Council upholds approval for 2020 North Pacific project, rejects tree and encroachment appeals and orders policy review

The Santa Cruz City Council denied two appeals challenging its Planning Commission's June approval of a proposed eight‑story mixed‑use development at 2020 North Pacific Avenue, while modifying conditions for balcony encroachments and directing staff to review the city's heritage‑tree procedures.

The project, proposed by Workbench, would combine two lots for a roughly 169,791‑square‑foot building with 178 residential units (including 30 affordable homes), about 2,727 square feet of commercial/amenity space, 244 bicycle parking spaces and 100 vehicle parking spaces. The application also requested waivers and incentives allowed under state density bonus law and included a heritage‑tree removal permit for six regulated trees (four street trees plus two coast redwoods on Ninth Street).

Appellants raised two main issues: Save Our Big Trees (represented by Jillian Greensite) appealed the heritage‑tree denial for two mature coast redwoods in front of the town clock; the project applicant (Workbench) also appealed several planning rulings, including the city's determination that proposed balcony planter boxes and long continuous balcony bands were not eligible for a waiver under state density‑bonus rules.

Council action: After public testimony and presentations from staff, the council voted to deny both appeals and to uphold the Planning Commission's environmental and project findings, with modifications to the conditions of approval. The council amended condition 51 to authorize balconies to encroach up to 4.5 feet on the Bulkhead Street and North Pacific frontages and up to 3 feet on Ninth Street via the downtown plan's design‑variation process; the council also directed staff to strike condition 52 (which conflicted with the revised 51 language). The motion included direction for staff to return within six months with proposed revisions to the heritage tree removal requirements to align the city's environmental values with state law, and to explore the feasibility of relocating the two coast redwoods (T7 and T8) in coordination with the applicant and report before the issuance of a building permit or by the end of the calendar year, whichever is earlier.

Why the council denied the appeals: The Planning Department and the city attorney told the council that state law, recent case law and the city's downtown plan constrain the city's ability to redesign density‑bonus projects or to remove amenity spaces that are part of an approved density‑bonus application. The staff report and presentations noted that retaining the two redwoods would materially alter the building footprint and likely reduce buildable area; staff also reported that the project proposes 23 replacement trees (exceeding minimum replacement ratios) and other landscape improvements.

Voices in the hearing: Appellant Jillian Greensite argued the trees are “one of the most iconic trees on the planet” in the downtown clock‑tower location and urged the council to require redesign or relocation. Workbench principal Jamila Cannon and project team members said the trees' protection zones cut deeply into the proposed footprint, would impede foundation and liquefaction‑mitigation work and make the project infeasible without increasing building height or changing construction type. Cannon noted the project includes 30 affordable homes and substantial new urban landscaping across podium and rooftop levels. The council heard several residents, tree advocates and neighborhood speakers urging preservation; others urged the council to approve housing and noted the project includes affordable units.

Vote: The motion to deny the appeals passed 6–1 on roll call: Tragera (Aye), Bruner (recused for unrelated items), Newsom (No), Golder (Aye), O’Hara (Aye), Vice Mayor Kalantari Johnson (Aye), Mayor Keeley (Aye). The motion was made by Councilmember O’Hara and seconded by Councilmember Golder.

What’s next: Workbench may proceed toward building permits consistent with the updated conditions of approval. The council’s direction will require staff work on heritage tree policy amendments and a feasibility study on tree relocation options that will be reported back to the council.