The City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission on July 17 approved a six‑story, 67‑unit mixed‑use project at 811–819 Mission Street, voting unanimously after an extended public comment period that focused on parking, a missing loading zone and privacy impacts for adjacent homes.

Project planner Rena Zoe told commissioners the applicant proposes to demolish three residential dwelling units, combine three lots and construct a six‑story building with ground‑floor commercial space. The site is zoned community commercial under the city general plan and, because the CC zone lists no base density, staff calculated a fully conforming base of 33 residential units; the applicant requested a 100% density bonus to reach 67 units.

The project team said it redesigned the building after community meetings and is offering several voluntary measures to soften impacts. Jessica Presley, representing Workbench on the applicant team, said the application “reflects months of collaboration, design refinement, and community engagement” and that the team sought to “create a thoughtful, context sensitive development to provide attainable housing and minimize impact to the existing neighbors.” Developer Andy Goldberg told the commission he would “remain open to all ideas that can help the project be more widely accepted by the neighbors.”

Why it matters: state housing laws and the density‑bonus framework limit local discretion on projects that meet objective requirements, while individual neighborhoods often bear street‑level impacts such as spillover parking, loading conflicts and views into private yards. The commission’s approval advances the project to the building‑permit phase and puts mitigation and enforcement questions onto city departments and neighborhood processes.

Key facts and conditions: the applicant seeks a residential demolition authorization permit, a lot‑line adjustment, a design permit and a density bonus. The demolition requires replacement housing and relocation assistance because the buildings are more than 50 years old; staff said two of the three units were occupied within the last five years and, because household income could not be determined, the law treats them as lower‑income for replacement calculations. The project would provide 11 affordable units total: five very‑low‑income units, one low‑income unit and five moderate‑income units. Staff said the inclusionary units will be affordable in perpetuity and the remaining units will carry 55‑year affordability covenants.

Waivers and departures: staff identified 11 waiver requests, two incentive concessions and eight variations. Examples include a request to provide 14 parking spaces where the zoning analysis did not require parking because the site falls within a major transit stop buffer; a shortfall in Class 2 bike parking (19 required, 14 provided); waivers related to building modulation and architectural detail; and requests to exceed height and floor‑area‑ratio standards. The applicant also asked to provide bus passes only to tenants who request them rather than automatically to all tenants.

Voluntary mitigations and public‑benefit items cited by staff and the applicant include: 14 on‑site parking spaces; an offer to pay for a neighborhood permit‑parking program for two years (the program must be initiated by the neighborhood per municipal code); bus passes to tenants who request them; a $1,000 landscape allowance for each of 12 identified neighbors; frosted windows on portions of the rear elevation up to 61 inches to address privacy; and public improvements including widened sidewalks (12 feet on Mission Street, 8 feet on Dufour) and an upgraded, ADA‑compliant crosswalk.

Neighborhood concerns: dozens of residents and neighborhood representatives spoke in opposition or seeking changes. Bruce Thomas, lead contact for the Dufour and Palm Street neighborhood group, urged the commission to address an existing, frequently obstructed loading zone on Dufour Street and asked, “Will you please ask city staff why the city's positioning Mission Studios to use a broken and dangerous loading zone?” Neighbors said the removed or relocated loading zone and limited on‑site parking (14 spaces for 67 units) will cause spillover parking on adjacent streets, block driveways, and create safety hazards at the Dufour‑Mission intersection near Bayview Elementary.

Other speakers pressed privacy concerns related to balconies and upper‑floor terraces overlooking yards. Jim Danaher and Joe Hudson urged redesign of balconies facing the neighborhood; staff and the applicant said some rear‑facing balconies will be configured as Juliet balconies and other privacy treatments (frosted glass and raised railings) have been added. Several speakers also questioned whether the project’s bulk and six‑story height fit the existing single‑story neighborhood context.

City review and responses: Transportation manager Matt Starkey said the existing loading zone opposite the site could be improved and that public works is willing to work with the developer and neighbors during building‑permit review, but noted the city could not require an on‑site loading zone because the project is not required to provide parking under state transit‑oriented standards. Staff said the fire department reviewed the plans for emergency access and had no objections.

Commission action and follow‑up: the commission approved staff’s recommended findings and the revised conditions of approval unanimously. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate with neighbors and public works on curb use and loading‑zone improvements and agreed to a follow‑up meeting after occupancy to review curbspace enforcement and operational issues. The approval moves the project to the building‑permit stage, where engineering, public‑works and fire‑department checklist items and any additional plan‑set revisions will be handled.

What’s next: the project advances to building permits and the department of public works will continue coordination with neighborhood representatives about on‑street loading, curb reconfiguration and permit‑parking procedures. The applicant may refine plan details during permit review; any future code‑required permits or inspections will be handled at that phase.