDEWALK

SPOT ELEVATION

STORM DRAIN LINE-MANHOLE & CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN LINE OVER 24"DIAMETER

TELEPHONE LINE

WATER LINE & VALVE

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE

DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE

ELECTROLIER

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION

FIRE HYDRANT

GUY ANCHOR

POWER POLE/JOINT POLE

TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE

TRAFFIC SIGN
TREE

UTILITY BOX
NOTES

1. THIS PLOT WAS PREPARED FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED IN A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT, PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, DATED JULY 24, 2020, NUMBER 4408-6326035. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR MATTERS OF RECORD NOT STATED IN SAID PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT THAT MAY AFFECT THE TITLE LINES, OR EXCEPTIONS, OR EASEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

2. ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

3. THE TYPES, LOCATIONS, SIZES AND/OR DEPTHS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WERE OBTAINED FROM SOURCES OF VARYING RELIABILITY. THE

CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL REVEAL THE TYPES, EXTENT, SIZES, LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. (A REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND DELINEATE ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES). HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER CAN

ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF ITS DELINEATION OF SUCH

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, BUT WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.

4. PHYSICAL ITEMS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE LIMITED TO THOSE ITEMS VISIBLE AS OF THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY. SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES, IF ANY, ARE NOT SHOWN. SAID SUBSURFACE OBJECTS MAY

INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CONCRETE FOOTINGS, SLABS, SHORING, STRUCTURAL PILES,

UTILITY VAULTS, PIPING, UNDERGROUND TANKS, AND ANY OTHER SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES NOT REVEALED BY A SURFACE INSPECTION.

5. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAP NUMBER 06087C0332E FOR COMMUNITY NUMBER 060355 (CITY OF SANTA CRUZ), WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 16, 2012, AND ON MAP NUMBER 06087C0334F FOR COMMUNITY NUMBER 060355 (CITY OF SANTA CRUZ), WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2017, AS BEING LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE "A99".

ACCORDING TO FEMA THE DEFINITION OF ZONE "A99" IS: AREAS OF THE 1% ANNUAL FLOOD (100-YEAR FLOOD), ALSO KNOW AS THE BASE FLOOD, IS THE FLOOD THAT HAS A 1% CHANCE OF BEING EQUALED OR EXCEEDED IN ANY GIVEN YEAR; AREA TO BE PROTECTED FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD BY A FEDERAL FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM UNDER CONSTRUCTION; NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DETERMINED.

INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE FEMA GOVERNMENT WEBSITE ON AUGUST 22, 2024.

6. BENCHMARK:

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ BENCHMARK 229: U.S.C. & G. BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE HEAD WALL AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF 3RD & FRONT STREET.

ELEVATION = 46.24 FEET (NAVD88)

7. BASIS OF BEARINGS:

THE CALCULATED BEARING OF NORTH 74° 04' 43" EAST BETWEEN A FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE, TAGGED RCE 6270 AND A LEAD, PLUG & TAG, TAGGED LS 3666, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD AUGUST 15, 1984, IN BOOK 73 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 61, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.

8. CORNER RECORD NOTE:

THE DEVELOPER AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF

PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION CORNER RECORDS FOR ANY MONUMENTS OR PROPERTY

CORNERS SHOWN HEREON THAT MAY BE DESTROYED DURING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 8771(B) OF THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ACT.

BLRD BOLLARD

BOV BLOW OFF VALVE

BTM BOTTOM

CB CATCH BASIN
CONC. CONCRETE AREA

CTVB CABLE/TELEVISION BOX
DOC. DOCUMENT
E EAST

EB ELECTRIC BOX

EV ELECTRIC VAULT

FF FINISHED FLOOR

FOB FIBER OPTIC BOX

IE INVERT ELEVATION

JP JOINT POLE
Ls LANDSCAPED AREA

N NORTH

OR OFFICIAL RECORDS

PM PARKING METER

PP POWER POLE

RE RIM ELEVATION

S SOUTH

SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

SL STREET LIGHT

SLB STREET LIGHT BOX

SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT

SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

TB TELEPHONE BOX

TC TOP OF CURB

TCD TOP OF CURB DRAIN

TRN TRANSFORMER

TSB TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX
W WEST

WB WATER BOX

WM WATER METER

FRONT STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 70' WIDE)

SPRUCE STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 50' WIDE)

PACIFIC STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES) .

LAUREL STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES)

33.68 EX. FH
A-
(E)
P/L

1.80' 9.00' 2.50'
C&G

6.50'

BIKE LANE

0.50'

SAFETY CURB

6.23' 5.50' 2.91'

11.00' 1.50'

TRAVEL LANE
EL=13.25

1.75% 1.50%
(P)
P/L
FF=13.80
EL=13.63
EL=13.40
EL=13.80
Z:\2024\A24073-1\DWG\ENTITLEMENTS\PD PERMIT\A24073-001 - C2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.dwg [C2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN] Plot: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 MAXWELL DEANDREIS 0 Scale 1" = 20'
NORTH
10 20 40 60

LAUREL STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES)

FRONT STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 70' WIDE)

SPRUCE STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 50' WIDE)

PACIFIC STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES) R Callbefore you dig.

Know what'sbelow.

LEGEND

ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE

STREET CENTERLINE OR MONUMENT LINE

DISTINCTIVE BORTER

ROW DEDICATION OR ROW VACATION
SCALE: 1" = 5'

SECTION A-A

CITY STD CURB SHALL
BE 8" MAX. HEIGHT

1.5' BUFFER TO BE

TEXTURED/STAMPED CONCRETE

6.5' BIKE LANE

ASPHALT WITH GREEN MMAX

PAVEMENT MARKING

BEVELED CURB

33.69 Z:\2024\A24073-1\DWG\ENTITLEMENTS\PD PERMIT\A24073-001 - C3.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN.dwg [C3.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN] Plot: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 MAXWELL DEANDREIS 0 Scale 1" = 20'
NORTH
10 20 40 60

SPRUCE STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 50' WIDE)

PACIFIC STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES) R Callbefore you dig.

Know what'sbelow.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE LEGEND

PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION

CONTOUR LINE

LOT LINE

SPOT ELEVATION

AD AREA DRAIN

BLDG BUILDING

BW BACK OF WALK C CONCRETE

CB CATCH BASIN

DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE

FC FACE OF CURB

FF FINISHED FLOOR

GB GRADE BREAK

HP HIGH POINT

IE INVERT ELEVATION

LP LOW POINT

NEF NON EXPANSIVE FILL

OF OVERFLOW

PV PAVEMENT R RIDGE

RE RIM ELEVATION

SDJB STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX

SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

TC TOP OF CURB
300 300
100.00 300.00
WV
WM
LT
SLB
SL
SDMH
SSMH
SSCO
RE
RWL
PIV
IE
FL
FH
DS
COTG
CB
BFPD
LT
WV
WM
SLB
SL
SDMH
SSMH
SSCO
RE
RWL
PIV
IE
FL
FH
DS
COTG
CB
BFPD
LIGHT

WATER VALVE

WATER METER

STREET LIGHT BOX

STREET LIGHT

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT

RIM ELEVATION

INVERT ELEVATION

FLOW LINE

FIRE HYDRANT

DOWN SPOUT

CLEANOUT TO GRADE

CATCH BASIN

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE
T
E W
W
T
T
SD SD
100.00 300.00
SS
SS
JT
OH
OH
JT
G
G
G
FO FO
FS
FSE

TRANSFORMER

UTILITY BOX

TRAFFIC SIGN

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE

FIRE HYDRANT

POWER POLE/JOINT POLE

POST INDICATOR VALVE
G

ELECTRIC LINE

SPOT ELEVATION

WATER LINE & VALVE

TELEPHONE LINE

PROPERTY LINE

JOINT TRENCH LINE

OVERHEAD POWER LINE

GAS LINE-VALVE & METER

FIBER OPTICS LINE

FIRE SERVICE & VALVE

THRU CURB DRAIN
T

AD AD AREA DRAIN

PERFORATED STORM DRAIN PIPE
PERF. PIPE

ASR ASR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER RISER

POC POC POINT OF CONNECTION

FF FF FINISHED FLOOR

SDJB SDJB STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX

DDCV DDCV DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE

ELECTROLIER

WALK-BOLLARD LIGHT

RAIN WATER LEADER

POST INDICATOR VALVE

PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION

UTILITY LEGEND

SANITARY SEWER - MANHOLE AND

CLEANOUT

STORM DRAIN - MANHOLE AND

CATCH BASIN

1. ALL OFF-SITE STORMWATER DRAIN INLETS SHALL HAVE
"NO DUMPING - FLOWS TO BAY"

2. FINAL METER QUANTITIES, SIZES, SERVICE SIZING, BACKFLOW

REQUIREMENTS, AND MANIFOLD CONFIGURATIONS TO BE DESIGNED PER 2022 CPC AND COORDINATED WITH SCWD DURING BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW.

3. INTERIOR DRAINS, INCLUDING THOSE SERVING THE TRASH ENCLOSURE, SHALL DISCHARGE TO THE SANITARY SEWER.

UTILITY NOTES

LAUREL STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES)

FRONT STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 70' WIDE)

33.70 Z:\2024\A24073-1\DWG\ENTITLEMENTS\PD PERMIT\A24073-001 - C4.1 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN.dwg [C4.1 PRELIMINARY SWC PLAN] Plot: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 MAXWELL DEANDREIS 0 Scale 1" = 20'
NORTH
10 20 40 60

SPRUCE STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 50' WIDE)

PACIFIC STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES) R Callbefore you dig.

Know what'sbelow.

1. THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON CERTAIN

SITE AND/OR RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS PER CITY OF SANTA CRUZ STORMWATER BMP CHAPTER 6B.
i) INCLUDES NO SURFACE PARKING
ii) PROPOSED AT LEAST 85% COVERAGE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE BY PERMANENT STRUCTURES (BUILDING).
iii) WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF A LOCAL TRANSIT STOP.
iv) RESIDENTIAL: DENSITY AT LEAST 204 DWELLING UNITS / ACRE

2. HIGHLY ALTERED CHANNELS AND INTERMEDIATE FLOW CONTROL FACILITIES:

THE PROJECT RUNOFF DISCHARGES INTO CONTINUOUS UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM THAT DISCHARGES DIRECTLY TO THE SAN LORENZO RIVER.

3. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN AN URBAN SUSTAINABILITY AREA SOUTH OF LAUREL.

4. RUNOFF RETENTION INFEASIBILITY IS CAUSED BY SITE CONDITIONS i) DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LIMITS INFILTRATION. ii) SPACE CONSTRAINTS DUE TO A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

5. PROPOSED TREATMENT MEASURE CONSISTS OF PROPRIETARY MEDIA FILTER SYSTEM TO TREAT RUNOFF FROM BUILDING ROOF.

6. INTERIOR FLOOR DRAINS WILL DISCHARGE INTO SANITARY SEWER.

STORMWATER LEGEND

TRIBUTARY AREA LIMITS

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA

TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE

RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION

MEDIA FILTER SYSTEM
DMA
TCM
DMA 1
TCM 1

STORMWATER NOTES

LAUREL STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, WIDTH VARIES)

FRONT STREET
(A PUBLIC STREET, 70' WIDE)
DMA 3
UT 1
DMA 2
TCM 2

IN-LIEU TREATMENT AREA
TCM 3

33.71 Z:\2024\A24073-1\DWG\ENTITLEMENTS\PD PERMIT\A24073-001 - C5.1 PRELIMINARY SWC NOTES.dwg [C5.1 PRELIMINARY SWC NOTES] Plot: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 MAXWELL DEANDREIS 0 Scale 1" = 20'
NORTH
10 20 40 60 R Callbefore you dig.

Know what'sbelow.

TABLE 1

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR

BIORETENTION AREAS
NO MAINTENANCE TASK FREQUENCY OF TASK 1
INSPECT FOR STANDING WATER (NO MORE THAN 4” OVER A
24-HOUR PERIOD), SEDIMENT, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE
(E.G. AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS), TRASH AND DEBRIS.

MONTHLY, AFTER STORM EVENTS,

OR IF EXCESSIVE DEBRIS IS
OBSERVED. VISUAL INSPECTIONS
SHALL BE CONDUCTED WEEKLY. 2
IF SEDIMENT DEPTH IS MORE THAN 6” IN THE INLET CHAMBER
OR MORE THAN 4” IN THE TREATMENT CHAMBER THEN

REMOVE SEDIMENT, TRASH AND DEBRIS FROM

SEDIMENTATION BASIN, RISER PIPE AND FILTER BED, USING
VECTOR TRUCK METHOD.

MONTHLY, AFTER STORM EVENTS,

OR IF STANDING WATER IS
OBSERVED. VISUAL INSPECTIONS
SHALL BE CONDUCTED WEEKLY. 3

ENSURE THAT MANUFACTURED TREATMENT MEASURE DRAINS
COMPLETELY WITHIN FIVE DAYS.

AFTER MAJOR STORM EVENTS AND
AS NEEDED. 4 INSPECT INLETS AND OUTLETS TO ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE

MONTHLY, AFTER STORM EVENTS,

OR IF EXCESSIVE DEBRIS IS
OBSERVED. VISUAL INSPECTIONS
SHALL BE CONDUCTED WEEKLY. 5
FOLLOW MANUFACTURER’S GUIDELINES FOR MAINTENANCE
AND CARTRIDGE REPLACEMENT.

AS PER MANUFACTURER’S
SPECIFICATIONS. 6

INSPECT MANUFACTURED TREATMENT MEASURE, USING THE
ATTACHED INSPECTION CHECKLIST.

MONTHLY, OR AFTER LARGE STORM

EVENTS, AND AFTER REMOVAL OF

ACCUMULATED DEBRIS OR MATERIAL

NON-PROPRIETARY MEDIA FILTER INSPECTION

AND MAINTENANCE

33.72 PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 29, 2026
AGENDA OF: June 4, 2026
ITEM NO: CP25-0116
Council District: 4
201 Front Street
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission acknowledge the Environmental Determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit,
Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus request based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A”.

PROJECT DATA
APNs: 007-031-04
Property Applicant: Owen Lawlor, Lawlor Land Use
Project Owner: 421 E 18th Street Property Partnership
Application Type: Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus Request to demolish a commercial building and construct an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, live/work units on the ground floor, and 245 rental apartments on a parcel located in the CBD (Central Business District) Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue/CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay)/FP-O (Floodplain Overlay) zone districts and within the South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan.

Zoning: CBD (Central Business District), CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay), FPO (Floodplain Overlay District) Project Consistency: Consistent with approval of permits and pursuant to the City Downtown Density Bonus Law
General Plan: RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) and South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan
Project Consistency: Consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Plan with approval of permits and pursuant to City Downtown Density Bonus Law
Land Use - existing: Commercial building and related parking lot - proposed: Eight-story, 245 residential unit development with ground floor commercial space

33.73 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 2
- surrounding: Commercial buildings and uses, residential units, and visitor-serving uses
Lot Area: 52,454 square feet (1.20 acres)
Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66
Planning Staff: Ryan Bane, Senior Planner

PROJECT LOCATION
& BACKGROUND
The project site is a single
parcel located south of
Laurel Street and north of
Spruce Street, spanning
between Pacific Avenue and
Front Street. The project site
is surrounded by residential
uses, visitor-serving uses,
and commercial uses. The
subject property is located in
the CBD (Central Business
District) zone district, and
the South of Laurel Area
(SOLA) of the Downtown
Plan.

PERMITS/REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The project proposes to demolish the existing commercial building to construct an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of ground floor retail, twostory live/work units along Laurel Street, one level of underground parking, and 245 residential units above the first floor. Located in the newly adopted South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan, the development meets the criteria to be eligible for the Downtown Density Bonus for additional height and/or Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The project requires the following entitlements:
 Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish nonresidential buildings that are more than 50 years old;
 Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 16 heritage street trees;  Coastal Permit as the project is located in the Coastal Zone Overlay and does not qualify for any exemptions or exclusions;
 Design Permit for a mixed-use development; and

33.74 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 3
 Administrative Use Permit for live/work quarters in the Central Business District; While the permits listed above would be heard by the City Zoning Administrator, the Downtown Density Bonus section of the Downtown Plan “Combination Option” for providing inclusionary housing requires approval by the City Council. Zoning Ordinance Section 24.04.150 states that when a project requires more than one permit and the approval of those permits normally rests with more than one decision making body, the body with the highest authority shall take action on all permits concurrently. As such, these permits will be heard at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council.

State Laws Applicable to Project:

The following California Government Code Sections are applicable to the project.  65863.2 (Minimum Parking Requirements, AB2097): Minimum parking requirements can increase the cost of housing and limit the number of residential units. Therefore, local jurisdictions shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential, commercial, or other development projects if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.
 65589.5 (SB330): Limits local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing..

Note that the while the project utilizes the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) in lieu of the State Density Bonus, all Housing Development Projects are subject to the protections under 65589.5 and the application of subjective requirements under the DDB (that are not more restrictive than the objective standards) as elected by the applicant, does not nullify such protections except to the extent that subjective standards may be applied.  65905.5 (Five Hearing Rule): A local government may not hold more than five hearings to consider a proposed housing development project if the project complies with all applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards.

RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS
 Archaeology: The property is mapped in the General Plan as sensitive for archaeological resources, with a small portion in the southeast corner mapped as highly sensitive. The archaeological report submitted does not recommend archaeological monitoring for construction-related soil disturbance. However, a tribal enforceable agreement has been signed that requires Native American TCR sensitivity training prior to construction, and tribal monitoring during ground-disturbance activities at the site.  Heritage Trees: An arborist report has been prepared that documents a total of 26 trees either on site or surrounding street trees. There are no heritage trees located on the project site, but 16 street trees qualify as heritage and are proposed for removal.  Coastal Zone: Exclusion Zone B. Project is not eligible for exemptions or exclusions and requires a Coastal Permit.
 Biotic Resources: None.
 Slopes: No slopes 30-percent or greater are present.
 Bird Safe Standards: A portion of the site is within the bird safe zone and a condition of approval will be included to incorporate bird safe standards.

33.75 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 4
 Noise: A noise study was conducted to determine the noise environment at the proposed site, compare measured data with applicable city and state standards, and provide mitigation measures as necessary to meet those standards. Recommendations provided for exterior wall assemblies and STC ratings for windows and doors have been provided to reduce exterior noise intrusion in order to meet the State and local noise standards.  Liquefaction: A geotechnical report was submitted. From a geotechnical standpoint, the site can be developed as planned, if the recommendations provided in the report are incorporated into the building permit plans. The project includes conditions of approval requiring that all recommendations of the geotechnical investigation are implemented.  Floodplain Overlay: The property is currently located in the A-99 flood hazard area.

Conditions of approval have been included to require conformance with the standards of floodplain development as established by the California Building Code.

ANALYSIS
General Plan, Downtown Plan and Zoning Consistency. The project site is located within the CBD (Central Business District) zone district and is designated as RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) in the General Plan. The CBD district implements the Downtown Plan, and is divided into five areas, including the South of Laurel Area (SOLA) which is where this project is located.

The proposed building will occupy an entire city block, fronting all four streets including Laurel, Front, and Spruce Streets as well as Pacific Avenue. Ground floor commercial will face both Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street, with live/work units fronting Laurel Street and mostly utility functions and the parking garage entrance along Front Street. With the exception of the live/work spaces, all residential units occupy the upper floors. This is consistent with the Downtown Plan which calls for the intensification of SOLA as a mixed-use district, active public-oriented retail, restaurant, entertainment, and cultural uses and upper-level residential uses as a primary support to the ground level retail uses.

33.76 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 5
The objectives of the SOLA is to increase the total number of housing units that can be built in the City by adding capacity for multi-family housing, better connect downtown with the San Lorenzo River and Beach Areas, and create new economic opportunities for local businesses and workers.

As proposed, the project meets these objectives, consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The building meets the Downtown Plan guidelines for building design in that the exterior materials visually separate the ground floor storefront from the upper floor residences, creating distinct zones on the ground level, the upper-level residences and the top two floors. The building is designed with different building materials, colors, and changes in plane to create visual interest, compatible with surrounding development. The storefront along Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street will incorporate outdoor seating and landscaped areas to enhance the pedestrian experience.

Downtown Density Bonus. Located in the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan, the project is eligible to use the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) to pursue development incentives for additional height and/or Floor Area Ratio for buildings meeting certain criteria. The purpose of the DDB is to support a compact urban core while achieving a higher-than-average rate of belowmarket-rate housing units, promoting high quality design, and generally encouraging building heights of twelve stories or less.

In order to qualify for DDB, projects must meet the following criteria:
i. The proposal is for a mixed-use or fully residential, rental housing development. The Downtown Density Bonus is not available to for-sale residential development proposals.
ii. The floor area of the proposed development consists of 2/3 or more residential dwellings, while ensuring that the ground floor frontage is reserved for commercial and

33.77 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 6
active, public-facing uses consistent with Sections A and K of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan.
iii. The proposed development meets the required development standards as delineated below in parts h and i and complies with the requirements for Architectural Review as described in part j.
iv. The development proposal meets one of five listed options to provide below-marketrate units.

The project meets the listed criteria in that;
i. The project is a mixed-use rental housing development. ii. The floor area of the proposed development consists of more than 2/3 residential dwellings with ground floor frontage reserved for commercial and active, public-facing uses consistent with Sections A and K of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, except as modified pursuant to a Downtown Plan Design Variation and in accordance with the Architectural Review Committee recommendations. See attached Table of Compliance with Objective Standards Compliance (Exhibit 3) for more detail.
iii. The project development meets the required development standards as delineated in parts

14.h and i of Part K of the Downtown Plan in that the project does not propose the payment of in-lieu fees, and the proposed height of 85-feet is consistent with the Option B for unlimited FAR. The project complies with the requirements for Architectural Review as described in part14.j of Part K of the Downtown Plan. Other objective standards proposed for variation are identified in the attached Table of Objective Standards Compliance (Exhibit 3) and have been reviewed under Section J of Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan (Design Variations).
iv. The development provides off-site below-market-rate units pursuant to the listed “Combination Option”. The combination option proposal is discussed below. This combination option may be approved by the City Council based upon the favorable recommendations of the Directors of Planning & Community Development and Economic Development & Housing, if Council finds that the combination of approaches provides an equivalent or greater affordable housing benefit to the community.

Once it is determined a project meets the criteria for the DDB, the section lays out two density bonus options to choose from: Option A and B. For this project, the applicants have chosen Option B which allows for unlimited FAR for development proposals that limit height to the height limits of the Downtown Plan. For this specific area the height limit is 85-feet, which the project is consistent with.

Downtown Development Standards Compliance. The project meets the development standards in the Downtown Plan and the SOLA, with the exception of four minor variations which are explained below. The attached Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Checklist explains the project’s compliance with the standards in the Downtown Plan, including requested Variations. The table below shows the project’s consistency with the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance:

33.78 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 7
Parking and Bicycle Parking Requirements
Required Proposed Project Compliance
Number of vehicle
parking spaces
Located within ½ mile
of major transit stop so
no parking is required
257 parking spaces Yes
Number of compact
spaces
Up to 50% of total
provided (16 max.)
92 parking spaces
36%
Yes
Bicycle Class 1 parking Residential - 1 space
per unit = 245
Commercial – 1/1000
sq ft x 25% = 3
248 bike parking spaces Yes
Shared Electric Bicycle 4 shared electric
bicycles required
16 shared electric
bicycles
Yes
Bicycle Class 2 parking Residential – 1 per 15
units = 16
Commercial – 1/1000
sq ft x 75% = 9
25 bike parking spaces Yes
Access to parking
facility width
20’ min. to 25’ max. 24’ Yes
The Downtown Plan contains development standards, which when implemented, are intended to achieve the First Principles of the Plan and public objectives for the downtown. While every effort has been made to thoughtfully produce clear and concise standards for the community, the Plan can never address or respond to all development scenarios and circumstances. Therefore, projects that closely conform to the development standards, but with slight variations may be considered upon demonstration that the resulting project will better achieve stated Plan and community objectives. Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Director, with final approval by the City Council. The following are minor variations to the Downtown Plan standards:

1. Section A.4-1(2) states that “residential lobbies and leasing offices shall cumulatively be a maximum of 30-feet in width across the building frontage or a maximum of 15 percent of the building frontage, whichever is less”. A grand entry and leasing office fronts Spruce Street, with residential amenities (lounge/mail room/pet spa) located internally and not visible from the street. The leasing office spans approximately 27-feet, with the adjacent grand entry approximately 13-feet, for a total of 40-feet. Staff supports this minor variation of 10-feet, taking into consideration that this section constitutes only 18% of the overall frontage, and is well designed into the interior of the Spruce Street elevation.

33.79 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 8

2. Section C.6 states that “Windows shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the face of the wall to emphasize the thickness of the wall consistent with historical, traditional and newer building on Pacific Avenue”. There are many variations of windows throughout the project. Windows at the commercial level are recessed six inches to emphasize wall thickness, with windows above the first floor having various recess depths ranging from 2 to 2.5-inches. This was discussed at the ARC meeting, where it was the opinion of some ARC members that the six-inch recess was for a more classic architectural design, but was not appropriate for this building design. It was recommended that the first floor maintain a six-inch recess while the upper floors be flush or have a minimal recess. Staff is supportive of the ARC recommendation.

3. Section K.4.c states that “Building adjacent to Activity Nodes identified in Appendix 8, Figure 8.4-6, Gateways and Nodes, will be required to dedicate ground floors to commercial space. Commercial spaces will have a minimum length of 50-feet of total frontage and a depth no less than 20-feet.” All four corners of the building are considered nodes per Appendix 8. Each corner has dedicated ground floor commercial space with a length of 50-feet and a depth of 20-feet. The only slight variation is the live/work space on the north east corner which is approximately 30-feet in length, but with the adjacent live/work units the elevation reads as ground floor commercial that is greater than 50-feet in length. See rendering below.

4. Section C.7 states that “Bay or projecting windows and balconies are encouraged and may be permitted on upper levels of buildings, provided that a minimum of 10 feet of clearance is provided to grade and that the following provisions are met: a. The projection into the public right-of-way or designated setback area is no more that 3 feet; where sidewalks are less than 10 feet in depth, this projection shall be limited to 2 feet;” The majority of balconies meet these requirements, however, there are balconies on the southeast corner (Spruce/Front St.) and the northeast corner (Laurel/Front St.), as well as portions of the Terrace Club roof deck, that project up to approximately 4-feet. These balconies start on the third floor and extend to the upper floors. For a structure of this size, these balconies are an integral component of the building design, providing articulation and shadowing, breaking up the overall mass of the structure, and providing interest from the street view.

33.80 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 9
These features are also consistent with Section E.7 which calls for “Gateway Treatments” at key gateway intersections to the downtown. Suggested treatments for these gateways include “corner towers or turrets, setbacks, distinctive changes in fenestration and materials.” The ARC was complimentary of these corner balconies, and staff supports the minor projections to not only add articulation and interest to the design, but to provide practical outdoor living space for future residents. Staff has coordinated with Public Works on these minor variations, and Public Works staff are supportive as well.

Architectural Review Committee. Pursuant to the Downtown Plan, applications for Downtown Density Bonus projects are required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a committee of three licensed architects selected by the Community Development Department. The ARC is charged with a collaborative review of the project for consistency with the Downtown Development Standards and to critique overall building design.

On November 4, 2025, the ARC met with city staff and representatives of the project team, including members of the project’s architectural firm (AO). The meeting lasted approximately two hours with constructive dialogue, discussion, and recommendations from the ARC. A summary of the ARC discussion is attached to the staff report for Commissioners’ review.

The applicants took many of the ARC’s suggestions and revised the plans following the meeting.

The following are a few of the most notable changes:
 Color – ARC comments suggested that the initial colors were a little too subdued and suggested incorporating some fun color for playfulness. o In order to provide connection to the local culture and architecture, accent colors were introduced to the design.

33.81 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 10
o Sage green color siding panels were introduced on lower three levels on Spruce Street facade and also at the roof amenity terrace level.
o Underside of the main corner balconies were given an accent material to enhance close up pedestrian experience.
 Commercial Nodes - The Spruce and Front Streets corner is considered a commercially important node in the Downtown Plan/SOLA and was discussed during ARC review. o In response, the design and layouts of the live/work units were revised, and a commercial / retail space was added to the Spruce St. corner, making it a visually and functionally commercially activated corner.
o The residential entry and the lobby were relocated towards the center of the building on Spruce Street, providing a better alignment of the residential entry, lobby, and elevators.
o This makes all four corners commercially activated and open for pedestrians.  Retail - ARC comments expressed the importance of having more celebrated commercial entries.
o The storefront designs along Pacific Ave. were revised to create wider and deeper alcoves at the commercial entries.
 Ducting/Venting for Future Food Service Uses – The ARC noted that vent ducts should be provided for the main commercial space facing Pacific Avenue. o The vents ducts are shown on the plans and are concealed throughout the vertical run until they get released at the roof level.
 Spruce Street Elevation – A comment by the ARC alluded to some of the elevations being a little “busy,” recommending simplifying some of the elevations, eliminating some shifting of materials, volumes, etc.
o Green metal cladding was removed to simplify the architecture, and the horizontal canopy modulation was modified to provide a consistent height across the metal cladding.
o Sage green accent paint was incorporated at the residential entry portal. o Overall elevation was simplified.
 Art – Some ARC members suggested the incorporation of art, gateway signage, or programmable exterior lighting.
o Public art in the form of blade signage or façade lighting will be incorporated at the building permit stage.
 Balconies – Some concerns were raised about the usefulness of some of the balconies due to them being too shallow.
o Design was revised to incorporate sliding doors at corner balconies to provide additional light and ventilation, and to have shallow balconies function as Juliet balconies for bedrooms and living areas.
 Live/Work Entries – A comment by the ARC indicated that the single door entries for the Live/Work units seemed a little subdued and suggested more activation by incorporating commercial double doors.
o The corner of Laurel and Front Street was revised to accommodate two Live/Work units with commercial double doors and storefront glazing enhancing the commercial feel. o The remaining Live/Work units to the west remain with 3-foot wide accessible doors and store front glazing maintaining the commercial gesture at pedestrian level.

33.82 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 11
o These storefronts are flexible and can be customized upon tenant’s interest in the future.

Overall the ARC review process was successful and resulted in meaningful suggestions for improvements to the overall project design.

Traffic and Parking. As per Municipal Code Section 24.12.220, off-street parking and loading requirements do not apply to development within one-half mile of a major transit stop, therefore onsite parking is not required for the project. The project is proposing to voluntarily provide 257 parking spaces on the property. The parking garage will include a parking gate to limit access to residents and service cars only. One Type A loading space (24 feet by 8 feet) is also required for the project as parking spaces are voluntarily being provided. A USPS loading space is provided just beyond the garage entrance on the ground level.

The project site located within the recently adopted South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan for which a transportation analysis was prepared for the Downtown Plan expansion. As part of that analysis, the subject site (identified as Block A) anticipated 318 multifamily dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of retail space, and 4,000 square feet of restaurant space. Based on the attached trip generation memo, as currently proposed, the development would generate the same or fewer daily and peak-hour trips compared to the trips for the site as adopted in the Santa Cruz Downtown Expansion Plan so long as the restaurant space was kept at 4,100 square feet or less. The project applicant has indicated that the site is not anticipated to have restaurant space exceeding this value.

Since the project is not expected to generate more traffic than what is adopted for the site in the Santa Cruz Downtown Expansion Plan, the project did not require the preparation of a traffic study.

A condition of approval will also require that the project pay a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) prior to temporary or final occupancy.

Off-Site Improvements. The Public
Works Department has reviewed the
plans and worked with the applicants to
design the bike lanes, curb, gutter and
sidewalks surrounding the site. In order
to accommodate the raised 6’-6” bike
lane along the Laurel Street frontage,
the developers are dedicating
approximately 5’-6” along the north
property line, and in exchange the city
is abandoning approximately 3’-6”
along the Spruce Street frontage.

33.83 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 12
Additionally, there is a 9-foot dedication along the Front Street frontage to accommodate a new 6’-6” protected bike lane in addition to an 8-foot sidewalk with landscaping and streetlights. The sidewalk along Pacific Avenue will vary in width from 10’ to 19’-10”, incorporating outdoor seating areas, landscaping, street trees, street lights, and public bike racks. The Spruce Street frontage proposes an 8-foot sidewalk with landscaping, street trees, and streetlights.

Public Infrastructure Fair Share Contribution. As described in Section

8.7.1 in Appendix 8 of the Downtown Plan (SOLA), new development will be required to make fair share contributions to improve public infrastructure in ways that promote alternative transportation modes (walking, biking and transit), promote environmental sustainability (green infrastructure and green building performance), and provide for orderly and attractive change within the SOLA over time. However, this project precedes the nexus study which is required to determine the fair-share contribution amount, and any contribution provided will be a voluntary action on behalf of the applicant. The initial estimate for the fair-share contribution for this project is $2.1 million. The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to voluntarily contribute $100,000 to the SOLA public infrastructure, with payment due at certificate of occupancy. A condition addressing the fair share contribution has been included in the conditions of approval.

Prior to submittal of a formal application, the applicant informed the city that they had partnered with CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development LLC (“CRP”) to facilitate concurrent development of a 100% affordable housing development at the properties located at 407-413 Pacific Avenue (“407 Pacific”) to fulfill the affordable housing requirements for the subject DDB development. The applicant proposes a plan under the Combination Option that would more closely resemble the Land Dedication Option. The applicant asserts that a revised framework is desirable to reflect the obligations and private agreements that have already been established between the two parties, specifically, that CRP is responsible for acquiring, financing, constructing, and operating the 407 Pacific Project, with 201 Front agreeing to pay CRP for the purchase price of the land in order to zero out CRP’s land basis (i.e., land dedication to CRP). The proposed revised framework eliminates the requirements for payment of staff time, impact fees, and permit fees that are associated with the Off-Site Option (since CRP is paying those and developing the project) and proposes credit for excess off-site land capacity that is allowed under the Land Dedication Option.

33.84 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 13
Additionally, the proposed combination option includes a plan to enter into a project-specific Affordable Housing Development Agreement between the City and the applicant which will specify the process for holding the money slated for the 407 Pacific project should the timing of the two projects not align. The proposed combination option is supported for the following reasons:
 The 100% affordable housing project at 407 Pacific was approved by the Planning Commission on April 16, 2026 and includes a 102 unit development with 96,714 square feet of total dwelling unit area. The project was recently notified that they were awarded tax credit allocations, so it is highly likely that the project will move to construction.  The dwelling unit area at the approved project at 407 Pacific is greater than the area required in the Downtown Plan for the Land Dedication Option (including deductions for required inclusionary housing (11 units) and a manager’s unit = 11,424 sq. ft.) which includes the following two calculations:
201 Front = 203,515 sq. ft. dwelling unit area
407 Pacific = 85,290 sq. ft. dwelling unit area
1) K(14)(b)(iv)(4)(b): 203,515 x 40% = 81,406 x 75%= 61,054 min. dwelling unit area
2) K(14)(g)(i)(1):
a. K(14)(b)(2)(b) (off-site option): 203,515 x 26.7% = 54,338 x 75% = 40,754 min dwelling unit area.
b. 40,754 + 50% = 61,131 min. dwelling unit area.
 Excess capacity credit will be based on the approximately 24,236 square foot difference between the required and provided dwelling unit area at the 407 Pacific project, which can only be used to facilitate a future DDB project and would expire within seven years of the date of final occupancy for the 201 Front project.
 The Affordable Housing Development Agreement will ensure that the money is reserved for the exclusive benefit of the 407 Pacific project, in that the city will hold the funds with interest proceeds remaining in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and, should CRP become unable to pursue the project, the money would remain in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be applied to future affordable housing projects.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit. The primary commercial building on the site is proposed for demolition. Based on City of Santa Cruz Building Permit records, the original structure was constructed in 1951. Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the purpose of this permit is to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished. While the building was constructed in 1951 and is over 50 years old, the building has undergone numerous alterations, including additions and fenestration modifications. Due to the significant alterations to the building, the subject property no longer possesses sufficient historic integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling for it to qualify for listing as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The site is not associated with any important historic events or patterns of history, is not associated with any historic people, and due

33.85 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 14
to the substantial alterations to the building, the subject building does not possess any distinctive stylistic characteristics, design or workmanship. Thus, the building is not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

Administrative Use Permit. Live/Work Quarters are permitted in the South of Laurel Area with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Live/Work Quarters are not permitted within 50 feet of Pacific Avenue north of Sycamore, the residential component of a Live/Work space shall not be located on the ground level, the non-residential component of the space must have frontage on the public right-of-way, the non-residential component of the space must have a minimum frontage depth of 20 feet, and they shall also comply with the Building Façade and Storefront Standards and Guidelines for the district. The proposed Live/Work Quarters located along the Laurel Street frontage meet all of these requirements.

Regarding the Potential for ADUs. Like all multi-family buildings in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed, as a ministerial action. Up to 25-percent of the total number of units (for this project, a total of 61) can potentially be created by converting non-livable space, and up to two detached New Construction ADUs. The creation of conversion ADUs in the amount described above is permitted within existing ("entitled") buildings pursuant to Section 24.16.125 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Environmental Review. The project utilizes a Statutory Exemption that was added to section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code in 2025. The exemption allows for eligible Housing Development Projects (HDP) to be exempt from CEQA under certain conditions. The project qualifies for this Statutory Exemption as it meets the list of prescriptive requirements/criteria listed under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a).

There are no exceptions to this Statutory Exemption.

Health in All Policies (HiAP). HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The project supports the pillar of equity by providing rental units on a site in a residential area that is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas. The development of residences in this central location encourages a

33.86 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 15
sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The Planning Department considers the project a significant development project, which requires a community meeting. A community meeting took place on June 4, 2025, as part of the preapplication review (CP25-0028) for the project. Approximately 43 members of the public were in attendance. Discussion topics included concerns of increased traffic and parking with the new arena nearby, potential vacant retail space in the downtown area, floodplain requirements, where the existing Ace Hardware would relocate, and concerns with the overall building design. There were comments supporting the project, encouraging new housing with opportunities for young families, and suggestions for smaller tenant spaces, first floor residential, rainwater collection, and solar to be incorporated.

For a summary of the Community Meeting comments, please see the following link:
https://www.santacruzca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/pl/documents/community-meeting-notes-201- front.pdf

SUMMARY
The project, as conditioned, meets all the required objective site standards, except as requested through Downtown Plan Variations, and meets the findings for approval of the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Coastal Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus request, including the proposed Combination Option and Downtown Variations, based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit A.

FINDINGS
Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

1. The development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program.

33.87 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 16
Plan. In this case the project meets the 85-foot height limit and therefore is allowed unlimited FAR.

33.88 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 17
• L5.6: Require land use development to integrate into the larger circulation system by interconnecting its system of roads, pedestrian and bike paths with existing facilities and also design access to nearby areas in a manner that minimizes the necessity for automobile travel and potential automobile and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

5. Maintain public access to the coast along any coastline as set forth in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The project site is located inland from the coastline and does not include any public access pathways to the coast; therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing public access to the coast.

6. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate;

33.89 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 18
The project includes 12,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space that will be filled by future retail, restaurant, and/or recreational uses, as permitted in the Downtown Plan which will provide visitor serving needs appropriate to the downtown area.

7. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of encouraging coastal development uses as appropriate.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230.3

The proposed mixed-use project is being approved concurrently with the approval to demolish the subject buildings. A condition of approval has been included that requires the building permit for the replacement project to be issued before the demolition permit to demolish the existing building will be issued.

33.90 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 19

This finding is not applicable as the property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.

It has been determined that the building does not qualify as historic resource. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.426

33.91 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 20
site in the mid-1990s. The archaeological report submitted does not recommend archaeological monitoring for construction-related soil disturbance. However, a tribal enforceable agreement has been signed that requires Native American TCR sensitivity training prior to construction, and tribal monitoring during ground-disturbance activities at the site. A condition of approval is included that a Native American monitor be present during all soil disturbance, as was agreed upon in the tribal consultation. A precautionary condition of approval also requires the applicant to stop work if excavation results in discovery of an archaeological resource.

13. For nonresidential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

33.92 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 21
The project complies with all applicable objective development standards of the Downtown Plan, as discussed in Attachment 3, and all other applicable sections of Chapter 24 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, except as modified by Downtown Variations.

Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rightsof-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

33.93 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 22
The proposed project is designed to be eight stories in height (85 feet) with different building materials proposed that blend in with elements of the surrounding area, such as stucco brick veneer, stone veneer, with metal cladding, railings and storefront windows and doors. The proposed design of the project takes into account a balance of scale, form and proportion and what is envisioned within the surrounding neighborhood.

The subject property is flat and does not contain any heritage-sized trees or shrubs. That being said, there are 16 Heritage sized street trees surrounding the parcel that are proposed to be removed due to the impacts of the project. The project will not require significant grading or alteration of landforms. A shadow study was provided for the proposed project which shows that during the winter solstice (December 21st), that some adjacent properties to the west, north and east will be impacted at certain hours of the day. The project has been designed to comply with the newly adopted South of Laurel Area of the expanded Downtown Plan.

33.94 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 23
The project will not impact any significant public view identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Map CD-3 in the Local Coastal Program. The project site is not located adjacent to the coastline or within any scenic view area. The project is not located in a visually degraded area.

21. Buildings and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.

Administrative Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

22. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;

33.95 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 24
An Administrative Use Permit is required to allow Live/Work Quarters in the South of Laurel Area of the Downtown Plan Area. The proposal includes six Live/Work units along the Laurel Street frontage of the 245-unit mixed-use project. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan land use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial) designation, which applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents and visitors. Mixed-use development, such as the one proposed, is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.

33.96 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 25
• CD1.1.1: Focus development in the Central Core, and along arterial and mass transit corridors. (See policies under L2.6.3).
• CD3.6: In pedestrian areas, require building design to be responsive to the pedestrian environment. These areas include but are not limited to Downtown, South of Laurel, the Beach, wharf, shoreline, and commercial shopping areas. • CD3.6.1: Encourage the use of pedestrian-scale fenestration, awnings, marquees, entrance lobbies, balconies, landscaping, paving materials and other amenities. • L2.1.2: Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrainted by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.
• L5.3: Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes • L5.6: Require land use development to integrate into the larger circulation system by interconnecting its system of roads, pedestrian and bike paths with existing facilities and also design access to nearby areas in a manner that minimizes the necessity for automobile travel and potential automobile and pedestrian/bike conflicts.

The project does not contain a thrift store; therefore, this finding does not apply.

33.97 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2026
SUBJECT: 201 Front Street – Project No. CP25-0116
PAGE 26
Submitted by:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval

2. Project Plan Set

3. Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Checklist

4. ARC Meeting Notes

5. Arborist Report prepared by Kurt Fouts Arborist Consultant, dated March 16, 2025

6. Exterior Noise and Exterior Façade Acoustical Analysis, prepared by Veneklasen Associates, dated November 18, 2025

7. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical, dated May 5, 2023

8. Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated February 3, 2026

9. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Environmental Investigation Services, Inc., dated April 18, 2024

10. Stormwater Control Plan prepared by Keir & Wright Civil Engineering and Surveyors, dated December 17, 2025

11. Housing Development – Recent State Law Changes

12. Public Notice Radius Map

33.98 PLANNING COMMISSION

ACTION SUMMARY
Regular Meeting
June 4, 2026
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS (809 CENTER STREET, SANTA CRUZ)
Call to Order – Chair Kelley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call – Commissioners Gordon, Kennedy, Thompson, Hammer, Polhamus, and Chair Kelley were present. Commissioner McKelvey was absent with notification.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Oral Communications – None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the Minutes of May 7, 2026.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Polhamus to approve the minutes of May 7, 2026.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Kennedy, Gordon, Thompson, Polhamus, Hammer, and Chair Kelley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner McKelvey

33.99 Public Hearings

2. 201 Front Street Project Number: CP25-0116 Assessor's Parcel Number: 007- 031-04 Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus Request to Demolish a Commercial Building and Construct an Eight-Story Mixed-Use Building Consisting of Approximately 12,000 Square Feet of Ground Floor Commercial Space, Live/Work Units on the Ground Floor, and 245 Rental Apartments on a Parcel Located in the CBD (Central Business District) Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue/CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay)/FP-O (Floodplain Overlay) Zone Districts and Within the South of Laurel Area District of the Downtown Plan. Environmental Review:

Statutory Exemption Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66; Filed 10/01/25 by Applicant Owen Lawlor. This Project Requires a Coastal Permit Which is Not Appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to acknowledge the Environmental Determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Downtown Density Bonus request based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated May 29, 2026.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Gordon, Kennedy, Thompson, Hammer, Polhamus, and Chair Kelley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner McKelvey

Information Items – Assistant Community Development Director Eric Marlatt advised the Commission of the recent actions taken by the City Council and upcoming potential Planning Commission special meeting dates.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports
Items Referred to Future Agendas
Adjournment – Chair Kelley adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m.

33.100
Chapter 4: Development Standards and Design Guidelines
The following table discusses how the proposed project complies with the development standards and design guidelines as noted in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan.

A. ALL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS LAND USES Compliance? Y/N
Comments from City Staff
A.4-1(2): Multi-Family Housing. (Including Single-Room Occupancy, Supportive and Transitional Housing, and Flexible Density Unit Housing projects subject to standards set forth in SCMC 24.12.) In all districts where multi-family housing requires an AUP, common residential lobbies for upper-level residences are allowed at ground level with active ground level common spaces publicly visible.

In the Pacific Avenue Retail District and along Pacific Ave and Spruce St in the South of Laurel Area, residential lobbies and leasing offices shall cumulatively be a maximum of 30 feet in width across the building frontage or a maximum of 15 percent of the building frontage, whichever is less, for a depth of 75 feet from Pacific Avenue or Spruce Street/Spruce Street Plaza. Amenity spaces are prohibited in these areas on the ground floor. In the South of Laurel Area, the Pacific Avenue Retail District, and the Front Street Corridor, ground floor area shall not be used for private building amenities including gyms, mailrooms, meeting space, or other areas reserved exclusively for building residents and their guests within 20 feet of any street frontage. No first story or ground-level residential units are allowed along a public right-of-way in the Downtown Plan area, unless otherwise specified below. Within the Cedar Street Village, ground level residential uses are permitted on the side streets west of Cedar Street and also along Center Street. Direct access between individual townhouse units and the street are strongly encouraged through the use of porches and front "stoops". In the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor and North Pacific Area, first floor units are permitted when elevated above the sidewalk level 5 feet. For Front Street/Riverfront Corridor, allow for ground level residential uses provided that such uses are internal to a block and do not face Front Street, Laurel Street, Cathcart Street, Soquel Avenue, River Street, North Pacific, or any public pedestrian paseo or lane. Individual housing unit entrances with direct access to Front Street are prohibited within 60 feet of Front Street from Soquel Avenue to the intersection with Pacific Avenue and along the frontages of all A minor
design
variation is
requested
A grand entry and leasing office fronts Spruce
Street, with residential amenities
(lounge/mail room/pet spa) located
internally and not visible from the street. The
leasing office spans approximately 27-feet,
with the adjacent grand entry approximately
13-feet, for a total of 40-feet. Staff supports
this minor variation of 10-feet, taking into
consideration that this frontage constitutes
only 18% of the overall frontage, and is well
designed into the Spruce St. elevation.

Ground floor residential amenities are a
minimum of 20-feet from the street frontage.

33.101
public passageways between Front Street and the Riverwalk including the Spruce Street Plaza.

A.4-1(10): Live/Work Quarters. This use is not permitted within 50 feet of Pacific Avenue north of Sycamore. The residential component of a Live/Work space shall not be located on the ground level, unless the residence is located in the interior of the lot; i.e., the non-residential component of the space must have frontage on the public right-of-way or publicly accessible passageway. The non-residential component of the space must have a minimum frontage depth of 20 feet. These uses shall also comply with the Building Façade and Storefront Standards and Guidelines for each district
Y The project proposes Live/Work spaces
fronting Laurel Street that meet the 50-foot
setback from Pacific Avenue as well as the 20-
foot frontage depth.

A.4-1(16): Retail. The store space along the frontage of North Pacific Avenue, River Street and Water Street shall have the minimum perpendicular depth of forty (40) feet; however, such use may vary in depth along these streets provided that each street maintains an average retail depth of twenty five (25) feet.

Y The project proposes commercial space
along Pacific Avenue that meets the 40-foot
depth.

A.4-2(2) Multi-family Housing. Residential uses shall incorporate sound attenuation space planning designs and construction materials and methods in accordance with General Plan requirements such that noise from nearby commercial activities do not unduly disturb occupants of new dwelling units.

For properties east of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street, housing shall be at least 60% of the total floor area of any mixed-use housing project. This requirement does not apply to projects within 75 feet of Laurel Street or Soquel Avenue or projects where the primary use is visitor-serving.

Y Project proposes multi-family housing on the
upper floors which is a principally permitted
use. A noise study was submitted, and a
condition of approval has been included
requiring the building permit plans to comply
with the recommendations in the noise study
prior to building permit issuance.

B. PACIFIC AVENUE RETAIL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS B.1.a: Floors. No new building shall be less than two stories in height. The second story shall be at least 50 percent of the ground floor area and shall be located toward the street frontage. An exception may be made for building recessed breaks as described for the Additional Height Zones.

Y Project meets requirement.

B.1.b: Floor-to-Floor Height. The ground floor uses must have a minimum floorto-floor height of 18 feet for properties north of Cathcart Street and 15 feet minimum between Cathcart Street and Laurel Street. Any mezzanine shall be N/A Not applicable.

33.102
set back at least 30 feet from the building line on the street and shall occupy no more than one-third of the area of the first floor.

B.1.c: Base Height and Floors. No new development shall exceed a Base Height of 55 feet (measured to the top of parapet or eaves), except as provided for in the “Additional Height Zone A”. Within this Base Height, no more than 3 floors of upper-level uses above the ground-level retail use will be permitted within the maximum 55 feet Base Height. (See Figure B-1.)
Y The project site is located in the South of
Laurel area which allows for a maximum
height of 85 feet.

B.1.d: Mechanical Penthouses. Uninhabitable mechanical penthouses will be permitted above the Base Height by a maximum of 20 feet, provided that such penthouses are set back a minimum of 15 feet from any exposed face of the buildings, unless such penthouses are architecturally integrated into the building façade design
Y Uninhabitable stair and elevator penthouses
are shown on the roof plan and do not
exceed 20-feet above the base height and
maintain a minimum 15-foot setback from
any exposed face of the building.

B.1.e: Sloping Roofs. (45 degrees/1:1 pitch or flatter) shall be permitted up to a maximum height of 60 feet, measured to the top of the sloping roof. For projects not eligible for the Additional Height, street wall heights shall not exceed the base height limit of 55 feet
N/A Sloping roofs are not included as part of the
design.

B.1.f: Visual Impact Study. Any site that is located where the east-west street does not cross Pacific Avenue (sites with frontage on Locust, Church, Walnut, Lincoln, Soquel, Elm and Maple Streets) must prepare a visual impact study to determine how the proposed building would be viewed from the east-west street from a pedestrian eye-level.

Y Renderings from the pedestrian eye-level
have been included with the plans.

B.2 Floor Area Ratio The Downtown Plan Area includes two standards for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which represent the maximum building volume that may be developed on any property within the Downtown Plan Area, except by compliance with any density bonus program or provisions available in state or local law. See Figure B-5. North of Laurel Street, sites may develop up to 5.0 FAR of building area; South of Laurel Street, sites may develop up to 3.5 FAR of building area. FAR is calculated for a site prior to subtracting any required public dedications. FAR will be calculated consistent with the standard definitions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, except that required ground floor commercial space is counted once regardless of interior height.

Y The site is located south of Laural Street with
an allowed 3.5 FAR. However, with
implementation of the Downtown Density
Bonus, specifically Option B, the project is
permitted unlimited FAR since it meets the
85-foot height limit.

B.2 Build-to Lines and Setbacks To ensure that Pacific Avenue and the east-west streets are spatially well defined, all development shall be built to the property line of the street. The following exceptions to this condition are noted:

33.103
B.2.a. Active Outdoor Uses. Setbacks of up to 12 feet in depth are permitted along the northern property line of Cathcart Street, if such setbacks are intended to provide active outdoor uses (e.g., outdoor dining or public seating) oriented to the street.

N/A Not applicable.

B.2.b. Laurel Street Sidewalk. Require any development along either the north or south side of Laurel Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street to dedicate sufficient property to result in a sidewalk depth of at least 12 feet. The precise dedication shall be consistent with the final Laurel Street design and shall be established with a build to line.

N/A Not applicable.

B.2.c. Front Street Sidewalk. Require any development along the west side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Pacific Avenue to dedicate sufficient property to result in a sidewalk depth of at least 12 feet.

Y The updated Downtown Expansion Plan calls
for an 8-foot sidewalk along the Front Street
frontage. (Appendix 8 Figure 8.4-12)
B.2.d: Recessed Storefronts. Ground-level storefront setbacks are permitted and encouraged within the provisions of the storefront and building façade standards and guidelines. Recessed storefronts may occur where a designated outdoor use, such as an outdoor café, is an integral part of the retail business.

Y Storefronts are not recessed, with the
exception of the main entries along Pacific
Avenue which are recessed approximately 4-
feet.

B.3. Public and Private Parking Facilities The Pacific Avenue Retail District is within the Downtown Parking District #1 and, as such, shall comply with all parking requirements set forth within that district. On-site parking will not be permitted unless it meets one or more of the following conditions:

B.3.a: Below Grade Parking. Parking is provided completely below grade, and access driveways to the parking facility do not conflict with the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page 51 movement of pedestrians or vehicles within the area.

Y Below grade parking is proposed completely
below grade with access along Front Street.

B.3.b: Visual Screening. Surface or above-grade structured parking can be provided if the parking is visually screened and separated from Pacific Avenue and east-west streets by retail development and if such parking can be accessed from an east-west street or rear service lane.

Y Surface and above-grade parking is proposed
that is visually screened and separated from
Pacific Avenue and east-west streets by retail
development. Access is from Front Street.

B.3.d West Side Front Street. Allow parking facilities along the west side of Front Street south of Soquel Avenue where only one driveway curb cut shall be permitted per facility per street frontage; the parking facility shall not extend to street corners; and the parking facility shall be architecturally integrated within the overall building composition.

Y The parking facilities are accessed along the
west side of Front Street with only one
driveway curb cut.

33.104
B.4 Driveways and Curb Cuts No driveways shall be permitted along Pacific Avenue or Spruce Street. Limit on-site driveways along Front Street and the southern portion of Pacific Avenue after the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Front Street to a maximum of one driveway per property or at a spacing of at least 200 feet; driveways should be no more than 24 feet in width and to the extent practicable should be spaced from an adjacent driveway by at least 200 feet. Wider driveways may be considered based on a demonstrated need to accommodate specific vehicle operations of a proposed development.

Y The parking facilities are accessed along the
west side of Front Street with only one
driveway curb cut. The driveway width meets
the 24-foot width limitation.

C. PACIFIC AVENUE RETAIL DISTRICT BUILDING FAÇADE STANDARDS AND

GUIDELINES
C.1: Building Facades. Building facades should respond to the character and composition of existing commercial buildings along Pacific Avenue. More specifically, facades shall be composed with 3 clearly distinct zones: the storefront, up to the required minimum heights based on location; the upper stories of the facade to the established Base Height (e.g., 50/55/70/85 feet); and the roof and cornice treatment, which includes the visible portions of any additional height permitted above the established base height, based on location. This compositional approach is consistent with the existing building facades along Pacific Avenue, as well as the desire to reinforce the pedestrian realm and avoid the creation of monolithic vertical walls along the street edge.

A separation of treatment shall be clearly established between the ground-level storefront and the upper building levels, utilizing a strong belt course or architectural line, and through the specific storefront treatment described below. Similarly, a strong cornice line or roof treatment is encouraged to promote variety and a distinctive silhouette along the street.

Y This area of Pacific Ave. has a mix of
architectural styles. The Pacific Avenue
façade proposes at least three distinct zones
with a clearly visible treatment distinguishing
the storefront from the upper levels. The
upper elevations are well articulated and
incorporate a number of different materials
to break up the facades
C.2: Adjacent Buildings. The composition of building facades shall also be considered in relation to adjacent buildings of historic or architectural value.

While it is not the intent to maintain a consistent treatment along the street edge, the composition of new development shall seek to be harmonious and compatible with elements of adjacent structures, such as window proportions, the design of horizontal belt courses and cornice treatments, building materials and architectural elements.

Y This area of Pacific Ave. has a mix of
architectural styles with several projects
currently under construction. The proposed
project is harmonious and compatible with
neighboring structures in massing and
composition, incorporating similar window
proportions, horizontal belt courses, building
materials, and architectural elements.

33.105
C.3: Upper-Level Facades. (i.e., the levels of building wall above the ground floor). Upper-level facades should provide a counterpoint to the storefronts below and provide a visually interesting and varied edge to the public space of the street. In general, the upper-level façade should consist of carefully composed “punctured openings” within a richly detailed wall. A variety of treatments shall be introduced to create richness in both the horizontal and vertical planes, including:
• balconies
• bay windows
• flower boxes
• awnings
• cornice and belt courses
• building modulation as described in SCMC 24.12.185.

Y There is generally a well-established break
between the ground floor spaces and the
upper-level residential facades. Between a
mix of materials and architectural elements
the facades are varied and well-articulated.

The upper-level façade does provide a
counterpoint to the storefront below as they
include a more articulated material palette,
including the use of metal clad siding and
stucco with varying colors and changes in
plane to provide more visual interest. There
is differentiation between the ground floor
and the upper-level facades through the
different building materials and colors that
are used. A variety of treatment is provided
in the form of cornices provided around the
elevation to break up the overall massing
vertically at the ground floor, upper levels
and the roof.

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

Large, uninterrupted expanses of horizontal or vertical wall surface shall be avoided. Regardless of property lines, the appearance shall be of a street with varying architectural treatments at intervals of no more than 50 to 75 feet. The multiple rhythms shall be created through the careful design of building Y The proposed building facades have a rhythm
and cadence but are also varied enough to
create interest with a mix of materials and
window and door designs. There are no large,
uninterrupted expanses of horizontal or
vertical wall surfaces, and facades are varied
with three-dimensional articulation and a
mix of complimentary materials

33.106
elements and three-dimensional articulation of building elements sufficient to mitigate the presence of long, blank walls along Pacific Avenue, Front Street and Cedar Street the east-west streets, and the alleys. Elements that make up the rhythmic variation may include, but are not limited to:
• recessed windows;
• projecting windows;
• bay windows;
• structural elements;
• surface textures, patterns and colors;
• trim elements;
• balconies;
• belt-cornices;
• cornices;
• awnings and shutter
 Landscape elements including livings walls or vines
C.5: Cornices and Belt Courses. Overhead horizontal projections (providing at least 8 feet of clearance above grade) of a purely architectural or decorative character such as cornices, eaves, sills and belt courses shall define the building elements (base, middle and top) and create three-dimensional interest in the façade, provided that they do not project more than:
a. At roof level, 3 feet into the public right-of-way or a designated setback area. b. At every other level, 1 foot into the public right-of-way or designated setback area.

Y Decorative architectural projections have
been incorporated and a meet the projection
requirements.

C.6: Windows. Building walls shall be punctured by well-proportioned openings that provide three dimensional relief, detail, interest and rhythmic variation on the facade. Variation in rhythm shall be provided both horizontally and vertically. Large expanses of glass on the upper levels shall be considered only where activities of interest to the pedestrian can be highlighted, and in such cases, the design of these openings shall be carefully integrated within the overall facade composition. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the face of the wall to emphasize the thickness of the wall consistent with the historical, traditional and newer buildings on Pacific Avenue; or windows other than bay windows may project from the wall six inches maximum into the A minor
design
variation is
requested to
allow
window
recesses less
than 6”
above the
commercial
There are many variations of windows
throughout the project. Windows at the
commercial level are recessed six inches to
emphasize wall thickness, with windows
above the first floor having various recess
depths ranging from 2” to 2.5”.

33.107
public right-of-way. Windows shall be of high quality and shall be operable at the upper level and composed of elements that emulate the size and detail of the windows on Pacific Avenue. Window moldings and/or shutters with projections up to six inches are encouraged to provide detail, shade and articulation to building facades.
floor as
recommende
d by the ARC
C.7: Upper Level Bay Windows and Balconies. Bay or projecting windows and balconies are encouraged and may be permitted on upper levels of buildings, provided that a minimum of 10 feet of clearance is provided to grade and that the following provisions are met:
a. The projection into the public right-of-way or designated setback area is no more than 3 feet; where sidewalks are less than 10 feet in depth, this projection shall be limited to 2 feet; along alleys, no projection shall be closer than 8 feet to the centerline of any alley.
b. The glass area of the bay window, and the open portions of each balcony, shall not be less than 50 percent of the total area of the vertical surfaces of the projection.
c. Bay windows and balconies shall "punctuate" rather than dominate the facade; to this end, the maximum length of bay windows shall be 15 feet at the property line or setback line; this width shall be reduced to a maximum width of 9 feet at the full projection of 3 feet, by means of 45 degree angles at the sides of all projecting bay windows. Perpendicular bay windows and balconies (or projections at a different angle) may be permitted, provided that they remain within the outside dimensions described above. Unless balconies are used as a means of distinguishing the storefront area from the upper-level facades, they shall be generally 15 feet in width or less. d. The minimum horizontal separation between bay windows, between balconies, and between bay windows and balconies shall be three feet as measured from the face of the building wall along the property line or setback line. A bay window or balcony shall not occur within two feet of the building edge. The intent of this guideline is to ensure that bay windows and balconies do not visually dominate the building wall.

A minor
design
variation is
requested to
allow several
balconies to
extend 4-feet
into the
right-of-way,
exceeding
the 3-foot
limitation
The majority of balconies meet these
requirements, however, there are balconies
on the southeast corner (Spruce/Front St.)
and the northeast corner (Laurel/Front St.),
as well as portions of the Terrace Club roof
deck, that project up to approximately 4-feet.

These balconies start on the 3rd floor and
extend to the upper floors. For a structure of
this size, these balconies are an integral
component of the building design, providing
articulation and shadowing, breaking up the
overall mass of the structure and providing
interest from the street view. These features
are also consistent with Section E.7 which
calls for “Gateway Treatments” at key
gateway intersections to the downtown.

Suggested treatments for these gateways
include “corner towers or turrets, setbacks,
distinctive changes in fenestration and
materials..” The ARC was complimentary of
these corner balconies, and staff supports
the minor projections to not only add
articulation and interest to the design, but to
provide practical outdoor living space for
future residents.

C.8: Skyline Architectural Variations. Special attention shall be paid to the articulation of the top portion of buildings such as variation in height, massing, materials, horizontal bands, cornices and parapets. Rooflines shall be broken at Y The upper roof line is varied in height,
massing, materials, parapets, etc. Roof top

33.108
intervals no greater than 50 to 60 feet by roof elements or step backs to reinforce the predominant building increment along Pacific Avenue. Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. Rooftop equipment shall be completely concealed from view and integrated within the architectural vocabulary of the building. The use of landscaped roof terraces and gardens is also recommended. equipment is concealed from view and
integrated into the architecture.

C.9: Building Materials. To extend the character of the existing downtown, building materials shall evoke honesty and solidity. Stone, brick and stucco, richly detailed to provide visual interest and variation, are encouraged as the predominant building materials. While wood and metal are desirable materials for window casings and trim, large expanses of wood or metal siding are discouraged as the predominant building materials. Such materials are considered appropriate for ornamental elements on the facade. Applied brick tiles that attempt to give the appearance of genuine masonry are also discouraged as the predominant building material. Decorative ceramic tiles are encouraged, however, as accent features. Reflective glass is prohibited.

Y A number of materials have been
incorporated, including brick veneer, metal
cladding, glass railings, metal mesh railings,
and stucco.

C.10: Colors. Materials shall be relatively light in color. To create a lively visual environment, earth tones, terra-cotta, pastels or whites, accented with dark or bright colors, are recommended. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc. shall also offer color variation. The color scheme for the building shall be compatible in color and value with the adjacent structures and shall be compatible with and sympathetic to the overall color palette of the buildings in the block and the downtown.

Y Colors are light earth tones with dark
accents.

C.11: Landscape Provisions. To promote a unique image and identity of downtown in its coastal setting, buildings shall incorporate provisions for planting, including flower boxes, topiary planting, and climbing vines. Plant materials within the planters, planting beds, flower boxes and flower pots shall provide color and variety throughout the year. The use of artificial plants shall not be permitted. At least two of the following landscape concepts shall be incorporated into each Pacific Avenue or East-West Streets façade design (or 30 feet of retail frontage). In general, the landscape shall aggregately cover a minimum of 25 percent of the length of the storefront:
a. Landscape setbacks up to 18 inches in depth.
b. Landscape planters recessed into Pacific Avenue sidewalk, up to 18 inches into the public right-of-way.

Y Project meets requirements.

33.109
c. Planter boxes no more than 24 inches in height may be permitted to project into the public right-of-way up to 18 inches. Window boxes also may be permitted to project from bay windows and balconies by 18 inches. Planter and window boxes shall provide internal and concealed drains connected to roof drains to avoid overflow to the street; they shall also be designed with high quality durable materials that are compatible and integral with the building façade. City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page 56
d. Hanging flower pots may project into the public right-of-way up to 18 inches and shall have a minimum 8-foot clearance within the public right-of-way unless hanging directly above planter boxes.
e. Trellis structures supporting climbing vines that may project up to six inches into the public right-of-way or, where more than eight feet above the sidewalk, may project up to 18 inches into the public right-of-way C.12: Rear Service Alleys. Upper-level facade treatments adjacent to the rear service lanes shall be consistent in quality and design with treatments adjacent to public streets and rights- of-way. The use of planting (e.g., planter and window boxes, trellises, topiary) on building facades adjacent to the service lanes is particularly encouraged to enhance the visual and pedestrian character of the alley
N/A The site is not along an alley.

C.13: Exterior Lighting. Buildings shall provide warm (color temperature equal to incandescent), low-level lighting from sundown to 10:00 PM nightly as an integral part of the façade design to add to the nighttime ambient light level in the downtown and to add nighttime visual interest to the buildings. Accent lighting using warm, low-level energy efficient light sources is encouraged as an integral part of the facade design.

Y Project meets requirement (lighting fixture
plan A5.1).

C.14: Property Line Walls. Where a building shares a property line with an adjacent property or building, mitigate the potential for large blank walls as follows:
a. Where the adjacent building is lower than the proposed building, the property line wall shall be set back from the property line sufficient to allow windows in the new wall; or
b. The applicant shall seek an easement from the adjacent property owner to allow windows (subject to the future redevelopment of the adjacent property).

N/A Not applicable.

33.110
Mitigation measures shall be incorporated to allow windows under the Building Code.
c. This provision may be modified by the Planning Director, subject to the preparation of a visual computer simulation of the building in context of the building viewed from key points at pedestrian eye level down Pacific Avenue and key intersecting streets.

D. PACIFIC AVENUE RETAIL DISTRICT STOREFRONT STANDARDS AND

GUIDELINES
D.1: Primary Entrance. All buildings within frontage along Pacific Avenue shall have a primary entrance on Pacific Avenue.

Y The primary entrances are on Pacific Avenue,
so this standard is met.

D.2: Blank Walls. All buildings with frontage on Pacific Avenue or the East-West streets shall not have blank walls exceeding ten (10) feet in length. Blank walls shall be mitigated with trellises and/or climbing plants or other architectural, artistic, or landscape elements.

Y There are no blank walls along Pacific
Avenue, so this standard is met.

D.3: Door Entry Frequency. Establishments with frontage along Pacific Avenue shall provide door entries no further distant than 50 feet along the Pacific Avenue or east-west street frontage.

Y Door entries are no further distant than 50
feet along Pacific Avenue, so this standard is
met.

D.4: Open Entries to Street. Street front entries shall remain unlocked and unblocked and shall remain in use during store hours.

Y This is an operational condition that must be
met.

D.5: Unique Entrances. The ground floor frontage along Pacific Avenue shall be modulated, articulated, textured, colored and given such other architectural treatment to provide a visually differentiated store "front” every 25 to 50 feet.

Y Ground floor frontages are articulated and
modulated to allow flexibility for multiple
retail storefronts and to provide a visually
differentiated store “front” every 25 to 50
feet.

33.111
D.6: Entrance Design. Storefronts shall incorporate at least two of the following design concepts into the storefront designs.
a. Bay Windows. Provide bay windows up to 12 feet in length that may project up to 12 inches into the public ROW - where the bay window has glazing on all projecting faces.
b. Porticos. Provide porticos around the entry door that may project up to 12 inches into the public ROW.
c. Awnings. Provide awnings that may overhang the sidewalk a maximum of 6 feet with a vertical clearance above the sidewalk between 8 feet and 14 feet. d. Marquees. Provide permanent marquee structures or canopies that project from the building at entries (minimum height of 8 feet above the sidewalk and maximum projection of 6 feet into the ROW).
e. Signs. Provide decorative signs that project into the ROW per Central Business District sign ordinance.
f. Glazing. The use of reflective or tinted glass in ground level show windows is prohibited.
g. Store Displays. Store displays shall be configured in such a way as to allow pedestrians to see into the store from the sidewalk. Goods, posters, photos or other visual images shall be placed a sufficient distance from the store windows to enable pedestrians to see clearly into the store.

Y Storefronts shall incorporate at least two of
the design concepts into the storefront
design. The project is proposing metal
awnings that overhang the sidewalk
approximately 4-feet with a height of
approximately 12-feet above the sidewalk.

The second design concept is that the
storefront has been designed to allow for
store display.

E. FRONT STREET/RIVERFRONT CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND

DESIGN GUIDELINES
E.1: Height and Stepback Requirements (Figure E-1: Proposed base and additional height and stepback requirements along the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor. Does not apply South of Laurel St).

N/A This is not applicable to the proposed project
because the project is located south of Laurel
St.

E.1.a: Base Height and Floors. No new development shall exceed a base height of 50 feet (measured to the top of parapet or eaves on the highest floor), except by compliance with any density bonus program or provision of state or local law, or where Additional Height Zone B applies (See Section H: Additional Height Zones). Within this base height, no more than 3 floors with a mix of uses above the ground-level retail use will be permitted within the maximum base height of 50 feet.

N/A This is not applicable to the proposed project
because the project is located in the South of
Laurel Area.

33.112
E.1.b: Mechanical Penthouses. Uninhabitable mechanical penthouses will be permitted above the base height by a maximum height of 20 feet, provided that such penthouses are set back from the face of buildings by a minimum of 15 feet and that sloping roofs meet the provisions of c. below, unless the penthouse is architecturally integrated into the building facade.

N/A Uninhabitable stair and elevator penthouses
are shown on the roof plan and do not
exceed 20-feet above the base height and
maintain a minimum 15-foot setback from
any exposed face of the building.

E.1.c: Upper Level Stepbacks from Streets and Public Passageways. In order to promote a pedestrian scale, to increase light to the street, and to reduce overall building mass and scale, development above 50 feet in height shall be required to step back from the Front Street façade a minimum of 10 feet. At least 50% of building frontage along Front Street and Soquel Avenue shall step back 10 feet above the height of 50 feet. Buildings adjacent to River Street, east-west streets, and publicly accessible passageways shall step back at least 10 feet from the street for any height above 35 feet.

N/A This is not applicable to the proposed project
because the project is located in the South of
Laurel Area.

E.1.d: Upper Level Stepback from River. Upper Level Stepbacks from Streets and Public Passageways. In order to promote a pedestrian scale, to increase light to the street, and to reduce overall building mass and scale, development above 50 feet in height shall be required to step back from the Front Street façade a minimum of 10 feet. At least 50% of building frontage along Front Street and Soquel Avenue shall step back 10 feet above the height of 50 feet. Buildings adjacent to River Street, east-west streets, and publicly accessible passageways shall step back at least 10 feet from the street for any height above 35 feet.

N/A This is not applicable to the proposed project
because the project is located in the South of
Laurel Area.

E.2: Build-to Lines and Setbacks. In order to promote well-defined streets, development shall generally be required to be built to the property line adjacent to public streets. The following exceptions to this condition are noted:
a. Sidewalk Width. In locations where the sidewalk is less than 12 feet wide, development shall be set back from the property line to create a 12-foot sidewalk. Development along Laurel Street and Front Street shall dedicate sufficient property to result in a sidewalk depth of at least 12 feet. The precise dedication shall be consistent with the final Laurel Street design and shall be established with a build-to line.
b. Gateway Landscaping. New development along Water Street (south side), Laurel Street (north side), and Soquel Avenue shall be set back from the sidewalk by 10 feet to allow for generous gateway landscaping treatment. a. Y
b. N/A
c. N/A
d. N/A
e. N/A
a. The updated Downtown Expansion Plan
calls for an 8-foot sidewalk along the Front
Street frontage. (Appendix 8 Figure 8.4-12)
b. This is not applicable to this project as the
proposed project is not located in any of the
listed areas.
c. This is not applicable to this project as the
proposed project is not located between
Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street.

33.113
Additional considerations for the South of Laurel Area District are in discussed in Appendix 8.
c. Building Length. Between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street, limit the length of individual buildings along Front Street to a maximum of 300 feet of lineal street frontage, subject to the performance criteria for improved public access to the Riverwalk from Front Street at the key connection points of Cathcart Street, near Elm Street and Maple Street. (See Figure E-2)
d. Riverwalk Property Line. No setback from the Riverwalk property line is required.
e. Encroachments. Development along the Riverwalk shall not encroach beyond the property line of the parcel, except in cases where levee-facing “peopleoriented” commercial activities incorporate public access points to the Riverwalk. Top floor cantilevered portions of the building are allowed to encroach over the property line a maximum of 5 feet in order to provide architectural interest to the façade. Such cantilevered encroachment over the property line shall not exceed 25 percent of the total building frontage along the riverfront.
d. This is not applicable to this project as the
proposed project is not located along the
Riverwalk.
e. This is not applicable to this project as the
proposed project is not located along the
Riverwalk.

E.3. Storefront Treatment. While it is recognized that the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor is less pedestrian intensive than the Pacific Avenue District, the ground-level treatment of commercial buildings and parking structures within the area shall comply with the standards and guidelines established for the Pacific Avenue Retail District in Section D: Pacific Avenue Retail District Storefront Standards and Design Guidelines except as noted below. Special attention shall be given to the treatment of intersections, to reinforce their gateway role to Pacific Avenue and to create a high level of interest and activity along the street. The following features shall be regulated differently than prescribed in Section D: Pacific Avenue Retail District Storefront Standards and Design Guidelines for portions of buildings located adjacent to the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor:
a. Blank Walls: Building walls within 25 feet of the Front Street right-of-way shall be broken by a massing break, entryway or fenestration (including bay windows) a minimum of every 25 feet. Blank walls shall be mitigated with trellises and/or climbing plants or other architectural, artistic, or landscape elements.

Y See the above responses under Section D for
compliance with the Pacific Avenue Retail
District Storefront Standards and Design
Guidelines.

With the project having four separate
frontages, the Front Street frontage has
generally been dedicated to utility uses such
as enclosed trash rooms, transformer vaults,
and the main garage entrance. Commercial
spaces are located at each of the street
corners, each with attractive store front
treatments. Walls are broken up with doors
articulated, metal awnings, decorative
lighting fixtures, and a good blend of
different materials including stucco, brick
veneer, and metal cladding. Multiple doors

33.114
Landscape elements such as Living Walls a minimum of 4 feet wide and 8 feet in height, as defined in SCMC Section 24.12.185, are particularly encouraged. b. Door Entry Frequency: Building facades along Front Street, shall incorporate door entries at least every 100 feet.
located well within 100 feet of each other
provide access along the frontage.

E.4: Riverwalk Promenade. The Riverwalk Promenade is the paved bicycle and pedestrian path on top of the river levee. The interface between the public Riverwalk and the adjacent private development is a vitally important element of the Downtown Plan. As such, all development along the Riverwalk will involve some form of public/private partnership and cooperation. Key performance criteria include the following in this section.

N/A This section is not applicable because the
Riverwalk Promenade is not located adjacent
to or as part of the subject property.

E.5: Access to the Riverwalk. Between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Streets along Front Street, new development shall provide east-west public access between the Riverwalk and the Front Street sidewalk at or near the extension of Cathcart Street, Elm Street and Maple Street. Developers of riverfront properties shall be required to physically and/or financially contribute their fair share through conditions of approval, an Improvement District, Development Agreement, or similar mechanisms to the improvement of these publicly accessible connections. South of Laurel Street, the development of the parcels adjacent to the Riverwalk and directly north and south of Spruce Street right-of-way shall be required to physically and/or financially contribute their fair share through conditions of approval, an Improvement District, Development Agreement, or similar mechanisms to the improvement of these publicly accessible connections. The development of the Spruce Street right-of-way shall be consistent with performance standards found in Appendix 8. Development of the passageways north of Laurel Street shall be consistent with the following performance standards.

N/A This section is not applicable because the
subject property is not located in this area or
adjacent to the riverwalk.

E.6: Upper-Level Facade Treatment. The treatment of upper-level facades shall comply with the requirements found in Section C: Pacific Avenue Retail District Building Façade Standards and Guidelines.

Y See explanation under Section C.3 for
compliance with this requirement.

E.7: Gateway Treatments. New development that occurs at key gateway intersections to the downtown (e.g., River- Water; Pacific-Front at the north end of downtown; Cooper-Front; Soquel-Front; Cathcart- Front; Laurel-Front, Pacific-Spruce, Front-Spruce) shall be articulated to accentuate this condition.

Y The two building corners at Front and Laurel
Street, and Front and Spruce Street, both
incorporate attractive storefronts that
appear to have a grand two-story
appearance from the exterior. Both corners

33.115
Treatments could include corner towers or turrets, setbacks, distinctive changes in fenestration and materials, chamfered building corners, etc. utilize a mix of materials and include design
elements that are distinctive and include
articulated metal awnings and unique
balconies on the upper floors that wrap
around the corners of the building.

E.8: Riverfront Residential. Residential development occurring along the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor, or future residential development that may occur as part of a mixed-use development on the northeast corner of the Front/Soquel intersection, shall be highly articulated and expressive of the individual units within the complex. The use of sloping roofs, recessed loggias and balconies, bay windows, dormers and chimneys shall be carefully composed to create an intricate composition that expresses individual unit modules to the maximum extent practicable. A variety of building materials is encouraged, including the building materials recommended for the Pacific Avenue district above (e.g., stucco, brick, and stone). To avoid the creation of a "wall" of development along the riverfront between Soquel and Laurel Streets, development shall be highly articulated with variation in height. The required 10-foot side yard setbacks shall also serve to break up the mass of development along this important edge.

N/A This standard is not applicable to the project
as the project site is not located in the areas
specified in this standard.

E.9: Public and Private Parking Facilities. The Front Street/Riverfront Corridor north of Laurel Street is within the Downtown Parking District #1 and development shall comply with all parking requirements set forth within that district.
a. Surface Lot Landscaping. Existing and/or expanded surface parking lots within the Front Street/Riverfront Corridor shall be well landscaped. In addition to the landscaped area requirements for surface parking provided in the zoning ordinance, surface lots shall provide at least one tree for every four parking spaces, distributed throughout the lot. Surface lots shall be screened from the public sidewalk with low walls, planters, or hedges.
b. West Side of Front Street. Allow parking facilities along the west side of Front Street south of Soquel Avenue, where only one driveway curb cut shall be permitted per parking facility per street frontage; the parking facility shall not extend to street corners; and the parking facility shall be architecturally integrated within the overall building composition.

N/A The project site is not eligible to be included
in the Downtown Parking District as it is
located within the South of Laurel Area of the
Downtown Plan. These standards are not
applicable to the project as the project site is
not located in the areas specified in this
standard.

33.116
c. Structured Parking Design. Above-grade structured parking should be visually separated at the ground level from all public sidewalks and streets by means of active storefront uses as described above. Such parking should be accessed, to the maximum extent possible, from east-west streets or rear service lanes. d. Structured Parking Facades. Parking structure facades shall be designed as compatible visual extensions of other multi-story buildings. e. Structured Parking Rear Façade. Special attention shall also be given to the design of parking structure facades adjacent to rear service lanes, to reinforce their attractiveness for pedestrian use. The use of integrated trellis structures and planters along the service lanes is recommended.
f. Screens and Trellises. Decorative screen and trellis elements of durable, highquality materials are also encouraged to provide variation and interest on the facade.
g. Garage Ramp Visibility. Sloping floor elevations shall not occur within 10 feet of the adjacent public street.
h. Wrap Garage with Commercial. Where parcel depth permits, the face of the parking structure shall be set back from ground floor commercial uses. i. Garage Openings. Openings shall be carefully composed within the building wall to appear as well-proportioned windows, rather than continuous strips; variation in the dimension and proportion of openings and in the horizontal and vertical planes of the facade shall be provided to create visual interest and to reduce the massiveness of the parking structure.
j. Entrances and Stairways. Entryways and stairways shall be located along the street edge; they shall be well lit and visible from the street to promote security and a feeling of comfort.
k. Top Deck Elevation. The top deck of all structured and encapsulated parking shall be constructed to an elevation no greater than 5 feet above that of the Riverwalk promenade and shall be screened from public view. Parking garages may exceed the maximum building length of 250 feet if they are lower than 5 feet above the adjacent levee elevation.

E.10: Driveways and Curb Cuts. Limit on-site driveways along Front Street and the southern portion of Pacific Avenue after the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Front Street to a maximum of one driveway per property or at a spacing of at least 200 feet; driveways should be no more than 24 feet in width and to the Y Design complies, the driveway is no more
than 24 feet in width. Only one driveway is
incorporated in the submitted site plan.

33.117
extent practicable should be spaced from an adjacent driveway by at least 200 feet. Wider driveways may be considered based on a demonstrated need to accommodate specific vehicle operations of a proposed development.

E.11: Guidance for Bird Safe Structures Along the San Lorenzo River. In addition to the standard requirements for Bird Safe Development found in SCMC Section

24.12.127, the following measures shall be incorporated into all development projects that are located between Front Street and the San Lorenzo River.

N/A A portion of the site is within the bird safe
zone and a condition of approval will be
included to incorporate bird safe standards.

I. ALL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS STOREFRONT STANDARDS AND

GUIDELINES
I.1: Storefront Projections and Setbacks. In addition to landscape elements, storefronts are encouraged to introduce architectural variation at the pedestrian level in order to create a diverse building edge between the public and private realms, and the total linear measurement of all facade elements should exceed the length of the property line by 5% or more. More specifically:
a. Bay Windows. Storefront bay windows may project up to 12 inches into the public right-of-way, if such windows maintain glazing on all projecting faces, and if the windows do not exceed 15 feet in width. A clearance of at least 12 inches between the bottom of the projecting bay and the sidewalk is recommended. b. Porticos. Entry porticos may project up to 12 inches into the public right-ofway. c. Entry Setbacks. Entries shall be setback no less than 36 inches from the property line, as part of a door yard.
d. Marquees and Canopies. Permanent marquis structures or canopies that project from the buildings are encouraged, but shall be confined to entry lobbies leading to upper level residential or office uses, or to public-oriented passages that provide for pedestrian access through the block. They shall be designed as an attractive and integral part of the overall facade design, shall project no more than 6 feet from the face of the building, take up no more than 10 feet of frontage, and maintain a clearance of at least 8 feet above the sidewalk surface.

No column supports shall be permitted within the public right-of-way. e. Projecting Signs. Projecting signs are encouraged on storefronts consistent with the sign regulations for the Central Business District in the Zoning Code.

Y Storefront entries along Pacific Avenue are
setback approximately 48 inches. The project
is proposing metal awnings that overhang
the sidewalk approximately 4-feet with a
height of approximately 12-feet above the
sidewalk.

33.118
f. Awnings. Awnings overhanging the sidewalk are also encouraged to further enhance the life and variety of the street. The preferred material for awnings is canvas, but other materials will be considered if they are light in character and can be architecturally integrated with the building facade. Awnings shall be maintained at least 8 feet above the sidewalk surface, and shall be carefully designed to complement the overall facade design. Under standard conditions (e.g., not within retail extension zones), storefront awnings shall not project more than 6 feet into the public right-of-way, and generally shall not be higher than 14 feet above the sidewalk. Awnings above 14 feet in height shall not project more than 3 feet into the public right-of-way.

I.2: Storefront Variation and Craftsmanship. The visual experience of moving along the street shall be enjoyable and varied. Changes in treatment (e.g., the use of porticos, setbacks, architectural elements, landscape treatments, etc.), within the standards and guidelines are outlined above and below. Particular attention shall be given to the craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian's range of touch and view. The use of special materials (e.g., stone, brass, bronze, terra cotta, ceramic, wood) for storefront ornamentation is strongly encouraged, particularly around windows and entries and at the base of building walls.

Y The ground floor is designed with changes in
plane where the storefront entries are
setback from the overall building frontage.

Seating and landscaping are designed into
the Pacific Avenue streetscape. Attractive
storefronts using quality materials such as
brick and stone veneer, stucco, metal
awnings, decorative lighting fixtures and
large metal framed doors and windows allow
pedestrians to see into the store from the
sidewalk. Combined together, this provides
an enjoyable and varied pedestrian
experience.

I.3: Retractable Storefronts. Where appropriate, the use of retractable storefronts is encouraged to create a direct relationship between sidewalk activity and the commercial establishment; this treatment is particularly encouraged for restaurants where outdoor seating is proposed, or for retail establishments that include an extension area within the public right-of-way.

N/A A retractable storefront is not proposed in
this project.

I.4: Storefront Landscape Elements. The introduction of plant materials on the building face and storefront is strongly encouraged to reinforce and extend the landscape identity of Pacific Avenue and the downtown. More specifically:
a. Storefront Setbacks. Storefront setbacks of up to 18 inches may be permitted for the introduction of low planters of up to 12 inches in height below storefront windows.

Y Landscape plans are provided which show
landscaping proposed along the public
frontage / sidewalk area to enhance the
building face and storefront area.

33.119
b. Sidewalk Planting. The sidewalk paving along Pacific Avenue may be designed to allow for planting beds at sidewalk level to encroach into the public right-ofway up to 18 inches. Such planting beds shall include durable curbing (up to 3 inches in height) to provide a clear visual separation. c. Planter and Window Boxes. Planter and window boxes may be allowed to project into the public right-of-way up to 18 inches, with a maximum height of 24 inches above the sidewalk level. It is recommended that window boxes maintain a clearance of 12 inches above the sidewalk, not including decorative support braces. Window boxes shall be designed as a compatible and integral extension of the storefront window casing; materials shall be durable and of high quality. Planter and window boxes shall also provide for internal drainage connecting to roof drain lines.
d. Hanging Flower Pots. Hanging flower pots may project into the public rightof-way up to 12 inches and shall have a minimum 8-foot clearance within the public right-of-way unless hanging directly above planter boxes. e. Trellises. Trellis structures supporting climbing vines are encouraged against blank building walls, both at the storefront and upper levels. At the storefront level, trellises shall be allowed to project into the public right-of-way up to 6 inches; above 8 feet in height, overhanging arbor or trellis structures shall be allowed to project up to 18 inches into the right-of-way. f. Living Walls. When installed consistent with the requirements of SCMC Section 24.12.185, living walls will be an allowable component of storefront landscaping provided they are a minimum of 4 feet wide and 8 feet tall. g. Plant Types. Plant materials within planters, planting beds, flower boxes and flower pots shall provide color and variety throughout the year. The use of nonflowering shrubs or plant materials is discouraged, unless they are part of a planned pattern of landscape to that creates interest on the street.

J. ALL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND

DESIGN GUIDELINES
J.1. Design Variation. The Downtown Plan contains development standards, which when implemented, are intended to achieve the First Principles of the Plan and public objectives for the downtown. While every effort has been made to thoughtfully produce clear and concise standards for the community, the Plan Y Several design variations are being requested
and are listed in the staff report.

33.120
can never address or respond to all development scenarios and circumstances.

Therefore, projects that closely conform to the development standards, but with slight variations may be considered upon demonstration that the resulting project will better achieve stated Plan and community objectives. Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Director, with final approval by the City Council.

J.3: Roof Top Mechanical Equipment. The design of roof top mechanical equipment and related structures is an important aesthetic consideration when viewing the downtown skyline. The arrangement of roof top equipment, elevator penthouses, mechanical penthouses and enclosures, safety rails, inside faces of parapets, roofing surfaces, architectural elements, and other mechanical or electrical equipment, including telecommunications equipment, shall be designed, installed and painted to be visually unobtrusive and to create a unified, coherent whole. These roof top features shall be incorporated into the building design at the Planning approval stage of the project. Additional visual simulations may be required to demonstrate that the project provides for architecturally interesting and varied skyline views, with specific attention given to integrating these rooftop features into the overall building design.

Y A roof plan was provided which shows
preliminary location of the mechanical
equipment. The applicant has indicated that
all mechanical and electrical equipment will
be designed and installed so that it is
screened by the parapet, as conditioned.

J.5: Café and Retail Extension Zones. Pacific Avenue and some of the east-west streets (e.g., Church Street, Walnut Avenue, Cathcart Street, and any pedestrian paseo or lane such as pedestrian-oriented portions of Plaza Lane, Pearl Alley, and Frazier Lewis Lane.) will include opportunities for the extension of retail and restaurant activities into the public right-of-way. These extension areas will be managed by the City and its designated agent through revocable licenses [See Extension Area requirements in section 24.10 of the Zoning Ordinance]. The following guidelines shall govern the physical design of these extension areas:
- Please refer to Chapter 4, Section J in the Downtown Plan for the guidelines for this section if you are proposing this.

N/A No café and retail extension zone proposed
in the plans.

J.8: Pedestrian Passages. While sideyard spaces are discouraged in favor of contiguous building facades, public-oriented passages that provide pedestrian access through a development parcel to parking facilities, interior courtyards, and/or other developments are encouraged. These passages shall comply with Californian Building Code, et seq., dimensional requirements, and include provision of natural (as well as electrical) light and active uses along their length.

N/A Not applicable.

33.121
To the maximum extent practicable, adjacent development shall establish a relationship to these passages with entries and storefronts, to promote a secure and interesting environment.

J.9: Interior Courtyards. Santa Cruz has a tradition of interior courtyards and gardens that provide attractive places to sit and relax, and a spatial counterpoint to the street experience. If provided, courtyards or interior gardens shall be designed to include: direct publicly-oriented linkages to Pacific Avenue and/or to other public streets or lanes; activities that do not reduce the principal objective of activating Pacific Avenue; and generous solar access throughout the year.

N/A Not applicable.

J.15: Service Access. Parcels adjacent to rear alleys must maintain service access from the rear and provide attractive rear entrances. Trash storage areas shall be internal to the building or completely enclosed and screened from view, as required by City ordinance. Trash or loading areas shall not, to the maximum extent practicable, be located adjacent to Pacific Avenue, North Pacific Avenue, Front Street or Water Street. Required grease trap interceptors shall be maintained within the property. On a conditional basis, the City will consider their location within public alleys or within the street right-of-way, if there is no feasible alternative within the property.

Y The trash storage room is located adjacent to
Front Street as there is no other feasible
location such as a rear alley or other
street/public frontage to place the trash
room. As such, in order to lessen the impact
of the trash room along Front Street, the
trash room is fully enclosed and internal to
the building.

J.16: Activated Roof Top Amenities. Because the Plan contemplates that rooftops provide opportunities for usable residential or commercial spaces, community gardens, other common or community amenities including rooftop bars and pools, shade structures, and associated access facilities, rooftop improvements will be permitted to:
• Extend no more than 15 feet above the otherwise maximum allowable height limit;
• Shall be setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the roof, provided that they are found to better achieve stated Plan and community objectives; • Are architecturally integrated into the building design; and • Structures above the height limit are limited to not more than 50% of the gross rooftop area.

Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission, with final approval by the City Council. These Y While there is a “Terrace Club Room” with an
outdoor deck and residential amenities
proposed on the 7th floor, the roof top is
limited to “roof planters” and mechanical
equipment.

33.122
exceptions are in addition to additional height allowances found in Section

24.12.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.

J.18: Resiliency Requirements. Due to the potential for floodwater intrusion in the Downtown, all new development will be required to comply with the standards for floodplain development as established by the California Building Standards Code and the more restrictive of either the most updated mapping data published by FEMA, or any Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) submitted to FEMA for review, based upon the timing of building permit submittal.

Y The project will be required to meet any
floodplain development standards in the
Building Code, if applicable.

K. SOUTH OF LAUREL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
K.1: Applicability. In general, the guidelines and standards established in Section B. Pacific Avenue Retail District - Development Standards, Section C.

Pacific Avenue Retail District - Building Façade Standards and Guidelines, Section D. Pacific Avenue Retail District - Storefront Standards and Design Guidelines and Section E. Front Street/Riverfront Corridor - Development Standards and Design Guidelines will apply in the South of Laurel Area, with the standards for each area extending south to the point where Pacific Avenue and Front Street meet. Beyond that point the remainder of the South of Laurel Area District shall be generally subject to the standards established in Section E. Front Street/Riverfront Corridor - Development Standards and Design Guidelines.

Exceptions to these general provisions are shown here. Where this section includes guidelines or standards that conflict with the above referenced sections, this section shall supersede for property within the South of Laurel Area.

Y The parcel is located in the South of Laurel
Area.

K.2: Floodplain Development. All new buildings in the South of Laurel Area shall be constructed in compliance with the standards for floodplain development as established by the California Building Standards Code and the more restrictive of either one of the following, based upon the timing of building permit submittal:
a. the most updated mapping data published by FEMA, or
b. any Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) submitted for review that postdates the published map applicable to the development site.

Y The subject property is currently located in
the A-99 flood zone. The proposed building
will be constructed in compliance with the
standards of floodplain development as
established by the California Building Code, if
applicable.

K.3: Building Height. The following height standards shall apply to all development within the South of Laurel Area. All new development must Y The project meets the 85-foot height limit.

33.123
conform with the Base Height requirements, unless pursuing a City or State Density Bonus and requesting a waiver or concession for building height.

K.3.a: Base Height and Floors. No new development shall exceed the base height of 85 feet, 70 feet, or 50 feet (as indicated in Figures B-1 and B-3) except as the result of compliance with any density bonus program or provision of state or local law.
i. Areas shown in Figure B-3 as “Reduced Height Overlay Zones” shall be limited to no more than 70 feet in height in order to provide some transition in height adjacent to Beach Hill.

Y The project meets the 85-foot height limit.

K.3.b: Floor-to-Floor Height. Parcel frontages located on the west or north side of Pacific Avenue or on Center Street must have a minimum ground floor height of 15 feet. Exclusive of commercial ground floor requirements, parcel frontages along the south side of Laurel Street must have a minimum ground floor height of 11 feet six inches. All other parcel frontages in the South of Laurel Area must have a minimum ground floor height of 18 feet. Any mezzanine incorporated into the first story shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building frontage on the street and shall occupy no more than one half of the area of the floor below.
i. Floor-to-Floor heights for mechanical, electrical, trash, or utility rooms located on the ground floor can be lower than the above standards.

Y The live/work spaces along the Laurel Street
frontage meet the 11’-6” floor height
requirement. The Pacific Avenue frontage
retail spaces provide a minimum ground floor
height of 21’-6” feet, which complies with
this standard. No mezzanines are proposed.

K.4: Commercial Ground Floors.

K.4.a. Ground floors along Pacific Avenue, Laurel Street, and Spruce Street must be dedicated to commercial space with minimum depth of 20 feet.

Y All retail spaces meet this requirement.

K.4.b. Residential lobbies consistent with the requirements of that land use as defined with the Uses Chart in the Downtown Plan will be the only exceptions to this standard.

Y The residential main entrance is located
along the Spruce Street frontage and is
consistent with the Downtown Plan
standards.

K.4.c: Buildings adjacent to Activity Nodes identified in Appendix 8, Figure 8.4- 6, Gateways and Nodes, will be required to dedicate ground floors to commercial space. Commercial spaces will have a minimum length of 50 feet of total frontage and a depth no less than 20 feet.

A minor
design
variation is
requested
All four corners of the building are
considered nodes per Appendix 8. Each
corner has dedicated ground floor
commercial space with a length of 50-feet
and a depth of 20-feet. The only slight
variation is the live/work space on the north
east corner which is approximately 30-feet in

33.124
length, but with the adjacent live/work units
the elevation reads as ground floor
commercial that is greater than 50-feet in
length.

K.5: Upper-Level Tapering (supersedes all stepback requirements from subsection E (1)). In order to promote a pedestrian scale, to increase light to the street, and to reduce overall building mass and scale of development on sites over one-half acre in size and with a street frontage dimension of 150 feet or more shall be required to taper above 55 feet. See Figure K-1. Tapering shall be consistent with the following:
a. The stories containing interior finished floor above 55 feet in height shall be no more than 90% of the interior finished floor area of the highest finished floor below 55 feet.
b. The first floorplate above 75 feet in height shall be no more than 75% of the floor area of the highest floor below 55 feet.
c. Any floorplate above 85 feet in height added through density bonus application shall be no more than 35% of the floor area of the highest floor below 55 feet in height.

N/A The site is over one-half acre with dimensions
exceeding 150 feet, however, with utilization
of the Downtown Density Bonus the
standards regulating stepbacks do not apply
(Section J.i).

K.6: View Corridor Setbacks. The block of land identified in Appendix 8 as Redevelopment Block ‘D’ located south of Spruce Street, north of Beach Hill, and between the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and Front Street, shall be developed in a manner that maintains the public view from the Cliff Street Stairs toward the San Lorenzo River by setting back all stories above 35’ from grade level. The required setback will taper from 75 feet at the southern end to 35’ at the north end of the parcel, measured from the western edge of the existing Riverwalk path.

N/A This is not applicable because the project site
is not located in Block D.

K.7: Visual Simulation Requirement. All new development and redevelopment proposals must prepare a visual rendering from a pedestrian eye-level, showing the proposed development in context of surrounding buildings and streetscape features.

Y Project renderings from a pedestrian eyelevel perspective have been provided.

K.8: Activated Roof Top Amenities. Because the Plan contemplates that rooftops provide opportunities for usable residential or commercial spaces, community gardens, other common or community amenities including rooftop Y While there is a “Terrace Club Room” with an
outdoor deck and residential amenities
proposed on the 7th floor, the roof top is

33.125
bars and pools, shade structures, and associated access facilities, rooftop improvements will be permitted to:
a. Extend no more than 15 feet above the otherwise maximum allowable height limit;
b. Shall be setback at least 15 feet from the edge of the roof, provided that they are found to better achieve stated Plan and community objectives; c. Are architecturally integrated into the building design; and d. Structures above the height limit are limited to not more than 50% of the gross rooftop area.

Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission, with final approval by the City Council. These exceptions are in addition to allowances found in Section 24.12.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.
limited to “roof planters” and mechanical
equipment.

K.9: Upper-Level Facades. (i.e., the levels of building wall above the ground floor). Upper level facades should provide a counterpoint to the storefronts below and provide a visually interesting and varied edge to the public space of the street. In general, the upper-level façade should consist of carefully composed “punctured openings” within a richly detailed wall. A variety of treatments shall be introduced to create richness in both the horizontal and vertical planes, including:
• windows with sills a minimum of six inches in depth,
• articulation through variation in facade depth,
• balconies,
• bay windows,
• flower boxes,
• awnings,
• cornice and belt courses, and/or
• massing breaks as described in SCMC 24.12.185.

33.126
K.10: Streetwall. To create a visually interesting “streetwall” with a rhythm and cadence that is reflective of the pattern of development along Pacific Avenue, building facades shall introduce variation at general intervals of 25 to 50 feet horizontal distance with the use of:
• fenestration;
• architectural elements
• building materials, and/or
• building planes.

Large, uninterrupted expanses of horizontal or vertical wall surface shall be avoided. Regardless of property lines, the appearance shall be of a street with varying architectural treatments at intervals of no more than 50 to 75 feet. The multiple rhythms shall be created through the careful design of building elements and three-dimensional articulation of building elements sufficient to mitigate the presence of long, blank walls along Pacific Avenue, Front Street, Cedar Street, the Spruce Street Plaza, the east-west streets, and the alleys.

Elements that make up the rhythmic variation may include, but are not limited to:
• recessed windows as described in SCMC 24.12.185,
• projecting windows,
• bay windows,
• structural elements,
• surface textures, patterns and colors,
• trim elements,
• balconies,
• belt-cornices,
• cornices,
• massing breaks as described in SCMC 24.12.185,
• awnings and shutters; and/or
• landscape elements including Living Walls a minimum of 4 feet wide and 8 feet in height and as defined in SCMC Section 24.12.185.

Y The proposed building facades have a rhythm
and cadence but are also varied enough to
create interest with a mix of materials and
window and door designs. There are no large,
uninterrupted expanses of horizontal or
vertical wall surfaces, and facades are varied
with three-dimensional articulation and a
mix of complimentary materials
K.11: Public and Private Parking Facilities. The South of Laurel Area is outside of Downtown Parking District #1 and parcels in this area are not eligible for inclusion in that District and access to the allowances and requirements of that Y A total of 256 parking spaces are proposed on
site, including underground and three stories
of podium parking on the interior of the

33.127
District unless annexed. On-site parking will not be permitted unless it meets the conditions otherwise required by Section B part 3 or by Section E part 9, respectively, based on location as defined above.
building. As proposed the parking meets the
conditions of Section B part 3 with parking
below grade and visually screened.

K.11a: Any parking provided for residential units shall be provided in an unbundled fashion, separating the cost of parking from the cost to purchase or rent housing. In no case will a residential tenant or owner be required to purchase any amount of parking space in order to own or rent a housing unit.

Y A parking management plan has been
submitted and a condition of approval
speaking to this requirement is included.

K.11b: Any parking facilities associated with a sports arena will be permitted to exceed the limits on the number of driveways but shall still seek to minimize curb cuts on Front Street, while accommodating the loading and parking needs of the use. A sports arena shall have no curb cuts on Pacific Avenue.

N/A Not applicable.

K.11c: Standards for bicycle storage and parking shall be as required in SCMC Chapter 24.12.

Y The City’s Bicycle Coordinator has reviewed
the plans. Conditions of approval are
included requiring compliance with the
Bicycle Parking Requirements to be shown on
the building permit plans prior to building
permit issuance.

K.11.c.i. In the South of Laurel Area, new residential development may provide up to 30% of required Class 1 bike storage spaces within residential units. The remainder of required bike facilities will be provided consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code.

Y This is a note. The applicant has this option to
comply with the bike parking requirements in
SCMC Chapter 24.12.

K.12: Transportation Demand Management.

City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page 102 New development projects will meet the requirements of SCMC Chapter 10.46, Citywide Trip Reduction Program, and in the South of Laurel Area will also be required to provide the following:
a. When more than 50 residential units are proposed, shared electric bicycles shall be provided for resident use at the following ratios. In no case shall less than one electric bicycle be provided when any fraction is required, and building management shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance, replacement, etc. i. Up to 50 units – 1 bicycle
ii. 51 to 80 units – 2 bicycles
iii. 81-110 units – 3 bicycles
iv. 111 and greater – 4 bicycles
Y Four shared electric bicycles are required and
provided in the bike storage rooms. This is
included as a condition of approval to ensure
compliance.

33.128
K.14: Downtown Density Bonus
All parcels within the South of Laurel Area are eligible to pursue development incentives for additional height and/or Floor Area Ratio for buildings meeting certain criteria. The purpose of the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) is to support a compact urban core while achieving a higher-than-average rate of below-market-rate housing units, promoting high-quality design, and generally encouraging building heights of twelve stories or less. Applications for a Downtown Density Bonus will be processed as part of the Design Permit when requested by qualifying development project.

Y The Downtown Density Bonus is being
implemented as part of this application.

K.14.b.iv(5): Combination Option: A combination of qualification options may be approved by the City Council based upon the favorable recommendations of the Directors of Community Development and Economic Development, if Council finds that the combination of approaches provides an equivalent or greater affordable housing benefit to the community.

Y This is the option that has been requested. A
description of the project’s proposal to meet
the inclusionary requirements has been
included in the staff report.

33.129
June 3, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz CA, 95060
Subject: Agenda Item 2, Regular Meeting June 4, 2026
201 Front Street Project Number CP25-0116
Correction to Staff Report Page 14 Regarding the Potential for ADUs Dear Chair Book-Kelley and Members of the Planning Commission:

This is not to comment on the 201 Front Street project itself but to object to a statement in the staff report. There is an error in the staff report that misrepresents the City’s Municipal Code and State law regarding ADUs. It does not affect this project because this project does not propose any ADUs and the floor plans do not include any additional spaces obviously intended to be converted to ADUs in the future. Page 14 of the staff report contains the following paragraph:

That paragraph is completely wrong regarding conversion ADUs. Both State ADU law and the Municipal Code do not allow for ADUs within proposed or entitled multifamily projects. Merely entitled multifamily buildings are not existing buildings and conversion ADUs are not allowed to be created in multifamily buildings that do not yet exist.

This is confirmed by the City Attorney in a brief filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court in response to the Food Bin Project’s lawsuit against the City Council (Attachments A and B). The relevant section of the City Attorney’s brief sets the record straight as follows:

33.130
Correction to Staff Report
2 Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 24.16.100 sets forth the standards for ADUs. “Conversion” ADUs are defined as “any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any one permitted, entitled, or legal nonconforming building, or portion of such a building…” (SCMC § 24.16.125(2) [emphasis added].) By contrast and consistent with state law4, section

24.16.125(9)(c) (now 24.16.125(10)(c)) defines a statewide exempt ADU as follows (emphasis added):

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

While these definitions are similar, conversion ADUs differ from statewide exempt ADUs in that statewide exempt ADUs are only allowed in existing buildings, not merely proposed or entitled buildings. Therefore, conversion ADUs fall into the category of “nonexempt” ADUs, which the municipal code defines as “an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit.” (SCMC § 24.16.125(6)) (now 24.16.125(7)) The distinction between “existing” and “entitled” structures found in the definitions of conversion ADUs and statewide exempt ADUs is deliberate and meaningful. If the City were to allow conversion ADUs in multifamily buildings that do not yet exist, it would create an impermissible loophole allowing developers to skirt density standards by proposing multiple floors of empty space to expand the number well beyond the maximum allowed by the already generous standards of the DBL (Density Bonus Law). The City’s ADU regulations purposefully define conversion ADUs as nonexempt ADUs and prohibits them in multifamily projects to avoid this kind of chicanery.5
4 Section 66323(a)(3) states (emphasis added): “Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. 5 The general development standards governing ADUs state that “no nonexempt accessory dwelling units shall be allowed” in multifamily projects. (SCMC § 24.16.140(1)(b).)

33.131
Correction to Staff Report
3 Why is this important?
In other words, in addition to the already generous standards of DBL, the subject paragraph on page 14 of the staff report regarding ADUs wrongly asserts that proposed multifamily buildings can be designed to be significantly larger by including extra spaces for later conversion to additional units and exceed by 25 percent the maximum number of units otherwise permissible under DBL. While the City Attorney’s brief accurately explains why this is impermissible, the paragraph on page 14 of the staff report endorses the practice. This is important because it appears to be setting the stage to allow such impermissible conversions in several projects already approved and entitled but have not applied for building permits. It is also important to ask why the staff report falsely portrays this practice as a state mandate when it is impermissible and goes well beyond state housing mandates in the already generous standards of the DBL? Why does this matter?
Since the City Attorney’s briefing in the Food Bin Project lawsuit, two other multifamily projects have been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council that are 25 percent larger than they are allowed to be under the DBL. The Clocktower Project and the 1811-1819 Mission Street Project both include extra spaces on the floor plans that are obviously intended to be converted to 25 percent more units than were approved. If it were even permissible, approval of 25 percent more units would require a major modification of the planning permits. Since it is not permissible those entitled projects are likely unbuildable projects as designed if they don’t “pencil out” without the extra units. Furthermore, the impacts those projects would have if they were constructed as designed are significant. In the case of the Clocktower Project, two iconic Redwood trees are slated for removal because the project is 25 percent larger than the law allows. Under the already generous standards of the DBL, a legally and properly designed project could save the Redwoods. In the case of the 1811-1819 Mission Street Project, a legally and properly designed project under the DBL could remove an entire floor and reduce the impact of a multistory project that would loom over the houses and yards of a surrounding single family neighborhood.

With that background, at this time I am simply requesting that in any action the Planning Commission takes on the 201 Front Street Project, please include a requirement to strike from the record the paragraph on page 14 of the staff report regarding ADUs. It is both incorrect and appears to be setting the stage for the City to justify impermissible actions on other projects.

33.132
Correction to Staff Report
4 Sincerely,
David Carlson
Santa Cruz resident
Attachments:

Santa Cruz Superior Court Case No. 24CV02414
A. City of Santa Cruz Responding Brief
B. Judgement
Cc: City Council

33.133
-1-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney, SBN 149886
[email protected]
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 334312
[email protected]

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

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

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

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

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

33.134
-2-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33.135
-3-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

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

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

33.136
-4-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
§66323(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................... 10-11 §66325.................................................................................................................................... 11

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

33.137
-5-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners seek extraordinary relief based on the false premise that the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) unlawfully denied a 59-unit mixed-use housing project. In truth, the City approved the project, including the 48 residential units as it was formally proposed. The dispute arises not from any action to reduce the project’s density, but from Petitioners’ attempt to impermissibly increase density above the maximum density provided under the Municipal Code and state Density Bonus Law by the artifice of identifying “storage” space actually intended for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) that were never included in their application, never approved, and never permitted by local law.

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

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

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

33.138
-6-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Berkeley (relied on by Petitioners) requires the City to grant waivers for unpermitted density disguised as “storage space,” and never intended as an “amenity.” Finally, there is no evidence of bad faith. The record shows City Council wrestled with a complex and novel project proposal and took reasonable action to ensure consistency with state and local laws. Petitioners’ disagreement with that decision does not somehow transform it into misconduct. Because the City approved the project as proposed, and did so in full accordance with the HAA, DBL, and applicable local ordinances, the petition should be denied.

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

33.139
-7-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
units and 15 density bonus units), various “amenities” such as bike storage, laundry room, “amenity” areas and “resident storage,” plus 11 apartment-sized areas labelled “storage.” (AR 975-998.)
The revised Project came before the Planning Commission for a second time on May 16, 2024. Due to the unusual nature of the revised Project, several commissioners questioned whether they were recommending approval for a 59-unit project or a 48-unit project. (AR 2551-

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

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

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

33.140
-8-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The City Did Not Violate the HAA Because The City Did Not Reduce Density and the Project Failed to Comply With Objective ADU Standards.

1. The City Approved the Project Without Reducing Density.

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

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

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

33.141
-9-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
proposed units from their applications then later asserting HAA protections for those units. This would create an unworkable loophole compelling cities to treat hypothetical, post-entitlement housing concepts as part of the protected project. The HAA applies to the density requested in the actual project proposal, not to what an applicant might later seek entitlement for through a separate process.

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

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

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

33.142
-10-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 24.16.100 sets forth the standards for ADUs. “Conversion” ADUs are defined as “any accessory dwelling unit created by the conversion of any one permitted, entitled, or legal nonconforming building, or portion of such a building…” (SCMC § 24.16.125(2) [emphasis added].) By contrast and consistent with state law4, section 24.16.125(9)(c) defines a statewide exempt ADU as follows (emphasis added):

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

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

33.143
-11-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[C]ompliance with the HAA does not mean that every proposed project must be approved . . . . The Legislature has narrowed the criteria local authorities may rely upon in denying a project. However, local control has not been abrogated by the HAA. Instead, the HAA has made clear . . . that it only applies when a proposed housing development project complies with the local general plan, zoning, and development policies.
(Snowball West Investments L.P., supra 96 Cal.App.5th at 1085 [citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Reznitskiy v. County of Marin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1036 [“The HAA’s purpose of encouraging more housing does not compel us to interpret the statute to encompass as many projects as possible.”].)
Petitioners’ Project failed to comply with the City’s objective ADU standards because it improperly seeks to use conversion ADUs in a multifamily housing project under SCMC §24.16.140(1)(b). Further, Petitioners cannot utilize statewide exempt ADUs where no building yet exists, or design a project that openly flaunts their attempt to take advantage of a perceived loophole in local and state law. Consequently, the HAA did not apply and the City was not required to make findings under section 65569.5(j).

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

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

33.144
-12-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
client would like to build on the project. We chose to do ADUs.”].) Petitioners openly acknowledged the 11 storage spaces were always intended to be treated as housing units, and there were never any plans to convert “areas that are not used as livable space.” Instead, Petitioners construed the ADU ordinance to provide a loophole to exceed allowable density and backfill the units that were lost when they revised the Project base density. (AR 1138 [“In response to the [appeals] we revised our base density diagram from 40 units to 32 units and proposed using 12 conversion ADUs to make up for the base density reduction.”].) Therefore, Petitioners failed to comply with state and local law governing ADUs and livable space. Because Petitioners’ use of conversion ADUs violates both state law and the City’s objective standards, Petitioners are not entitled to any relief under the HAA.

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

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

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

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

33.145
-13-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Project several times between March and May 2024, Petitioners’ resubmittals restarted the time period for the City to determine completeness and to confirm compliance with applicable development standards. (AR 988-998.)
Petitioners’ interpretation would lead to the absurd result of requiring the City to point out inconsistencies in the Project before they are even created through subsequent project revisions. (See Giorgianni v. Crowley (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474-1475 [statutes must be interpreted to avoid an absurd result]; Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1105 [“The court can disregard even plain language if it leads to absurd results or contravenes clear evidence of a contrary intent.”] Because the revisions that resulted in the final 48-unit project were not made until April 19, 2024, the City had until May 19, 2024 to determine completeness, and until June 19, to point out inconsistencies. On May 28, 2024, the City Council pointed out inconsistencies when it conditioned the Project on the removal of the 11 storage areas, within the allowable timeframe of the HAA.

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

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

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

33.146
-14-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
argument that the City Council was estopped from identifying violations of objective standards or conditioning project approval on compliance with applicable laws and ordinances.

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

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

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

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

33.147
-15-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioners argue that past ADU policies apply to their Project, even though they have never applied for ADU permits, and do not seek ADU permits in their current proposal. If, after the 48-unit project has been approved and Petitioners apply for ADU permits, the City’s policies in effect at the time of the ADU application would govern, not those from several years ago when they submitted a preliminary application. Thus, even if the City Council did change its ADU policy as alleged, such a change would not violate the HAA, because the ADU ordinance was not even at issue under the proposed Project, as Petitioners had not yet applied for ADU conversion permits.7 (§ 65589.5(o).)
Even if Petitioners had formally applied for ADUs, their claim would still fail. As explained above, the City’s objective zoning standards prohibit the use of conversion ADUs in unconstructed multifamily buildings. Petitioners cannot claim vested rights in a use that is affirmatively barred by law. Courts have long held that a developer may not acquire vested rights to undertake a use that is unlawful at the time of application or approval. (See Avco Cmty.

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

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

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

33.148
-16-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ADUs are actually “amenities” and the City’s removal of amenities violates the Density Bonus Law.

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

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

33.149
-17-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Petitioners’ effort to secure a de facto density increase without complying with the DBL’s affordability thresholds or public process was a valid reason to deny any proposed waivers. Petitioners proposed to build 11 “storage rooms” as part of the entitlement, obtain waivers to support the building envelope needed to accommodate them, and then convert them into dwelling units outside of the density bonus program, using the ADU statute. This would allow developers to secure public incentives (i.e., development waivers) based on one project description while privately intending to construct a materially different one. Such a result is contrary to the structure of the DBL, which links incentives and waivers to proposed density and affordability. (Gov. Code § 65915(f).) The law does not permit developers to create bonus density through exploitation of the DBL itself.

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

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

33.150
-18-
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S RESPONDING BRIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
“storage areas” into ADUs, strategically employing questionable interpretations of state and local regulations to circumvent applicable density requirements and maximize unit count. Expressing concern about the long-term impacts of state housing laws is not bad faith—it is part of the normal public process and discourse.

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

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

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

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

33.151
-1-

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

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 24CV02414

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

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

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

_________________________

ANNETTE THAYER

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

WORKBENCH

33.152
-1-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Anthony P. Condotti, City Attorney, SBN 149886
[email protected]
Alexander Geise, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 334312
[email protected]

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

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

Case No. 24CV02414
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

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

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

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED
8/5/2025 12:00 PM

33.153
-2-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the Petition for Writ of Mandate, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Judgment;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

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

2. Judgment is entered for Respondents against Petitioners.

Dated: ____________________ By: ____________________________________________

HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

33.154

EXHIBIT A

33.155
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11

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

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

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

Petitioners,

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

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

I II
II I
-1-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.156
1 After consideration of the parties' pleadings, the records of file in this action, and good 2 cause appearing therefore, the Court adopted its tentative ruling, as follows:
3 4

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

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.157
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 asserts that the Petitioners' claim of vested rights fails because development standards cannot vest for hypothetical future uses. The City also claims that it did not violate the DBL because the City granted all requested waivers necessary to facilitate the actual 48-unit project. Requiring the City to include the ADU conversions would expand the maximum density beyond that which the Petitioners were entitled to under the DBL.

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

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.158
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
correct that the Project's density bonus calculations were wrong. To remedy this, petitioners reduced the Project to 33 units, updated other project elements to correspond with those 33 units, and reduced the potential ADUs to 11 (instead of 12). (AR 1141.) The parties fail to identify, and the Court does not find, any formal finding deeming this revised application or submittal complete, other than the Planning Commission's finding that this version of the Project met all city and state requirements. (AR 2568.) B. City Council's approval of the Project
On May 28, 2024, the City Council considered the revised application. The Project consisted of various development permits for the construction of a "five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 48 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above." (AR 1179, 2648, 2741.) The amenities (bike storage, laundry facilities, resident storage) and the 11 apartment-sized areas labelled "storage" were also included. Following hearing, the City Council approved the 48-unit project but specifically excluded the 11 proposed "storage" areas. (AR 2757-2759.) At hearing, councilmembers sought staffs explanation regarding the ADUs and struggled with the issue of converting those to AD Us. Staff explained that if the Project was approved with the 11 storage areas as noted in the plans - and based on petitioners' transparent explanations throughout the process that they fully intended to convert those spaces to ADUs once the Project was approved- the City would be required to permit those spaces to ADUs based on state and local law. Petitioners confirmed at hearing that the Project before Council designated those areas as storage and were considered amenities in the Project application but also confirmed they intended to convert them to ADUs following project approval. (AR 2652-2656, 2662-2664, 2672.)
C. Petitioners' writ
Petitioners' action alleges that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act by lowering the density of the project when it conditioned the approval to remove the 11 "storage" spaces intended to be converted to ADUs. They contend the City also refused to -4-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.159
1 recognize their vested rights by not approving those storage areas. They further contend the 2 City stripped the project of amenities in violation of the Density Bonus Law and acted in 3 bad faith when it unlawfully removed the 11 spaces for AD Us against the advice of staff 4 and in violation of the law.
5 The City argues in opposition that the Project for 48 units was approved as 48 units, 6 thereby approving the Project without reducing density. It contends that even if the 11 7 "storage" spaces had been approved, those ADUs were not permitted under local law as 8 conversion ADUs, and therefore, could not be approved in accordance with law. The City 9 argues petitioners' vested rights did not include any post-entitlement ADU permits. Finally, 10 it contends it complied with the Density Bonus Law in approving the Project and it did not 11 act in bad faith in eliminating the proposed ADU spaces. 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 I.

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

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.160
1 cases in which a city disapproves a project or conditions it at a lower density, the city bears 2 the burden of establishing its decision conforms to all the conditions specified in Gov. Code 3 section 65589.5. (§ 65589.6.) 2 Petitioners urge the Court to apply this burden shifting. 4 Additionally, the City, rather than the Petitioner, bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 5 that its decision conformed to the HAA. (§ 65589.6.) Finally, the Legislature has 6 commanded that any uncertainties must be resolved in favor of housing projects, stating that 7 the HAA must "be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible 8 weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing."(§ 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. Key land use laws applicable to the Project

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

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

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.161
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record [ ... ] (§ 65589.5, subd. (j), emphasis added.)
The HAA includes the following declaration of legislative intent:
"(K) The Legislature's intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled.
(L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing."
(§ 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K) and (L).)
Section 65589.5 provides that until January 1, 2030 the term "deemed complete" means that the developer has submitted a preliminary application which conformed to the requirements of section 65941.1 ( discussed below) and the application is deemed complete by operation of law. After establishing vested rights through submittal of a preliminary application the applicant still must submit a traditional "complete application" that includes all of the information required to process the development application, consistent with sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5. The applicant must submit such a "complete application" within 180 days of submittal of a preliminary application.

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

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.162
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
"The Act expressly declares: 'The Legislature finds and declares that there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects .... ' [i!] To expedite decisions on development projects, the Act sets forth a time limit within which a government agency must either approve or disapprove an application for a land-use permit. If the agency fails to expressly approve or disapprove the application within this time limit, it is 'deemed' approved. [Citations.]"
(Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Comm. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1106, 1120.) In 2020, the Legislature created a developer friendly statutory form of vested rights.

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

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

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

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.163
1 2
3 4
5 6
When a developer agrees to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in a project, the Density Bonus Law grants that developer (1) a "density bonus;" (2) "incentives and concessions;" (3) "waivers or reductions" of "development standards;" and (4) prescribed "parking ratios."(§ 65915, subd. (b)(l).) [footnote omitted.] (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 769.) II.

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.164
1 rezoned].) Petitioners urge the Court to consider that the HAA reaches more than the express 2 elimination of housing units, but also "any conditions that impact the ability of a project to 3 provide more housing units." (Pet. Reply at 9.) But petitioners do not support this interpretation 4 with authority and without such, the Court will not rule that City lowered the density by 5 eliminating spaces that may be converted later to ADUs. 6 Third, cities are not precluded from imposing conditions of approval under the HAA so 7 long as those conditions do not reduce the project's density. 8 "[T]he HAA does not bar local agencies from imposing conditions of approval; rather, it 9 prohibits conditions of approval 'that the project be developed at a lower density,' unless public 10 health or safety findings are made.(§ 65589.5, subd. (j)(l), italics added.) Thus, nothing in our 11 opinion prevents the City from imposing appropriate conditions of approval to mitigate any 12 effects the height differential may have on the surrounding neighborhood, as long as those 13 conditions do not reduce the density of the project." (CRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 846.) 14 The record establishes that the City approved the 48 units sought by petitioners, and that 15 the 11 "storage" spaces - while identified as proposed ADUs - were not before the City for 16 approval and were not included in the Project as separate housing units. If the Court were to find 17 that the potential ADUs were approved as housing units, developers would have an end-run 18 around the DBL requiring cities to consider and analyze elements not included in project 19 applications for fear of HAA violations. Developers could increase project densities beyond 20 allowable maximums by disguising proposed housing units but then later asserting HAA 21 protections for those units. The Court finds that the only reasonable approach is that the HAA 22 applies to the housing units requested in the Project proposal, not to what a developer might later 23 seek in a subsequent entitlement process.
24 Finally, based on the record, it is apparent that the City applied an objective standard to 25 the Project in coming to their decision - they applied the DBL limits for housing units, which in 26 this case was 48. The DBL and its formulae for determining housing units based on the number 27 of affordable units is a standard that involves "no personal or subjective judgment by a public 28 -10-
1 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.165
1 official" and which is "uniformly verifiable by reference to external and uniform benchmark or 2 criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public 3 official."(§ 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).) Here, the City determined at hearing that the housing units 4 established for the Project by the DBL were appropriate and that the 11 "storage spaces" - if 5 used as housing units - would exceed the DBL limits.
6 On reply, petitioners argue that the City takes conflicting positions -- that denial of the 7 building envelope was legal because the project included conversion ADUs and because the 8 project did not include ADUs. The Court does not read the City's position this way; instead, 9 based on the evidence, the City approved the requested 48-unit project but eliminated a means of 10 exceeding the housing unit limit as dictated by the DBL. 11 Since the City did not reduce the Project's density of 48 units, the HAA did not apply and 12 the City was not required to make any findings under section 65589.5, subd. (j). Based on this 13 ruling, the Court declines to address the parties' contentions regarding the viability and legality 14 of petitioners' desired ADUs under state and local law. 15 16
B. Petitioners' vesting rights were not violated
17 Petitioners argue that at the time their preliminary application was deemed complete 18 in January 2023, the City's ADU ordinance permitted non-livable space in permitted 19 buildings to be converted to ADUs, citing City Code§ 24.16.125. This argument is 20 unpersuasive.
21 While the version of the City's ADU ordinance in effect at the time of petitioners' 22 preliminary application is not clear based on the record, it is immaterial considering that the 23 preliminary application did not contemplate ADUs. The 11 ADUs were first proposed in the 24 City Council staff report of April 30, 2024. (AR 1090.) Petitioners realized after that meeting 25 that its calculations would have required them to resubmit another preliminary application 26 since their reduction from 40 to 32 units was more than a 20% change. 27 I I I
28 -11-

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.166
1 (Responding Brief at p. 6; § 65941. l(d).) 3 To avoid any resubmittal, petitioners again 2 changed the Project on May 10, 2024, to reflect 33 base units for DBL purposes and 11 3 ADUs. 4
4 A preliminary application can only vest development standards that are triggered by 5 the project when the application is made.(§ 65589.5, subd. (o).) 5 To find otherwise would 6 allow developers to revise projects to include elements not initially contemplated but hold 7 cities captive to prior standards for those elements, resulting in unacceptable uncertainty in 8 applying land use standards.
9 10
C. The City did not violate the Density Bonus Law
11 Petitioners assert that the City violated the DBL when it removed the 11 ADU spaces 12 since those "storage" spaces were amenities and could only be denied with appropriate findings. 13 They argue that the City's action contravenes Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 14 Cal.App.4th 1329. In Wollmer, the developer sought waivers of height and setback requirements 15 precluded by local development standards. (Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1346-1347.) 16 The court upheld those waivers under section 65915, subd. (e), holding that cities cannot force 17 developers to remove basic amenities to comply with development standards. (Ibid.) 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 "[W]hen a developer proposes a project that qualifies for a density bonus, the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards. The court held that nothing in the DBL 'requires the applicant to strip the project of 3 "After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions." 4 Those 33 units become 48 total units with application of the DBL. 5 "[A] housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted."
-12-

I ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.167
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards. Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§ 65915, subd. (e)(l ).) The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.' (Id. at pp. 1346- 1347.)"
(Bankers Hill I 50 v. City of San Diego, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at 774-775, quoting Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329.)
Here, the "storage" amenities were never intended to be storage, and to approve them as such would have exceeded the density allowed under the HAA, as explained above. The other waivers key to the construction of the Project which petitioners requested were approved - height, setbacks, and FAR. (AR 2759.) Petitioners sought to reserve space for future housing units - not "storage" amenities - which they failed to include in their application and which were not counted for density bonus purposes. Nothing in Wollmer supports the idea that waivers must be granted to facilitate unentitled future uses that exceed the scope of the proposed project. Petitioners fail to cite authority that compels waiver approvals for features not applied for in the Project's application.

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

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.168
-14-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

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

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

33.169
1 the evidence. Director Butler responded to petitioners that Council's intent "was to not 2 include the square footage associated with the storage units .. .. " (Pet. RJN, Ex. A at p. 6.) 3 Several others of petitioners' record citations fail to support their arguments The cite 4 to AR 5293 relates to the setback issue (item 3.c.i. of the May 10, 2024 Project resubmittal), 5 not the potential AD Us (found at item 3.b. of that same report); Director Butler was not 6 discussing the "best path" towards approval of the AD Us but instead the setbacks, which 7 were ultimately approved as submitted.
8 Petitioners also claim that other projects included such ADU conversions. However, 9 staff discussed projects that were not presented to the council that considered conversion 10 ADUs, but none of those were described as prior approvals. (AR 2662.) 11 On reply, petitioners attempt to persuade this Court that staff warned that denying the 12 storage space was not within the City's discretion. (Reply at p. 11.) The transcript cited was from 13 the May 16 Planning Commission hearing - not the May 28 City Council hearing at issue here - 14 and Director Butler's comments are again taken out of context. (See AR 2467-2468 [staff 15 clarifies that the City's "responsibility is to respond to the application that is presented before 16 them and to not make deviations to that.[ ... ] [T]echnically, we're not approving the ADUs."]) 17 18
19 VI. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
A. Petitioners' Request for Judicial Notice:
20 Respondent did not object to Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice. The Court finds as 21 follows pursuant to Evidence Code§ 452(b), (c), and (h):
22 Exhibit A, Correspondence of July 26, 2024, from Workbench to Lee Butler, 23 Planning Director, City of Santa Cruz: Granted.
24 Exhibit B, California Department of Housing and Community Development, 3832 25 18th Street Project Notice of Violation, December 29, 2022: Denied as immaterial to 26 the writ.
27 Exhibit C, Senate Floor Analyses of SB 330, September 9, 2019: Granted. 28 -15-
-- - - - - ---] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.170
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Exhibit D, Workbench's land use application for 1811-1819 Mission Street, Santa Cruz, permit application no. CP25-0002: Granted.

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

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

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

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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE, PROHIBITION,

OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

33.171
201 Front Street
City Council
Planning and Community Development

33.172
Site Location

Page 8 of 21 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilJune 23, 2026

Santa Cruz City Council
June 23, 2026