Santa Cruz supervisors approve rezoning, PAD changes to allow 18 attached homes in Barrio de Tubac

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 15 approved three linked land‑use actions to allow construction of 18 attached single‑family homes in the Barrio de Tubac.

County planning staff introduced three related applications: a minor comprehensive plan amendment (case CP‑25‑1) to change 5.59 acres from medium‑density residential to high‑density residential; a rezoning (case REZ‑25‑1) of 2.75 acres from B‑2 (general business) to MF (multifamily); and an amendment to the Barrio de Tubac Planned Area Development (PAD‑25‑1) to revise development standards. Planning commissioners had held a public hearing in August and voted unanimously to recommend approval of all three items.

Developer Gary Brasher (WLB Group) told the board the frontage parcels along the I‑19 interchange historically drew intensive commercial proposals (fast food, storage, motels) that he judged incompatible with the residential character of the barrio. He said the proposal aims to create a softer residential entry into the neighborhood.

Neighbors and homeowners who spoke during the public hearing expressed support for replacing potential interchange commercial uses with housing but raised concerns about construction impacts, traffic, unit size and short‑term rentals. Multiple speakers — including property owner Larry (address on file), Patricia Glogowski and Robert Moore — said notice and outreach had been limited and asked the county and developer for assurances about staging, screening and rental rules.

Brasher and his project team described the proposed product as single‑story attached homes of roughly 1,000–1,200 square feet with a one‑car garage and driveway parking; the project footprint is 2.75 acres within the larger 5.59‑acre comp‑plan amendment area. The developer said units will be built in paired clusters (two units constructed together) and estimated the developer’s goal is to finish construction “in about two years,” with an initial build‑out occurring in batches of four to six units. He said the project would retain and supplement native, drought‑tolerant landscaping at the site edges and provide additional off‑street parking within the development.

Responding to resident concerns about short‑term rentals, Brasher said the team had raised the minimum rental period from seven days (as previously discussed) to 21 days to reduce the prospect of motel‑style short‑term occupancy. He also said the developer had met with the Barrio de Tubac master HOA, the Santa Cruz Valley Citizens Council and individual neighbors and had made some plan adjustments in response to comments.

County planner Mary (Planning staff member) summarized the approvals required to move the project forward and noted that if the board approved the three actions, the developer would return with subdivision plats, then to the planning commission and ultimately for permitting and construction. She reminded the board that the PAD being amended dated to 2004 and that the PAD, comp‑plan amendment and rezoning are separate but related steps.

After public comment and board discussion, Supervisors moved, seconded and unanimously approved (motion carried) the comprehensive plan amendment (Resolution No. 2025‑11, CP‑25‑1), the rezoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 2025‑3, REZ‑25‑1) and the PAD amendment (PAD‑25‑1). Board members asked the developer to remain accessible to neighbors during construction and reiterated a preference for residential uses over potentially intense B‑2 uses at that interchange frontage.

The developer presented a schedule aligning planning and subdivision work through 2026 with potential construction in 2027, contingent on permitting and market conditions. If the comp‑plan amendment is used later to allow denser multifamily development on the remainder of the 5.59 acres, the developer said the PAD will specifically limit density in this approved phase to seven residences per acre (the project proposes about 6.5 units per acre for the rezoned parcel).

The board adjourned the public hearing and returned to regular session after voting on the three items.