Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, March 8, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting – March 8, 2022
10:30 A.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM
11:30 A.M. CONSENT, PUBLIC HEARING, AND GENERAL BUSINESS, ZOOM 6:30 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND GENERAL BUSINESS, ZOOM COVID-19 ANNOUNCEMENT: Due to the Omicron variant, this meeting will be held via teleconference ONLY.

In order to minimize exposure to COVID-19 and to comply with the social distancing suggestion, the meeting may be viewed remotely, using any of the following sources:
 Click on Zoom link (no time delay): https://zoom.us/j/94684401344  Online at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council/councilmeetings  Online at Watch – Community Television of Santa Cruz County  Comcast Channel 25
Or: Call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.  1-833-548-0276 (Toll Free)
 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
 1-877-853-5247 (Toll Free)
 1-669-900-9128
Enter the meeting ID number: 946 8440 1344
 When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
 Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.  It will be your turn to speak when the Mayor calls on you. Press *6 to unmute yourself.

The timer will then be set to 2 minutes.

Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 5:00 pm on Monday, March 7th.

March 8, 2022 City Council 2
PLEASE NOTE:
 Requests for extra speaking time on items other than Oral Communications must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 6th by emailing the Mayor and the City Clerk.

Approval will be confirmed via email.
[email protected] [email protected]
The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the City Clerk’s Department at 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such special assistance, or email [email protected]. The CalRelay system number: 1-800-735-2922.

Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 420-5030 al menos cinco días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected]. El número del sistema Cal-Relay es: 1-800-735-2922.

Closed Session
10:30 AM
Referral to Closed Session

1. City-owned Vacant Parcel (APN 005-048-10) at 915 Cedar Street (ED) Motion to approve a referral to Closed Session for discussion regarding lease price, terms, or both.

Closed Session

2. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy
March 8, 2022 City Council 3
Closed Session (continued)

3. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) Property: 915 Cedar Street
APN: 005-048-10
Owner: City of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and the Glass Jar, Inc.

Under Negotiation: Lease price, terms, or both

4. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
City of Arcata, et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-585483
March 8, 2022 City Council 4
City Council
11:30 AM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Presentations

5. Downtown Streets Team Presentation

6. Mayoral Proclamation Declaring March as Women's History Month Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification
Additions and Deletions
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Council Meeting Calendar

7. The City Council will review the meeting calendar attached to the agenda and revise it as necessary.

Consent Agenda

8. Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
Resolution authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

March 8, 2022 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)

9. Minutes of the February 22, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion to approve as submitted.

10. Support for California Senate Bill 843 “Taxation: Renters’ Credit” (CN) Motion to direct the Mayor to send a letter in support of California Senate Bill 843 “Taxation: Renters’ Credit” to the bill’s author, Senator Steve Glazer, and the members of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

11. Wharf Reinforcement Project (45 Municipal Wharf) - Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract (ED)
Motion to approve the plans and specifications for the Wharf Reinforcement Project, authorize staff to advertise for bids, and award the contract. Per Resolution No. NS-27,563, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Economic Development Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

12. Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation (c401709, c401610) – Authorization to Award (PW)
Motion to approve the plans and specifications for the emergency culvert rehabilitation at Escalona Drive and authorize the contract with The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Salinas, CA), in accordance with Chapter

3.08.160 “Emergency Procurement” of the Municipal Code. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budgets.

March 8, 2022 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)

13. Central Coast Community Energy Member Agency Planning, Implementation, and Innovation Grant Program – Grant Acceptance, Authorization, and Appropriation (PW)
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds, if awarded, from Central Coast Community Energy Member Agency Planning, Implementation, and Innovation Grant Program for the development of the Master Municipal Transportation and Electrification Plan.

End Consent Agenda
Public Hearing

14. Small Housing Units General Plan, Downtown Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Updates – Single Room Occupancy, Small Ownership Units, and a New Use Called Flexible Density Units (PL) 1) Resolution amending the General Plan, Downtown Plan, and, in doing so, the Local Coastal Program, to reflect the elimination of the Small Ownership Unit use and the addition of the new Flexible Density Unit use.
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code regulating small housing units including replacing Small Ownership Units with Flexible Density Units and making minor clarifying amendments to the Single Room Occupancy regulations. 3) Direct staff to submit the approved ordinance to the Coastal Commission for review following the second reading, should the ordinance be adopted as part of the second reading, as well as the changes to the Downtown Plan and General Plan, as changes to the Local Coastal Program.

March 8, 2022 City Council 7
General Business

15. Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) Appointment (CC) Appoint one member to the Transportation and Public Works Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2024.

16. CORE Investments RFP and Updates on Application Process, Review Panels and Scoring, Award Funding Decisions Process, and Amended Appeal Process (CM)
1) Accept report on the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments Request for Proposals (RFP) amended timelines; review panel process; coordination with funders.
2) Direct to staff to return in June 2022 as described.

March 8, 2022 City Council 8
General Business (continued)
Please note:
 The Public Comment period for the below will be for items 17.1 – 17.2.  Public comment will be limited to no more than a total of 60 minutes. Each speaker will have 2 minutes.
 Group requests for extra speaking time will be limited to a total of four groups, with an allotment of four minutes each. Requests for extra speaking time must be emailed to the City Clerk and Mayor Brunner by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 6th. Approval will be on a first come, first serve basis, and will be confirmed via email.
[email protected] [email protected]

17. Homelessness Response Quarterly Update(CM/HR)

17.1. Homelessness Response Programming Quarterly Update, Homelessness Response Action Plan, Homelessness Staffing, and Homelessness Response Funding Sources (CM)
1) Receive updates regarding Council directed homeless response programs and services including the Camping Services and Standards Ordinance (CSSO) and the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance (OVO). 2) Adopt Homelessness Response Action Plan (Action Plan), by motion, acknowledging associated funding requirements and sources, including use of the $14 million from the state for homelessness response.

17.2. Resolution Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans for the City Manager’s Office, Planning and Community Development Department and Police Department to Implement the Homelessness Response Action Plan (HR) Resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plans by administratively implementing staffing to support the City’s new Homelessness Response Action Plan.

March 8, 2022 City Council 9
General Business (continued)

18. Sidewalk Vending Permit and New Permit Fee, and Conduct, Time, Place, and Manner Ordinance (CM)
This item is continued to the meeting of March 22, 2022, and will not be discussed on March 8, 2022.

19. Green Building Education Program Fee Increase (PL)
This item is continued to the meeting of April 12, 2022, and will not be discussed on March 8, 2022.

Recess - The City Council will recess to the 6:30 p.m. session.

March 8, 2022 City Council 10
City Council
6:30 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Oral Communications Announcement – Community members may address the Council for three minutes or less about any matter not on the agenda. 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications. No extra time for groups will be granted.

Oral Communications
General Business

20. Resolutions Requesting the Placement of a Sales and Use Tax Ballot Measure on the June 2022 California Statewide Primary Election (CN) Motion to:
1) Accept a report regarding the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Revenue Committee; and
2) Adopt a resolution making emergency findings for placing a general purpose one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure on the June 7, 2022 election; and
3) Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated June 2022 California statewide primary election include a general purpose onehalf of one percent retail transactions and use tax measure; and 4) Support the measure for the purpose of authorizing arguments; provide direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.

Adjournment
March 8, 2022 City Council 11

INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 8, 2022

21. Finance Department: Portfolio Management Report – Pooled Cash and Investments as of January 31, 2022 - 2/14/22 (FNFYI 351)

MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS
ADDENDUM TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 8, 2022

22. Proclaiming March 3, 2022 as “Darrie Ganzhorn Hunger Fighter of the Year Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in honoring her as an inspiring example of an individual whose efforts are supporting the Second Harvest Food Bank’s mission, “to educate and involve individuals to end hunger and alleviate malnutrition in our communities,” and expressing heartfelt appreciation for her contributions on behalf of all those in need.

23. Proclaiming March 1, 2022 as “Granite Construction Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in congratulating Granite Construction for one hundred years of success and community service.

Advisory Body Appointments
The following positions are vacant. Council will make the appointments at a future meeting.

Historic Preservation Commission One opening
Sister Cities Committee Two openings
March 8, 2022 City Council 12
Public Hearing
If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

Any person seeking to challenge a City Council decision made as a result of a proceeding in which, by law, a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action either 60 days or 90 days following the date on which the decision becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Please refer to code of Civil Procedure 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes “final.” The 60-day rule applies to all public hearings conducted pursuant to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Title 24, Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The 90-day rule applies to all other public hearings.

City Council Agenda Legislative History Addendum
No information was submitted.

City staff is responsible for providing the City Clerk with such documentation and information for the Legislative History Addendum. The information will be on file in the City Clerk’s Department.

The Addendum is a listing of information specific to City Council business, but which does not appear on a Council meeting agenda. Such entities would include, but not be limited to: Court decisions, Coastal Commission Appeals of City Council actions, Closed Session Agreements/Settlements, which are public record, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Local Agency Formation Commission.

5.1 HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA
CRUZ

5.2 DST MODEL
Community-first
Unhoused & people at-risk of homelessness (Team Members volunteer to beautify their community
In return, they earn a non-cash basic needs stipend, case management, employment services & a support network

5.3 5.4

WEEKLY SUCCESS MEETING

5.5 SANTA CRUZ

COMMUNITIES

5.6 IMPACT

5.7 DEBRIS REMOVED 153,272 LB
SHARPS REMOVED 5,310
IN 2021

5.8 BARRIERS TO

SELF-SUFFIENCY
292

TRANSFORMATIONAL

BARRIERS
25 5.9
SINCE 2017
DEBRIS REMOVED 760,148

NEEDLES REMOVED

BARRIERS REMOVED

TRANSFORMATIONAL BARRIERS
TOTAL ENROLLMENTS 509
23,707
1,051
104

5.10 DST 2021 SURVEY RESULTS

SANTA CRUZ SPECIFIC

5.11 GETTING INVOLVEMENT

CONTACT
Just Say Hi!
Weekly Success Meeting every Thursday, 12PM at the Cavalry Church Genevieve Lucas-Conwell, Senior Project Manager: [email protected] Jocelyn Curran, Director: [email protected]

5.12 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
March 29 3:00 p.m. ‐ 4:00 p.m. Study Session ‐ Open to the Public March 29 4:30 p.m. Council Special Meeting ‐ Open to the Public April 15/16
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
April 19 TBD 5:00 p.m. Special Meeting ‐ Open to the Public TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
May 24 and 25 TBD Budget Hearings
May 30
June 7 TBD 4:30 p.m. Council Special Meeting ‐ Open to the Public TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
July 4
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
September 5
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
September 25/26
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
October 4/5
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
November 11
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
Yom Kippur (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
Rosh Hashanah (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
November 8
October 11
October 25
City Hall Closure ‐ Veteran's Day (observed)
May 24
City Hall Closure ‐ Memorial Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Labor Day
August 23
July 12 and 26 Meetings Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
August 9
City Hall Closure ‐ Independence Day
June 14
March 8
March 22
May 10
Passover (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
April 12
April 26
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2022
November 22
June 28
September 13
September 27
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change

7.1 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2022
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
November 24
November 25
December 18/19
TBD Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public
TBD Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public
December 25
December 27 Meeting Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed ‐ sundown to sundown)
November 22
December 13
City Hall Closure ‐ Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Day After Thanksgiving Day

7.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/23/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

BACKGROUND: On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a proclamation of State of Emergency in response to the developing COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the continued spread of the virus, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 on March 17, 2020, which included a provision authorizing suspensions to the Ralph M. Brown Act’s (“Brown Act”) teleconferencing rules in order to facilitate virtual meetings while public health orders were in place.

On June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, which provided that the Brown Act teleconferencing suspensions would expire after September 30, 2021. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), an urgency measure taking effect immediately, which amended the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology provided certain conditions are met.

DISCUSSION: AB 361 allows for teleconferenced meetings during a declared State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, if one of the following circumstances apply: (1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (2) The legislative body is meeting to determine whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (3) The legislative body has determined that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.1 The Governor’s March 4, 2020 proclamation of State of Emergency is still in effect. Measures continue to exist that impose and recommend measures to promote social distancing. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) requires that all unvaccinated individuals wear masks in indoor public settings, and also requires that all vaccinated individuals wear masks indoors in specific, high-risk settings.2 Further, the CDPH recommends that vaccinated individuals continue to wear masks indoors when the risk of exposure may be high. 1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(1)(A)-(C)
2 See CDPH, Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (Effective February 16, 2022), https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx.

8.1 Similarly, the Santa Cruz County Health Officer, in alignment with eleven other Bay Area health officers, requires all unvaccinated individuals to wear masks in indoor public settings, and strongly recommends that masks continue to be worn in indoor public settings for vaccinated individuals, especially when case rates are high, or when additional personal protection is needed.3
Moreover, in recent months, the highly transmissible omicron variant has caused increases in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State. Although positive case rates have recently decreased, according to the CDC, community transmission of COVID-19 in Santa Cruz County remains high, and the nature of the pandemic is unpredictable and transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly. As such, holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees due to the continued spread of COVID-19.

To continue teleconferenced meetings under AB 361, the City Council will need to declare every thirty (30) days that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency and either (1) the State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or (2) State or local health officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.4
This declaration is needed for any use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361, including for two City meeting models: (1) A City Council hybrid model that uses the City Council Chambers as an in person venue along with teleconference attendance; and (2) Continued use of teleconferencing for City Council and Brown Act City boards, commissions and committees.

At its regular meeting of October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,877, authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. At its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, November 23, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, and February 8, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, NS-29,894, NS-29,900, NS-29,915, and NS-29,923 further authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361.

This resolution would re-authorize the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue to use teleconferenced meetings for an additional thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Mary-Haley Ousley
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
3 See Press Release, Twelve Bay Area Health Officers to Life Most Indoor Mask Mandates on February 16 (Feb. 9, 2022), https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/02.09.22%20ABAHO%20Masking_FINAL.pdf. 4 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(3).

8.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA AUTHORIZING THE

CONTINUED USE OF TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, due to the threat of COVID-19, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain requirements of Government Code section 54950 et seq., the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or electronically without a physical meeting place; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which stated that the provision suspending requirements of the Brown Act in Executive Order N-29-20 would remain in effect through September 30, 2021, at which point the suspensions would expire; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 into law, an urgency measure effective upon adoption, amending the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely during a proclaimed State of Emergency, and either state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees;
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29, 877, making its initial finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, and February 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, No.

NS-29,894, NS-29,900, NS-29,915, and NS-923, each making a subsequent finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of authorizing the continued use of teleconferenced meetings, the City Council must, every 30 days, reconsider the circumstances of the State of Emergency that exists in the City and the City Council has done so; and WHEREAS, the State of Emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, remains in effect; and

8.3 2
WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health and the Santa Cruz County Health Officer continue to recommend that individuals wear face coverings indoors; and WHEREAS, in recent months, the highly contagious omicron variant has caused an increase in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State of California; and
WHEREAS, although positive case rates have recently decreased, according to the CDC’s “Community Transmission” metric, which provides a four-tiered system that measures the level of community transmission in each county, Santa Cruz County was just recently reported as having “high” Community Transmission, and as seen in recent months, transmission rates of the virus may rise quickly; and
WHEREAS, due to the continued impact of the omicron variant, the City continues to be concerned about the health and safety of attendees at public meetings should they be held in person and in a shared indoor public meeting space, as such, the City Council desires to take the actions necessary to comply with AB 361 and to continue to hold its meetings remotely.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:

A. The City Council hereby acknowledges that the Governor’s State of Emergency proclamation issued on March 4, 2020 remains in effect; and B. The City Council finds that due to the emergence of the omicron variant and the continued threat of COVID-19, holding in person meetings for the City Council, City Commissions, and City Committees continues to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

C. The legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including continuing to conduct open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

D. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) thirty days from the adoption of this Resolution, or (ii) such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz may continue teleconferencing without compliance with the Brown Act’s prior rules regarding teleconferencing.

8.4 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ____
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

8.5 MINUTES ARE UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 22, 2022
12:00 PM
Mayor Brunner opened the City Council Closed Session at 12:00 p.m. in a public meeting via Zoom, for the purpose of announcing the agenda, and receiving public testimony.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Golder (via Zoom), Cummings (arrived at 12:45 p.m. via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (via Zoom); Mayor Brunner (via Zoom).

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti (via Zoom), Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Risk Manager R. Brandon (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

Public Comment
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period at 12:03 p.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period at 12:04 p.m.

Closed Session

1. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) Claimant: Andrew John Hansen
Claim against the City of Santa Cruz

9.1 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5971
Closed Session (continued)

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
Don’t Morph the Wharf! v. City of Santa Cruz et al.
(Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 20CV02731)

3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(2))
Significant exposure to litigation (1 potential case to be discussed) At this time, the meeting was closed to the public. (See page 5973 for a report on Closed Session.)

9.2 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5972
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 22, 2022
2:30 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 2:31 p.m. via Zoom.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Golder (via Zoom), Cummings (via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (via Zoom); Mayor Brunner (via Zoom).

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti (via Zoom), Director of Public Works M. Dettle (via Zoom), Interim Chief of Police B. Escalante (via Zoom), Deputy City Manager and Director of Planning, Community Development and Homelessness Response L. Butler (via Zoom), Interim Director of Finance B. Magee (via Zoom), Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Information Technology Director K. Morgan (via Zoom), Interim Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Principal Management Analyst C. Hemard (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

Presentations

4. Parking for Hope Check Presentation
Mayor Brunner spoke regarding the City presenting a check on behalf of the City and the Downtown Association’s Parking for Hope Program.

5. Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship Volunteers
Emma Ussat, Trails Program Manager with Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship, gave a presentation.

Presiding Officer's Announcements

9.3 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5973
Statements of Disqualification – None.

Additions and Deletions – None.

City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) Claimant: Andrew John Hansen
Claim against the City of Santa Cruz
Council received a status report and by unanimous vote agreed to a settlement in the amount of $58,530.42.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(1))
Don’t Morph the Wharf! v. City of Santa Cruz et al.
(Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 20CV02731)
Council received a status report, and took no reportable action.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(2))
Significant exposure to litigation (1 potential case to be discussed) Council received a status report, and took no reportable action.

Council Meeting Calendar

6. The City Council reviewed and did not revise the meeting calendar attached to the agenda.

9.4 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5974
Council Memberships in City Groups and Outside Agencies

7. The Presiding Officer provided Councilmembers with the opportunity to update Council on any external committee meetings that occurred since the last Council meeting
Councilmember Meyers: Central Coast Community Energy Policy Board.

Councilmember Brown: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, Monterey Bay Air Resources District Board.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board (METRO), Santa Cruz County Youth Action Network.

Councilmember Golder: Public Safety Committee.

Councilmember Cummings: Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Public Safety Committee.

Vice Mayor Watkins: Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee, Charter Amendment Committee, Homelessness 2x2 Committee.

Mayor Brunner: Health in All Policies Committee, Public Safety Committee, Homelessness 2x2 Committee.

At this time, Mayor Brunner heard item 5.

Consent Agenda
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to approve the Consent Agenda.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

9.5 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5975
Consent Agenda (continued)

8. Minutes of the February 8, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

9. Cybersecurity Event Monitoring and Managed Security Service Provider (IT) Motion carried to authorize the City of Santa Cruz to execute a competitively procured contract with Carahsoft Technology Corp, of Reston, VA for cybersecurity event monitoring and proactive response services from SecureWorks, a Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP). The agreement would utilize the terms provided by the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO), a top American cooperative purchasing program facilitating public procurement solicitations and agreements. NASPO Master Contract No. R2472, Agreement No. 7-17-70-40-05.

10. Award Contract for On-Call Land Surveying Services (c401511, c401709, c401706) – Authorization to Award (PW)
Motion carried to award a contract to BKF Engineers (San Jose, CA) for On-Call Land Surveying Services in the amount of $70,000.00 and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney with BKF Engineers for On-Call Land Surveying Services. The Director of Public Works is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

11. Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505) – Authorization to Advertise and Award (PW)
Motion carried to approve the plans and specifications for the Chestnut Street Storm Drain Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation (c401505), authorize staff to advertise for bids, and award the contract. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Director of Public Works is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

9.6 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5976
Consent Agenda (continued)

12. Leachate Booster Bypass Upgrade Project (m400019) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion carried to accept the work of The Don Chapin Company, Inc. (Salinas, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for Leachate Booster Bypass Upgrade Project (m400019).

End Consent Agenda
General Business

13. Board of Building and Fire Appeals Appointment (CC) Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

City Clerk Administrator B. Bush responded to Councilmember questions.

Councilmember Brown nominated Scott Rogers.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson nominated Monica Ratliff.

Councilmember Meyers nominated Christian Nielsen.

Voting for Christian Nielsen: Councilmember Meyers; Mayor Brunner.

Voting for Monica Ratliff: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder; Vice Mayor Watkins.

Voting for Scott Rogers: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

Monica Ratliff was appointed to the Board of Building and Fire Appeals with a term expiration of January 1, 2023.

9.7 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5977
General Business (continued)

14. Resolution Ordering on the Ballot for the June 7, 2022 Primary Election a Proposed Charter Amendment Creating Six Districts and an At-Large , Directly Elected Mayor (CN)
Principal Management Analyst C. Hemard gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Councilmember Meyers, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmember Golder spoke and responded to Councilmember questions.

City Attorney T. Condotti responded to Councilmember questions.

City Manager M. Huffaker responded to Councilmember questions.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Eric Roberts
Glen Schaller
Casey Byer
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Stephen Bosworth
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

9.8 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5978
General Business (continued)

14. Resolution Ordering on the Ballot for the June 7, 2022 Primary Election a Proposed Charter Amendment Creating Six Districts and an At-Large , Directly Elected Mayor (CN) (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to adopt Resolution No. NS-29,932 placing on the ballot for the June 7, 2022 Primary Election a proposed Charter Amendment creating six districts and an at-large, directly elected Mayor, with the following changes to Section 601 (d):

No member of the Council shall be eligible for re-election, or for election to a different Council district, for two years (i.e. one general election cycle) after the expiration of the second consecutive full term of the office for which such person was elected. However, this prohibition shall not bar (1) a Councilmember elected by-district from running for Mayor immediately after two terms as a Councilmember, or (2) the Mayor from running as a by-district Councilmember immediately after two terms as Mayor. or (3) a Councilmember from running for a different council seat, in the event that the Councilmember moves to a different part of the City, immediately after two terms in one council seat. With that said, in no event may any person serve on the Council (as either a Councilmember or the Mayor) for more than sixteen (16) consecutive years.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to return with a process and timeline for community engagement to explore Charter Amendments related to topics, including but not limited to, directly elected Mayor, district composition, Mayor and Councilmember compensation, strong Mayor v. strong City Manager form of government, Mayor term length, and ranked choice voting among others.

ACTION: The substitute motion was not accepted, with the following vote.

AYES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

NOES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Councilmember Meyers stated for the record that many things in the substitute motion are things that can continue to be discussed.

9.9 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5979
General Business (continued)

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Councilmember Cummings stated for the record that part of the direction he supported back in November included a friendly amendment to return with a process and a timeline for community engagement. While he doesn’t have a strong leaning towards a directly elected Mayor or rotating Mayor, he feels community engagement is important and doesn’t feel there has been very good community input.

Councilmember Brown stated for the record this is about process for her.

Councilmember Meyers stated for the record that she is not running for Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz in 2022, so there is no intent behind this except the recognition that having multiple election periods and cycles where Council is going back and asking the voters for different things will cause a lot of confusion and will disincentivize people from running for City Council.

Presentation

15. Results from National Community Survey
Communications Manager E. Smith introduced the item. Jade Arocha, Director of Survey Research with Polco, gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.

9.10 February 22, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5980
Oral Communications
At 6:33 p.m. Mayor Brunner opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the City Council agenda.

Unidentified person spoke regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and wearing masks.

Elise Casby spoke regarding invalid totalitarianism and wants the public to know about it.

Unidentified person spoke regarding a youth Mayor and youth Council.

At 6:43 p.m. Mayor Brunner closed Oral Communications.

Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 6:48 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor

9.11 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/22/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Support for California Senate Bill 843 “Taxation: Renters’ Credit” (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct the Mayor to send a letter in support of California Senate Bill 843 “Taxation: renters’ credit” to the bill’s author, Senator Steve Glazer, and the members of Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

BACKGROUND: The State of California renter’s credit was established in 1972. Rents in California have nearly tripled since the only renter's credit increase in 1979. Surging rental prices across our state have made California increasingly unaffordable. Median state rent exceeds $1,500 a month for a two-bedroom apartment.

In Santa Cruz County, two-bedroom rentals average just under $3,000 per month, according to the County of Santa Cruz Housing Authority. Further, approximately 53% of people in the City of Santa Cruz are renters.

Senate Bill 843 would increase the California renter’s tax credit for the first time in more than 40 years and would represent significant help to renters across California. Eligible households would receive $500 for single residents and $1,000 for single parents and couples. Currently, eligible renters have their tax liabilities offset by only $60 for single filers or $120 for joint filers.

Those eligible for the new renter’s credit would be single filers making $43,533 or less and joint filers making $87,066 or less. Nearly 2.4 million renters would be eligible for the tax credit, which would cost around $1.2 billion, according to 2019 Franchise Tax Board estimates.

DISCUSSION: The Renter’s Tax Credit is a common-sense idea that offers urgently needed relief to California’s millions of families burdened with high rent. While California homeowners receive $5.8 billion in tax relief through mortgage deductions each year, relief for renters has not been a substantive part of the conversation in Sacramento.

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the pressure on California’s renters.

While the Legislature passed temporary relief through the Golden State Stimulus and the eviction moratorium, the affordable housing crisis for renters existed before the pandemic and continues today. We must work to provide permanent relief.

This bill would provide needed relief to renters throughout the state by increasing the credit and making it refundable. Even those without an income could receive this credit, helping California families struggling the most.

10.1 Approval of this item would direct Mayor Brunner to send a letter on behalf of the City Council in support of California Senate Bill 843 “Taxation: renters’ credit” to the bill’s author, Senator Steve Glazer, and the members of Senate Governance and Finance Committee FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Submitted By:

Sonja Brunner
Mayor
Submitted By:

Justin Cummings
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT MARCH 9, 2022 SUPPORT LETTER FROM MAYOR BRUNNER.DOCX

10.2 DRAFT
March 9, 2022
Honorable Senator Steven Glazer,
State Capitol, Room 7250
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for SB 843 (Glazer) City of Santa Cruz
Dear Senator Glazer:

We write to you on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz to express our support of Senate Bill 843 (Glazer).

This bill would provide financial relief to 2.4 million low- and middle-income Californians by expanding and reforming the renter’s tax credit.

Surging rental prices across our state have made the California dream increasingly unaffordable. In Santa Cruz County, two-bedroom rentals average just under $3,000 per month, according to the County of Santa Cruz Housing Authority. Further, approximately 53% of people in the City of Santa Cruz are renters.

Half of California’s renters pay more than 30% of their income on rent; almost 1 in 3 renters pay 50% or more of their income on rent each month.

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the pressure on California’s renters. While the Legislature passed temporary relief through the Golden State Stimulus and the eviction moratorium, the affordable housing crisis for renters existed before the pandemic and continues today. We must work to provide permanent relief.

SB 843 increases the renter’s tax credit to $1,000 for all those that are income-eligible. This bill would provide needed relief to renters throughout the state by not only increasing the credit but making it refundable. Even those without an income could receive this credit, helping California families struggling the most.

This bill would help California renters in a meaningful way, increasing the renter’s tax credit to address the reality of the housing affordability crisis throughout our state and providing relief to struggling California families.

For these reasons, the City of Santa Cruz strongly supports SB 843 (Glazer).

Sincerely,
Sonja Brunner
Mayor
CC: Members and Consultants, Senate Governance and Finance Committee Senator Glazer, Author of SB 843

10.3 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/24/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development
SUBJECT: Wharf Reinforcement Project (45 Municipal Wharf) - Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract (ED)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the plans and specifications for the Wharf Reinforcement Project, authorize staff to advertise for bids, and award the contract. Per Resolution No. NS-27,563, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Economic Development Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: The former Miramar restaurant located at 45 Municipal Wharf was demolished in 2019. The building’s deteriorated physical condition, the expense necessary to bring it up to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and required replacement/upgrades of fixtures and equipment led to the necessity of demolishing the building.

The site has been vacant since the building’s demolition and is protected by security fencing.

DISCUSSION: The 2014 Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Engineering Report prepared by Moffat & Nichol identified the need to replace up to forty (40) piles under the old Miramar building which would have been difficult if not impossible with the building in place. Now that the building has been demolished, Moffat & Nichol has conducted additional site surveys and have prepared plans and specifications to install twenty-six (26) new piles, replace existing deteriorated decking, and strengthen the connection between the site and the adjoining 1914 section of the Wharf. The project will create a building pad suitable for the construction of a new restaurant/commercial building.

Economic Development staff has obtained a United States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant for the project, and Parks and Recreation staff has secured a United States Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit, a California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit, and a Central Coast Water Quality Control Board Certification for a Five-Year Maintenance Plan for the Wharf, under which this project will be conducted. ED staff will administer the EDA grant, has prepared contract bid documents and will manage the bid process and oversee the contractor on the project. Work will occur outside of the bird nesting season and during the tourism off-season in order to reduce impacts on nesting birds and their nests, Wharf tenants and visitors.

11.1 The project is consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability. It removes an impediment to replacing the demolished former restaurant (inadequate Wharf supporting structure) that could inordinately impact a wide range of potential builders and lessees of the site; it promotes public health given the project’s location at the Wharf which is a recreational and healthy lifestyle asset for residents and visitors alike; and it will facilitate access to economic and job opportunities that will lead to enhancing the sustainability of the Wharf.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Economic Development Department’s FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program budget for project #c512203, EDA Wharf Piling Replacement Project.

Prepared By:

Norm Daly
Development Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. PLANS.PDF

2. SPECIFICATIONS.PDF

11.2 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_G1.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:06pm

WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT BID PACKAGE DOCUMENT 00040
3-31-18
This project is partially funded with Federal funds from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration and is subject to federal laws and regulations associated with that program.

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 TITLE SHEET G1
2021 DEC 21 VARIES
AC 1 10
AC/BP
BP
© Google

PROJECT

LOCATION

SANTA CRUZ WHARF

WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
© Google

FORMER MIRAMAR
Santa Cruz Wharf
Santa Cruz
Pacific Ocean

SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
Santa Cruz Wharf

PORTS OF
CALL

NOLANDS

SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO. DRAWING
NO. SHEET NAME

GENERAL
1 G1 TITLE SHEET
2 G2 EXISTING PHOTOS
3 G3 GENERAL NOTES & STAGING PLAN
4 G4 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 OF 2
5 G5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 2 OF 2

STRUCTURAL
6 S1 EXISTING PLAN
7 S2 OVERALL PLAN
8 S3 TYPICAL WHARF SECTION
9 S4 PILE PLAN AND ELEVATION
10 S5 DETAILS

LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1" = 800'

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 25'
LIMIT OF WORK, 9,600 SF
1 1

KEY NOTES

MIRAMAR FISH GROTTO BUILDING WAS PREVIOUSLY
DEMOLISHED IN 2018.

11.3 100' 0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1''=100'-0"
DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_G2.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:07pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 EXISTING PHOTOS G2
2021 DEC 21 1"=100'-0"
AC 2 10
AC/BP
BP
SANTA
CRUZ
Santa Cruz Wharf

PORTS OF

CALL NOLANDS
1 2 4
5 3 2 1
4 5
1 LEGEND

PHOTO (ARROW INDICATES DIRECTION TAKEN)

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT NORTH
Pacific Ocean
3 SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'
PHOTO 1 - SOUTH END
SCALE: NTS
PHOTO 2 - MIDDLE
SCALE: NTS
PHOTO 3 - NORTH END
SCALE: NTS
PHOTO 4 - A-FRAME
SCALE: NTS
PHOTO 5 - TYPICAL CAP JOINT
SCALE: NTS

FORMER MIRAMAR
PHOTO 6 - TYPICAL DETERIORATED STRINGER
SCALE: NTS
PHOTO 7 - SECTION OF DETERIORATED HATCH STRINGER
SCALE: NTS
6 7
6 7

DETERIORATED STRINGER

11.4 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_G3.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:07pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 GENERAL NOTES & STAGING PLAN G3
2021 DEC 21 1" = 20'
AC 3 10
AC/BP
BP

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT NORTH
(E) TRASH

CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA
(APPROX 7,000 SF)

CONTRACTOR WORK AREA

PORTS OF CALL NOLANDS

GENERAL NOTES

1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO MEAN LOWER LOW WATER.

2. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FEATURES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE ITEMS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL TO COMPLY WITH CITY'S TREATED WOOD WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO

REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE EXISTING FEATURES TO REMAIN THAT ARE DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR.

3. CONTACT THE CITY IMMEDIATELY UPON FINDING ANY FIELD CONDITIONS THAT CONFLICT WITH THE INFORMATION ON THESE DRAWINGS. ALL FIELD ADJUSTMENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID ADJUSTMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN

THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMING FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REQUIRED REVISIONS OR FIELD MODIFICATIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.

4. FURNISH, INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL WARNING SIGNS AND DEVICES NECESSARY TO

SAFEGUARD THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE WORK, AND PROVIDE PROPER AND SAFE ROUTING OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WORKING HOURS.

5. KEEP THE PROJECT SITE IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY CONDITION, FREE OF RUBBISH AND DEBRIS, AT ALL TIMES. THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH DAY AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF REMOVAL WORK.

6. ALL WORK SHOWN SHALL BE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

7. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR JOBSITE SAFETY.

8. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON SHEETS G4 AND G5.

CODES AND STANDARDS

1. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)

2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC), STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 14TH

EDITION

3. AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION, NDS 2018 EDITION

PERMITS

1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PERMITS:

A. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT #SPN-2018-00492 REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT (RGP 36)
B. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #3-18-1081 C. CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CERTIFICATION #34418WQ14 AS AMENDED.

2. SEE PERMIT COMPLIANCE TABLE FOR CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT.

LUMBER

1. STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH NO. 1 OR BETTER AS SPECIFIED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBER INSPECTION BUREAU, VISUALLY GRADED LUMBER.

2. STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL BE CHEMICALLY TREATED WITH ACZA FOR MARINE EXPOSURE, SALTWATER SPLASH PER AWPA STANDARD 4B, 4C. CUTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH ACRI-SOY.

3. TYPICAL DECK BOARDS ARE 3X12. TYPICAL STRINGERS ARE 4X12.

TIMBER PILES

1. PILES SHALL BE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR ROUND TIMBER PILES CONFORMING TO ASTM D25.

TREATMENT SHALL BE FOR SALTWATER SEVERE BORER HAZARD TO A MINIMUM NET RETENTION OF 2.5 PCF.

2. ACZA-TREATED DOUGLAS FIR WOODEN PILES HAVING A DIAMETER OF APPROXIMATELY FOURTEEN INCHES AND A LENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY FEET SHALL BE USED. PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN 20 FEET INTO THE BOTTOM OR UNTIL REFUSAL.

3. POLYUREA SEALANT SHALL BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO THE PILES TO A THICKNESS OF 250ML,

AND TERMINATE APPROXIMATELY THIRTEEN FEET FROM THE TIP OF THE PILE AND FIVE FEET

FROM THE BUTT END OF THE PILE, SO THAT THE PORTION OF EACH PILE EXPOSED ABOVE THE

MUDLINE IS COATED TO INHIBIT LEACHING OF THE ACZA PRESERVATIVE INTO COASTAL WATERS. THE UN-SEALED BUTT END OF THE PILE SHALL BE SUBSEQUENTLY CUT UPON INSTALLATION TO TERMINATE UNDER THE LOWEST CAP. PILES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR

DAMAGE TO THE POLYUREA SEALANT PRIOR TO, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER, INSTALLATION AND REPAIRED IF NECESSARY. REPAIRS SHALL USE INERT WRAPPING SUCH AS HDPE SECURED BY BANDING.

STRUCTURAL AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL

1. MATERIALS
A. PLATES AND BARS.......................................... ASTM A36 B. ANGLES.......................................................... ASTM A36 C. BOLTS............................................................. ASTM A307 GRADE A D. TIE RODS........................................................ ASTM A307 GRADE A

2. ALL STEEL ITEMS SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED PER ASTM A153 AND COATED AFTER FABRICATION.

3. STEEL FABRICATIONS SHALL BE FABRICATED BY AN AISC CERTIFIED FABRICATOR.

CONNECTION HARDWARE

1. NUTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A563.

2. FABRICATE TIMBER CONNECTORS FROM ASTM A36 AND HOT DIP GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION.

3. REPLACEMENT BOLTS, NUTS, AND MISCELLANEOUS CONNECTORS SHALL BE OF THE SAME SIZE AS THE ORIGINAL HARDWARE, UON.

4. DECK SCREWS SHALL BE 6" STRONG-DRIVE SDWS TIMBER SS SCREWS OR APPROVED EQUAL.

PILE DRIVING

1. PILE DRIVING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 8 TON GROSS WEIGHT AS POSTED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE WHARF. CRANE EQUIPMENT EXCEEDING THIS WEIGHT SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT (I.E. CRANE MATS).

2. RECORD PILE DRIVING DATA.

3. PILE REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, SEE SHEETS G4 AND G5.

REMOVAL NOTES

1. THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH DAY AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF REMOVAL WORK.

2. ALL TREATED WOOD SHALL BE TRANSPORTED TO AND DISPOSED OF AT THE CITY'S RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PER THE CITY'S TREATED WOOD WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN.

PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS DETOUR

TEMPORARY CHAIN

LINK FENCE

PARKING STALLS TO BE USED

FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS

ABBREVIATIONS

AISC AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL

CONSTRUCTION

ALT ALTERNATE

APPROX APPROXIMATE

ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING

AND MATERIALS

BOT BOTTOM

CL CENTER LINE

CLR CLEAR

DIA DIAMETER

EA EACH

EG EXISTING GROUND

EL ELEVATION

ELEV ELEVATION
(E) EXISTING

FG FINAL GRADE, FINISHED GRADE
or FINISHED GROUND
FT FOOT or FEET

H HEIGHT

HDG HOT DIP GALVANIZED

HORIZ HORIZONTAL
LF LINEAR or LINEAL FEET

LLH LONG LEG HORIZONTAL

LLV LONG LEG VERTICAL

MAX MAXIMUM

MHW MEAN HIGH WATER

MHHW MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER

MIN MINIMUM

MLW MEAN LOW WATER

MLLW MEAN LOWER LOW WATER

MSL MEAN SEA LEVEL

N NORTH

NAVD NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
DATUM

NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
NO. NUMBER

NTS NOT TO SCALE

OC ON CENTER

PCF POUND PER CUBIC FOOT

PL PLATE

PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
SF SQUARE FOOT or FEET

SIM SIMILAR

SPECS SPECIFICATIONS

SQ SQUARE

SS STAINLESS STEEL

STA STATION

STD STANDARD

T&B TOP AND BOTTOM

THRU THROUGH

TOT TOTAL

TYP TYPICAL

UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

VAR VARIES

VERT VERTICAL

W/ WITH
VEHICLE ROUTE.

ONE-WAY TRAVEL IS
REQUIRED.

VEHICLE ROUTE.

ONE-WAY TRAVEL IS
REQUIRED.

PARKING STALLS TO BE

USED FOR VEHICULAR
ACCESS
1 - CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA & ACCESS DETOURSCALE: 1" = 20' 20' 0' 20' 40'
SCALE: 1'' = 20'

VIEW NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER VIEW

REFERENCED TO
XX
S-YYY

SAMPLE VIEW TITLE
SCALE: SAMPLE SCALE
S-YYX
XX
S-YYY
XX
S-YYY

CROSS REFERENCE LEGEND

VIEW TITLE

SECTION CALLOUT

DETAIL CALLOUT

VIEW NUMBER

SHEET NUMBERS VIEW

REFERENCED FROM

VIEW NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER VIEW

REFERENCED TO
LEGEND

CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA

PARKING STALLS TO BE USED

FOR ACCESS

PARKING STALLS TO BE USED

FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

PROVIDE ORANGE PLASTIC

BARRIER BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS

AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

FORMER MIRAMAR

11.5 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS C I T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z C A L I F O R N I A 1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_G4.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:08pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 OF 2 G4 2021 DEC 21 - AC 4 10
AC/BP
BP

11.6 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS C I T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z C A L I F O R N I A 1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_G5.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:09pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 OF 2 G5 2021 DEC 21 - AC 5 10
AC/BP
BP

11.7 SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS

FORMER MIRAMAR

PORTS OF
CALL

NOLANDS
8' 0' 8' 16'
SCALE: 1''=8'
DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_S1.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:09pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 EXISTING PLAN S1
2021 DEC 21 1" = 8'
AC 6 10
AC/BP
BP
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

SIDEWALK

PARKING
STREET

WALKWAY AT DECK
LEVEL
110 120 130

PROJECT NORTH

TRUE NORTH

PROJECT NORTH

ASPHALT WALK
EXISTING BENT NO.

KEY PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 250'
1 - EXISTING PLANSCALE: 1" = 8'
W
A
SS
G
LEGEND
WATER
AIR

SANITARY SEWER
GAS

E ELECTRIC
ABN
SPKR

ABANDONED

SPRINKLER

UNDER DECK ACCESS

LIGHT STANDARD

EDGE OF WHARF
(E) HATCH

11.8 PORTS OF
CALL

NOLANDS
8' 0' 8' 16'
SCALE: 1'' = 8'
DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_S2.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:10pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 OVERALL PLAN S2
2021 DEC 21 1" = 8'
AC 7 10
AC/BP
BP
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

ASPHALT WALK

PARKING
STREET

1. EXISTING UTILITIES THAT SERVED THE FORMER
MIRAMAR ARE CAPPED AT TOP OF DECK.

2. PILE CAN BE CUT 2 FEET BELOW MUDLINE IF IT IS

NOT FEASIBLE TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
THE PILE.

3. PILE SECTION BELOW WATERLINE HAS BEEN
REMOVED. ONLY THE PORTION ABOVE WATERLINE
REQUIRES REMOVAL.

NOTES
147.9' ± NORTH LIMIT OF WORK SOUTH LIMIT OF WORK
110 120 130

PROJECT NORTH

TRUE NORTH

SIDEWALK

EDGE OF WHARF
EXISTING BENT NO.

KEY PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 250'
1 S2

OVERALL PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 8'
1 KEY NOTES

DEMOLISH A-FRAME PRIOR TO INSTALLING TIMBER PILES

FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER PILE WITH T-STRAP CONNECTION

EACH SIDE
REMOVE AND REPLACE T-STRAP AT 40 LOCATIONS WHERE
T-STRAP IS DAMAGED. LOCATIONS TO BE IDENTIFIED BY
ENGINEER IN FIELD UPON REMOVAL OF EXISTING DECKING.

REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL DECKING WITHIN LIMIT OF
WORK. SEE

REMOVE AND REPLACE DETERIORATED STRINGERS UNDER
EXISTING SIDEWALK.

STRENGTHEN WHARF JOINT BELOW. SEE

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF SAFETY RAILING

REMOVE AND REPLACE DETERIORATED SECTION OF
STRINGER AT HATCH. SEE
AN ADDITIONAL 20 STRINGERS WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY ENGINEER IN FIELD AFTER DECKING REMOVAL. REPLACEMENT STRINGERS
SHALL BE 16' LONG. FOR STRINGER CONNECTION TO PILE CAP
SEE
REMOVE TIMBER PILE.
2 3
4 5
1 2

EXTENT OF DECKING

TO BE REPLACED
9 (E) A-FRAME
(E) DAMAGED PILE
1 S4
TYP
4 TYP
TYP 3
TYP
6 6 2
S5
W
A
SS
LEGEND

EXISTING WATER

EXISTING AIR

EXISTING SANITARY SEWER

EXISTING GAS

EXISTING ELECTRIC

ABN EXISTING ABANDONED

EXISTING SPRINKLER

UNDER DECK ACCESS

LIGHT STANDARD

PILE TO BE FURNISHED AND

INSTALLED SEE

PILE TO BE REMOVED
2 S5
G
E
SPKR
7 7 64.7' ±
WEST

LIMIT OF WORK
EAST

LIMIT OF WORK
5 5
8 8
(E) HATCH
6 S5
6 S5
9 5
S5
4 S5
10 10
10 SEE NOTE 3.

SEE NOTE 2.

11.9 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_S3.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:10pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 TYPICAL WHARF SECTION S3
2021 DEC 21 1"=5'-0"
AC 8 10
AC/BP
BP
+20
+10
0 SIDEWALK PARKING ROAD
-10
-20
5' 0' 5' 10'
SCALE: 1''=5'

STRUCTURE TO DEMOLISH

ASPHALT
WALK

SAFETY RAILING

TOP OF DECK

MUDLINE
-30
2 S5
1 LEGEND
2 4 9
1"DIA BOLT, TYP
NOTE: EXISTING

A-FRAME ELEMENTS ARE

IDENTICAL ON BOTH

SIDES OF PILE

BUILDING BEYOND
6 2
3 A
- TYPICAL WHARF SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 5'
7 8
1 KEY NOTES

DEMOLISH A-FRAME PRIOR TO INSTALLING TIMBER
PILES

FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER PILE WITH T-STRAP

CONNECTION EACH SIDE
REMOVE AND REPLACE T-STRAP AT 40 LOCATIONS
WHERE T-STRAP IS DAMAGED. LOCATIONS TO BE

IDENTIFIED BY ENGINEER IN FIELD UPON REMOVAL OF
EXISTING DECKING.

REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL DECKING WITHIN LIMIT OF
WORK. SEE

REMOVE AND REPLACE DETERIORATED STRINGERS
UNDER EXISTING SIDEWALK.

STRENGTHEN WHARF JOINT BELOW. SEE

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF SAFETY RAILING

REMOVE AND REPLACE DETERIORATED SECTION OF
STRINGER AT HATCH. SEE
AN ADDITIONAL 20 STRINGERS WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY
ENGINEER IN FIELD AFTER DECKING REMOVAL.

REPLACEMENT STRINGERS SHALL BE 16' LONG. FOR

STRINGER CONNECTION TO PILE CAP SEE

REMOVE TIMBER PILE
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
5 S5
2 S5
6 S5
4 S5
5 LOCATION OF

FORMER PILE THAT
IS NOW MISSING.
10 10

11.10 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_S4.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:11pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 PILE PLAN AND ELEVATION S4
2021 DEC 21 AS NOTED
AC 9 10
AC/BP
BP
+20
+10
0 5' 0' 5' 10'
SCALE: 1''=5'
10' 0' 10' 20'
SCALE: 1''=10'
NOTES:

1. CONNECT TO PILE CAP WITH 1" BOLTS AND METAL T
STRAP CONNECTION. SEE

FURNISH AND INSTALL PILE
LEGEND

TOP OF DECK

FURNISH AND

INSTALL PILE

PILE TO BE FURNISHED AND

INSTALLED (SEE PILE PLAN

FOR LOCATIONS)
A
- ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 5'
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
1 - PILE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 8'
A
-
T-STRAP. SEE NOTE 1.
-10
-20
-30
4X12 STRINGERS,
TYP
3X12 DECKING, TYP
122

EDGE OF WHARF
1 S5

MISSING OR DAMAGED PILE

11.11 DESIGN

CHECKED
DATE
DRAWN
DRAWING NO.

SCALE

SHEET OF
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

REVISIONS
C I T
Y

O F S A N T A C R U Z

C A L I F O R N I A
1866 SANTA CRUZ
C I T Y O F Q:\WC\7416-09 Wharf Strengthening\20 CADD\_Active\_SheetSet\741609_S5.dwg Dec 21, 2021 - 2:11pm

EDA Grant #07-01-07718 DETAILS S5
2021 DEC 21 AS NOTED
AC 10 10
AC/BP
BP
1'-8" 5" 1'-8"
2 1/2" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 9 1/2" 8" 2 1/2"
5" 2 1/2"
3/4"
3/4" PL
30°
DRILL 1 1/16"Ø HOLES
(TOTAL = 4)
1 S4

DETAIL - T-STRAP
SCALE: 2" = 1'-0"
2 S2

DETAIL - WHARF JOINT
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"

CONCRETE ASPHALT HATCH
13'-5" ±

ASPHALT
CURB
5'-10" ± 2'-10" ± 3'-0" ± 1'-1" ± 8" ±

BUILDING
BEYOND
NOTES:

1. T-STRAP TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED ON
BOTH SIDES OF PILE.

ORIGINAL
1914 WHARF

ADDITION

TO WHARF

REPLACE DETERIORATED STRINGER
FURNISH AND INSTALL 1" TIE ROD

CONNECTION BETWEEN PILE CAPS ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE PILE CAPS, 20
TOTAL. SEE
3 - DETAIL - TIE ROD CONNECTIONSCALE: 2" = 1'-0"
1' 0' 1' 2'
SCALE: 1'' = 1'-0"

0.5' 0' 0.5' 1'
SCALE: 2'' = 1'-0"
2' 0' 1' 2'
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0''
1" Ø BOLTS
1" TIE ROD
3 -
A
-
1'-0" 6"
1" Ø BOLTS
1" TIE ROD
1/2" PLATE
1/2" PLATE
A
- SECTION - TIE ROD CONNECTIONSCALE: 2" = 1'-0"
(E) PILE CAP
4 S1

DETAIL - STRINGER CONNECTION TO PILE CAP
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
(E) PILE CAP
(E) STRINGER
(E) DECKING

REPLACEMENT STRINGER
5/8" Ø BOLTS
(E) STRINGER
(N) DECKING
(E) PILE
(E) PILE CAP

LAG SCREW
L5X3X1/4 ANGLE, 2" WIDE

DECKING
(E) STRINGER

C STRINGER, TYP L

STAGGER DECK

SCREWS, TYP
1 8" GAP, TYP

EDGE OF PIER

STAGGER DECK
SCREWS, TYP2 1
2" MIN TYP
5 S1

DETAIL - DECKING REPLACEMENT
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
1'-0"
3"
3"
3"
3"
4 1/2"

REMOVE AND REPLACE

DETERIORATED SECTION OF
6" x 11 1/2" STRINGER
5/8" Ø BOLTS
(E) STRINGER
(E) HATCH
5'-0"
6 S1

DETAIL - HATCH STRINGER
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
(E) LADDER

REMOVE AND

REPLACE JOIST

HANGER OF

HATCH FRAME
S2
S2
S2

STRINGER WITH

DETERIORATED

SECTION AT HATCH

11.12 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
337 LOCUST STREET, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 ● 831-420-5150 ● www.cityofsantacruz.com Document 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
EDA Award Number 07-01-07718

PROJECT NAME: Wharf Reinforcement Project
PROJECT ADDRESS: 45 Municipal Wharf, Santa Cruz, CA

DIVISION 1: General Requirements
Section A: Permit Compliance
Section B: Mobilization and Demobilization
DIVISION 2: Site Work
Section A: Site Protection
Section B: Demolition
DIVISION 5: Metals
Section A: Connectors
DIVISION 6: Wood
Section A: Rough Carpentry

11.13 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Section A
Permit Compliance

Page 1 of 2 ends

1. Scope
a. See Plans, Line Item Division Costs, Project Specifications, General Conditions and the Permit Compliance Table for work governed under this section. b. Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials and equipment necessary for the proper execution of the work specified in the Plans, Line Item Division Costs, Project Specifications, General Conditions and the Permit Compliance Table.

2. Permit Compliance
a. Contractor shall comply with Section 2.01 of the General Conditions and the Permit Compliance Table regarding permits.
b. Governing Permits:
1) United States Army Corps of Engineers SPN-2018-00492 Regional General Permit (RGP 36) with enclosures.
2) California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit # 3-18-1081 with Special Conditions.
3) Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Certification #34418WQ14 as amended.
c. Submittals:
1) Prior to start of Work, certification that a USFWS-approved biologist was retained by Contractor to:
i. Conduct mandatory biological resources awareness training for all construction personnel involved with in-water work, onshore work within 100 feet of tidal water, or any other work that may impact southern sea otters; and ii. Train a biological monitor to determine if southern sea otters are being disturbed during Project Activities.

See:

A. Permit Compliance Table, USACE RGP 36, Enclosure 3a, Items 1 and 2.

B. Permit Compliance Table, USACE RGP 36, Enclosure 5, ESA Species Protection Conservation Measures, Items 11 and 12.

11.14 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 1, Section A

Page 2 of 2 ends

2) Prior to start of Work, certification that a qualified individual with expertise in 401 Water Quality Certification conditions and compliance was retained by Contractor to conduct mandatory trainings for all personnel who engage in construction activities or their oversight at the project site (superintendent, construction manager, foreman, crew, contractor, biological monitor, etc.) on the conditions of the CCRWQCB Certification and how to perform their duties in compliance with those conditions.

See:
i. Permit Compliance Table, CCRWQCB Certification #34418WQ14, Item 1. 3) On a weekly basis beginning with the start of Work, and with respect to all piles driven or removed, all data, summaries, observations, verification of actions, and photo-documentation, including underwater still photos or videos, as required by the CCWQCB Annual Project Status Report. See:
i. Permit Compliance Table, CCRWQB Certification #34418WQ14, Monitoring and Reporting.
4) Prior to start of Work, certification that a qualified wildlife biologist was retained to conduct observations or train member(s) of the construction crew to conduct observations during all pile driving activities using the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-approved Marine Mammal Disturbance training outline. See:
i. Permit Compliance Table, CCC CDP #3-18-1081, Special Condition 3b. 5) On a weekly basis beginning with the start of Work, daily logs of observed marine wildlife behavior that shall be of sufficient detail to determine whether the Project causes observable effects to marine wildlife. See:
i. Permit Compliance Table, CCC CDP #3-18-1081, Special Condition 3d. 6) On a weekly basis beginning with the start of Work, data on hydro-acoustic levels and marine mammal observation. See:
i. Permit Compliance Table, USACE RGP 36, Enclosure 4, Item 8. ii. Permit Compliance Table, USACE RGP 36, Enclosure 5, ESA Species Protection Conservation Measures, Item 8.

END OF SECTION

11.15 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Section B
Mobilization and Demobilization

Page 1 of 1 ends

2. Mobilization and Demobilization
a. Mobilization shall consist of obtaining all required insurance and bonds; preparatory work and operations necessary for the movement of personnel, equipment, supplies, and incidentals to the Work Area; preparation of a construction schedule; furnishing and erecting facilities necessary for work on the project; and all other work which must be performed or cost incurred prior to beginning work on the various contract items at the Work Area.
b. Demobilization shall include removal of construction facilities, surplus materials, equipment from the Work Area and final cleanup of the Site upon completion of the Project.

3. Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization Will be Made as Follows:
a. When 5% of the total original contract amount is earned from other Bid Items, 50% of the amount bid for Mobilization will be paid.
b. When 10% of the total original contract amount is earned from other Bid Items, the remainder of the amount bid for Mobilization will be paid. c. Upon completion of all work on the Project and upon issuance of a Notice of Final Completion by City, payment of the amount bid for Demobilization will be paid.

END OF SECTION

11.16 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK
Section A
Site Protection

Page 1 of 2 ends

2. Materials
a. Existing security fence, base plates and connectors to be reused. b. Temporary chain link fencing for site security to be standard galvanized steel chain link panels a minimum of six (6) feet high and secured with 36” bases and sandbags. c. Pedestrian/Vehicle Separation Barrier: 71” L x 18” W x 32” H orange high density polyethylene water-filled longitudinal channelizing device (LCD) used for traffic and pedestrian channelization. When assembled as an LCD, the units are attached end-to-end using a plastic coupler.

3. Contractor Staging and Work Areas
a. The Contractor Staging and Work Areas are as shown on the Plans. b. Lay out and stage work in order to maintain public access to the Wharf and adjacent businesses at all times.
c. Use flaggers, signs, and/or other measures to provide for pedestrian and driver safety in the Project area.
c. Conduct operations to prevent damage to adjacent buildings, structures, improvements, and other facilities.
d. Protect utility services including potable water system, site electrical service and exterior lighting.
e. Security of the Staging Area shall be the responsibility of Contractor.

4. Existing Facilities to be Protected
a. Wharf Parking Areas, Pedestrian Walkways, and Adjacent Buildings:
i. Protect the existing Wharf parking areas, pedestrian walkways, and adjacent buildings from damage

11.17 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 2, Section A

Page 2 of 2 ends

ii. Repair of Damage by Contractor:
1) Damage caused by Contractor operations shall be promptly repaired and patched with materials of similar composition, equal to or better in quality and to match the same dimensions of the surrounding materials.

END OF SECTION

11.18 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK
Section B
Demolition

Page 1 of 3 ends

2. Existing Conditions
a. The site is located on Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf (“Wharf”). b. The Contractor Staging Area is an area of approximately 7,000 square feet as shown on the Plans. The Contractor Work Area is an area of approximately 9,600 square feet consisting of timber piles supporting ledgers, caps, stringers and decking. There is no building present on the Project Site.
c. Wharf Deck, Parking Areas, Pedestrian Walkways, and Adjacent Buildings:
i. Protect the existing Wharf deck, parking areas, pedestrian walkways, and adjacent buildings from damage.
ii. Repair of Damage by Contractor:
1) Damage caused by demolition and/or removal operations shall be promptly repaired and patched with materials of similar composition, equal to or better in quality and to match the same dimensions of the surrounding materials. 2) Finished surfaces of patched areas shall be flush with the adjacent existing surface and shall match the existing adjacent surface as closely as possible as to texture, finish, and color.
3) Repair of damage shall be done at no cost to City.
d. Hazardous Material
i. There are no known hazardous materials at the site, other than treated wood. Handle, collect and transport all treated wood waste in accordance with Document 00080 Treated Wood Waste Disposal Plan and all local, state and federal requirements. ii. Stop demolition work immediately and notify the City when unforeseen suspected hazardous material is encountered during course of work.

11.19 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 2, Section B

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Regulations
a. Comply with all OSHA, CAL-OSHA, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including air pollution, environmental, health, safety, hauling, and disposal regulations. In the event of conflict between said regulations, the most stringent provisions shall govern.
b. Work shall conform to applicable codes and regulations of all applicable local, county, state and federal agencies, including the City of Santa Cruz and all other public agencies having jurisdiction upon the Work.

4. Submittals
a. Contractor shall provide the following submittals:
i. Means and methods to be used for demolition work and protection of features and facilities to remain.
ii. Debris containment system to be used to prevent debris from entering the water. iii. Public safety and traffic control measures to ensure public access and safety in the vicinity of demolition and hauling operations.

5. Regulatory and Safety Requirements
a. Comply with federal, state and local hauling and disposal regulations, including ANSI A10.6.

6. Dust and Debris Control
a. Minimize the spread of dust and debris and avoid the creation of a nuisance or hazard in the surrounding area. Do not use water if it results in hazardous or objectionable conditions, or results in discharge to Monterey Bay. Discharges of any sort to Monterey Bay are not permitted.
b. Debris Containment. Contractor shall design and install a temporary containment system to prevent demolished materials from entering the water. Materials that fall into the bay shall be retrieved at Contractor’s expense.

7. Preparation
a. Prior to start of demolition work, verify the following:
i. Location of existing site utilities to remain.

11.20 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 2, Section B

Page 3 of 3 ends

ii. Utilities outside the demolition limits to remain are not disturbed or damaged.

8. Public Access and Safety
a. Lay out and stage work at the Work site in order to maintain public access to the Wharf and adjacent businesses at all times. Provide flaggers, signage, and other safety measures when debris and equipment are being transported as described in the approved Demolition Work Plan.

9. Burning and Blasting
a. Burning and blasting will not be permitted.

10. Debris Containment
a. The debris containment system shall be in place prior to start of demolition work in the Work area and shall remain until completion of demolition work. Floating booms shall be used to capture debris, sawdust, particulates, oil, grease, rust, dirt and spill to protect the quality of coastal waters. See also Document 00070 Permit Compliance Table for additional information and requirements

11. Environmental Protection
a. No demolished materials, demolition equipment, debris, or tools shall enter the Monterey Bay. Any demolished materials, demolition equipment, debris or tools that enter the water shall be promptly removed at Contractor’s expense.

12. Disposition of Material
a. Disposal:
i. Demolished materials and debris shall be disposed of in appropriate disposal sites in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and Document 00080 Treated Wood Waste Disposal Plan.

13. Final Clean-Up
a. Remove all equipment, materials, debris, and rubbish from the site. b. Clean up spillage and debris at the site and on haul routes and public roads. c. Promptly repair at Contractor’s expense any items damaged during the progress of the Work, including any damage to pavement, sidewalks, haul routes, public roads, or adjacent ground caused by transporting materials or equipment.

END OF SECTION

11.21 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 5 - METALS
Section A
Connectors

Page 1 of 1 ends

2. Materials and Products
a. Structural and Miscellaneous Steel
i. Plates and bars: shall conform to ASTM 36
ii. Angles: shall conform to ASTM 36
iii. Bolts: shall conform to ASTM A307 Grade A
iv. Tie Rods: shall conform to ASTM A307 Grade A
v. All steel items shall be hot-dipped galvanized per ASTM A153 and coated after fabrication.
vi. Steel fabrications shall be fabricated by an AISC certified fabricator. b. Connection Hardware
i. Nuts shall conform to ASTM A563.
ii. Fabricate timber connectors from ASTM A36 and hot-dip galvanize after fabrication. iii. Replacement bolts, nuts, and miscellaneous connectors shall be of the same size as the original hardware unless otherwise noted.
iv. Deck screws shall be 6” Strong-Drive SDWS Timber Stainless Steel screws or approved equal

END OF SECTION

11.22 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 6 - WOOD
Section A
Rough Carpentry

Page 1 of 3 ends

2. Materials and Products
Where available, only treated wood that has been certified as produced for use in aquatic environments shall be used (as indicated by a BMP Mark or Certificate of Compliance), in accordance with industry standards such as the Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic and Wetland Environments by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, et al.

a. Piles:
i. Piles shall be AZCA-treated Douglas-fir round timber piles conforming to ASTM D25.

Treatment shall be for salt water severe borer hazard to a minimum net retention of

2.5 PCF.
ii. Piles shall have a diameter of approximately fourteen (14) inches and a length of approximately seventy (70) feet.
iii Polyurea Sealant: The polyurea coating shall be applied uniformly and terminate thirteen feet (13’) from the tip of the pile and five feet (5’) from the butt end of the pile at a minimum. Coating shall be resistant to saltwater, UV exposure, and marine borer infestations. Coating shall form a tough, abrasion resistant membrane that provides a continuous water-proof seal from the mudline to above high tide. Pile coating shall be applied after the pressure treatment process is complete by a facility having prior experience with coating wood with a polymer product. Coating shall be by a single manufacturer. Minimum physical properties after 48 hours shall be:
a. Thickness 150- 250 mil
b. Tensile Strength 2600 psi ASTM-D-638
c. Tear Resistance 450 lbs/in ASTM-D-624
b. Stringers:
i. Structural lumber shall be Douglas Fir-Larch No. 1 or better as specified by the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau, visually graded lumber and shall be treated with the preservative Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA). Each piece of lumber or timber shall be identified by the grade mark of a recognized association or

11.23 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 6, Section A

Page 2 of 3 ends

independent inspection agency. The association or independent inspection agency shall be certified by the Board of Review, American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC), to grade the species used. Fabricate lumber and timbers before preservative treatment.
ii. Nominal dimensions of stringers shall be 4” x 12”.
c. Decking:
i. Structural lumber shall be Douglas Fir-Larch No. 1 or better as specified by the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau, visually graded lumber and shall be treated with the preservative Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA). Each piece of lumber or timber shall be identified by the grade mark of a recognized association or independent inspection agency. The association or independent inspection agency shall be certified by the Board of Review, American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC), to grade the species used. Fabricate lumber and timbers before preservative treatment.

ii. Nominal dimensions of decking shall be 3” x 12”.

3. Pile Driving Standards
a. Crane/pile driving equipment shall be limited to 8 tons gross weight as posted at the entrance to the Wharf for access onto the Wharf. Equipment exceeding this weight shall provide additional support (i.e. crane mats).
b. Pile replacement shall be performed per Best Management Practices; see Dwg. G4 and G5 of Plans.
c. Soft Start. An impact hammer is approved for use on this Project. An initial ramp-up period or “soft start” procedure at the commencement of any impact hammer pile-driving activities, or after a break in impact hammer driving of 30 minutes or more, shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts to marine species that may be present in the exclusion zones. The "soft start" shall consist of an initial set of three strikes made by the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets, before initiating continuous driving. In addition, the pile driver shall employ sound dampening techniques and/or devices (such as wooden blocks, pile cushions, and/or caps) during all pile driving activities. d. Piles shall be driven twenty (20) feet into the bottom. e. Cut tip of driven pile even with bottom of existing pile cap; adjust pile so tip is directly under and in contact with cap. Secure with specified t-strap and machine bolts.

f. Inspect polyurea sealant for damage prior to and immediately after pile installation and repair sealant if necessary. Repairs shall utilize inert wrapping such as HDPE secured by stainless steel banding.

11.24 WHARF REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
DOCUMENT 00050

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Division 6, Section A

Page 3 of 3 ends

4. Submittals
a. All treated lumber shall have a quality mark from an ALSC accredited agency. A treatment certificate and Safety Data Sheet shall be provided with the treated material. b. Submit the following pile driving data for each pile to City after installation:
i. Depth to bottom.
ii. Blow counts per foot.

END OF SECTION
END OF DOCUMENT 00050

11.25 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/24/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Emergency Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation (c401709, c401610) – Authorization to Award (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the plans and specifications for the emergency culvert rehabilitation at Escalona Drive and authorize the contract with The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Salinas, CA), in accordance with Chapter 3.08.160 “Emergency Procurement” of the Municipal Code. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budgets.

BACKGROUND: The culvert near the intersection of Escalona Drive and Walnut Avenue carries East Laurel Creek from the upstream to the downstream resident. The buildup of calcium deposits for over 60 years has completely clogged the culvert and the creek currently overflows onto the sidewalk and gutter.

DISCUSSION: The Escalona Drive Culvert Rehabilitation will include the installation of a new 24-inch diameter pipe and a new junction box near the inlet of the culvert. Staff requested a change order to clean the remainder of the culvert of calcium deposits. The project was originally bid as an informal project but the change order pushed the purchase to a formal project (over $100,000). Numerous public requests have been received requesting to stop the creek overflow.

Plans and specifications can be found online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/publicworksprojects.

FISCAL IMPACT: The project is estimated to cost $123,556 and is funded in two FY 2022 Capital Investment Program (CIP) projects (c401709 - Storm Drain, c401610 - Catch Basin).

There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Cina Seyedkazemi
Engineering Technician
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

12.1 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/24/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Central Coast Community Energy Member Agency Planning, Implementation, and Innovation Grant Program – Grant Acceptance, Authorization and Appropriation (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept, and appropriate funds, if awarded, from Central Coast Community Energy Member Agency Planning, Implementation, and Innovation Grant Program for the development of the Master Municipal Transportation and Electrification Plan.

BACKGROUND: Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) is a community choice energy agency established by local communities to source clean and renewable electricity for central coast counties. Committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through local control of utilityscale renewable electricity generation and the implementation of innovative energy programs that facilitate the electrification of the transportation and built environments, CCCE promotes long-term electric rate stability and energy security while reducing reliance on fossil fuels and stimulating the local economy.

Recognizing funding and capacity constraints of local governments in advancing electrification of municipal operations and community services, CCCE is seeking to enable specific and measurable outcomes in electrification and energy innovation of their member agencies through the Member Agency Planning, Implementation and Innovation Grant Program. CCCE provides up to $150,000 per grant to support CCCE’s Member Agency Planning, Implementation and Innovation Grant Program, with a total of $600,000 in funds available.

DISCUSSION: The City of Santa Cruz (City) has invested substantial resources into various aspects of municipal transportation electrification strategy, all at various stages of planning and implementation including the following actions:
- Fall 2021, completion of fleet electrification opportunity analysis identifying vehicles at four key municipal fleet sites that are suitable for EV replacement now and at what cost. - Stacked incentives enabled major infrastructure improvements to accommodate two dozen passenger and medium and heavy duty fleet vehicles at River Street Corporation Yard to be completed in early 2022.
- Aggressive and early adoption of e-trolley, e-refuse trucks and other medium - heavy duty vehicles in addition to leveraging a lease program to accelerate our passenger fleet electrification.

13.1 - Opportunity through upcoming annual employee commute survey to update employee EV mode share, identify potential for e-carshare/pool hybrid use and inform policy planning. - Existing refuse worker commuter van to and from Watsonville, prior electrification research of this commute vehicle.
- Invested two rounds of internal Carbon Funds to support Parks and Recreation Department testing and converting of City landscaping equipment to electric. - Recent release of a Municipal Facility Energy Retrofit Toolkit through partnership between the City and Ecology Action, funded through a California Energy Commission grant, enabling facility operators to benchmark and determine high energy consuming buildings suitable for energy retrofits, energy saving opportunities and implementation costs. - Commitment to equitable policy and project development through Climate Action Plan 2030 update underway and overarching Health in all Policies initiative. - Ongoing revenue from Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits. - Pending procurement of a regional mutual aid e-fleet asset, a mobile solar battery electric vehicle and equipment charger with trailer, to provide first employee parking at City Hall complex when not in emergency use.

Despite substantial prior work to complete the master municipal transportation electrification plan, City staff are constrained by bandwidth, funding and expertise to develop the following gaps in our plan:
- Understanding if the sites and the grid can accommodate the recommended EVs from a technical standpoint and what it would take to do so including potential battery storage. - Ability to pursue and leverage funding opportunities from local, state and federal sources. - How to best invest anticipated Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program City will receive as a direct allocation by formula (approx. $95,000) from the federal infrastructure act in late 2022.

The scope of work will also include specific recommendations on education and training.

Moreover, through the City’s active participation in collaborative networks at all scales (e.g., Central Coast Climate Collaborative, Green Cities California and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network), the approach, methods and deliverables will be accessible to practitioners in the Central Coast and beyond. The City also has equity features as described in the proposal including participation from historically under represented employees in the project to gain crucial insight into the equity aspects of our work.

Vehicle fleet represents the second highest municipal greenhouse gas emissions source following water and wastewater treatment and conveyance. Completion of this project is a key action that will enable the City to achieve its municipal emissions reduction targets that will be adopted in summer 2022 as part of the Climate Action Plan 2030. Staff anticipate it could become a model for how municipalities proactively plan for fleet electrification.

The City is seeking $75,000 from CCCE to complete the project. The City will provide in-kind services to carry out specific aspects of the project in the amount of approximately $30,000. The CCCE expects to award grants in March 2022 with funds made available by June 2022. The project kickoff is proposed for June 2022 and the project will be complete by February 2023.

Staff did not make a go decision to submit a proposal in time to bring this resolution to City Council prior to the February 8, 2022 deadline.

13.2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability & Climate
Action Manager
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. PROPOSAL.PDF

13.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY (CCCE)

MEMBER AGENCY PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND INNOVATION GRANT

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, CCCE’s Fiscal Year 2021 - 2022 (FY 2021/22) Operating Budget allocated funds for an Electrification and Innovation Grant Program to advance specific and measurable outcomes in electrification and energy innovation.; and WHEREAS, the Electrification and Innovation Grant Program’s Member Agency Track includes $600,000 in funding to support planning and/or implementation of electrification projects for member agency fleets, municipal properties, and community infrastructure.; and WHEREAS, the Member Agency Track includes funding to support planning and/or implementation of electrification-related capital improvement projects (“CIP”) for member agency fleets, municipal properties, and community infrastructure with a maximum grant cap at $150,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is eligible to apply and seeks $75,000 funding through the Member Agency Track, Planning and Implementation category to complete its Master Municipal Transportation Electrification Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz, upon completion of this Plan; will complete a major municipal action outlined in the Climate Action Plan 2030 under development.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager of the City of Santa Cruz to apply for, accept, and execute in the name of the City of Santa Cruz, all necessary applications, contracts and agreements and amendments thereto and appropriate funds from Central Coast Community Energy to procure and implement and any project approved through approval of the grant application.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

13.4 APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

13.5 1
Electrification & Innovation Grant Program Narrative

1. Title and Introduction
Completion of Santa Cruz Master Municipal Transportation Electrification Plan The City of Santa Cruz seeks $75,000 in member agency program funds to complete its master municipal transportation electrification plan by the end of 2022. The City of Santa Cruz has invested substantial resources into various aspects of municipal transportation electrification strategy, all at various stages of planning and implementation The City proposes working with PineSpire, a trusted consulting partner in the City’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard program and fleet electrification efforts thus far, to connect all completed and ongoing efforts into one comprehensive master municipal transportation electrification plan document, providing technical support to address the gaps and producing a roadmap for the City to follow. We propose a quick timeline with the work being complete with 6 months of award. This rapid timeline will enable coordination with another important piece of work the City will be producing in 2022: the citywide equitable existing building electrification roadmap.

2. Organization Background
The City of Santa Cruz is a full service municipality nestled between the Santa Cruz Mountain range and the Pacific Ocean, 70 miles south of San Francisco. The City provides water, sewer, and waste services in addition to offering a range of economic development and recreation programming. Our unrivaled environment creates a thriving and open culture that invites innovation, entrepreneurship, and an ethos of keeping it real. The City is a tourist destination yet our residents are very involved in local government. The City’s vision is to preserve the diversity and quality of its natural and built environments, create a satisfying quality of life for its diverse population and workers, and attract visitors from around the world.

The City of Santa Cruz has invested substantial resources into various aspects of municipal transportation electrification strategy, all at various stages of planning and implementation:
• Fall 2021, completed fleet electrification opportunity analysis identifying vehicles at 4 key municipal fleet sites that are suitable for EV replacement now and at what cost. • Stacked incentives enabled major infrastructure improvements to accommodate two dozen passenger and medium and heavy duty fleet vehicles at River St Corporation Yard to be completed in early 2022.
• Aggressive and early adopters of e-trolley, e-refuse trucks and other medium - heavy duty vehicles in addition to leveraging a lease program to accelerate our passenger fleet electrification.

13.6 2
• Opportunity through upcoming annual employee commute survey to update employee EV mode share, identify potential for e-carshare/pool hybrid use and inform policy planning.
• Existing refuse worker commuter van to and from Watsonville, prior electrification research of this commute vehicle
• Invested two rounds of internal Carbon Funds to support Parks and Recreation Department testing and converting of city landscaping equipment to electric. • Recent release of a Municipal Facility Energy Retrofit Toolkit through partnership between City of Santa Cruz and Ecology Action, funded through a California Energy Commission grant, enabling facility operators to benchmark and determine high energy consuming buildings suitable for energy retrofits, energy saving opportunities and implementation costs
• Commitment to equitable policy and project development through Climate Action Plan 2030 update underway and overarching Health in all Policies initiative. • Ongoing revenue from Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits • Pending procurement of a regional mutual aid e-fleet asset, a mobile solar battery electric vehicle and equipment charger with trailer, to provide first employee parking at City Hall complex when not in emergency use.

The City is also a leader in regional collaboration on equitable electrification, partnering with Watsonville and Central Coast Energy Services on a DOE WAP grant for a low income green and healthy electrified home pilot and strategizing to leverage funding and capacity for our Monterey Bay region and Central Coast for electrification. The outcomes of this effort will also be promoted to Central Coast Climate Collaborative and other fora, providing a case study and example for others to potentially model.

3. Problem Statement
Despite substantial prior work to complete the master municipal transportation electrification plan, city staff are constrained by bandwidth, funding and expertise to develop the following gaps in our plan:
• Understanding if the sites and the grid can accommodate the recommended EVs from a technical standpoint and what it would take to do so including potential battery storage. • Ability to pursue and leverage funding opportunities from local, state and federal sources
• How to best invest anticipated Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program City will receive as a direct allocation by formula (approx. $95,000) from the federal infrastructure act in late 2022.

13.7 3
• An equitable decision-making framework to prioritize efforts for implementation in a covid reality.
• Employee EV parking policy, EV procurement policies and regional procurement collaborative.
• Scope for future master municipal facility electrification study and plan Award of a Planning and Implementation grant from CCCE’s Member Agency Track will enable the City use modest funding to complete this critical planning document that will unlock our pace in municipal transportation electrification transformation and set the stage for the municipal facility electrification roadmap.

4. Program Goals and Objectives
The goal of this proposal is to produce a master municipal transportation electrification roadmap. A secondary goal is for the City to share its methods and deliverables to other municipalities through the Central Coast Climate Collaborative and other fora.

The objectives are to (1) tie together the extensive work completed in the past several years to (2) bring our priorities and direction into focus, (3) develop a stacked funding strategy and (4) catalyze municipal electrification implementation further.

One feature of the Climate Action Plan 2030 is the evaluation and development of the green economy and green jobs. Not only is the City developing actions that will stimulate overall citywide building and transportation electrification, but we are evaluating internal opportunities to grow and provide training for municipal green jobs, e.g., electric vehicle mechanics, and will bring that work into the project.

5. Program Reach
The reach of the proposed project is limited to providing infrastructure and policy to electrify the municipal fleet and employee vehicles. The City will evaluate opportunities to integrate equity into this effort in two ways by exploring (1) electric van- and carpool commute options for South County based commuters from our service workers union, and (2) income tiered EV charging at municipal work sites for EV owners/lessees, reducing energy burden cost on service workers. The scope of work will also include specific recommendations on education and training via the City’s employee training program and through the Public Work’s Department’s

13.8 4
Public Information Officer. Moreover, through the City’s active participation in collaborative networks at all scales (e.g., Central Coast Climate Collaborative, Green Cities California and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network), the approach, methods and deliverables will be accessible to practitioners in the Central Coast and beyond.

6. Project Evaluation
The City’s project administrator and project manager will be responsible for ensuring the desired outcomes of the project are achieved and reported.

The project team recognizes that reflective evaluation will be key to ensuring efficient use of this resource and optimize our success of securing funds for fleet electrification. There are several evaluation milestones the team proposes:

The project team, with Pine Spire, will conduct a scope refinement workshop at the start of the project, assessing the body of work completed to date, gaps, adopted CAP goals, and priorities of the master municipal transportation electrification plan.

The team will conduct an evaluation with the consultant after each task in the project to ensure the team is driving toward efficient and equitable process and outcome. There will be 4 evaluation and course correction opportunities: scope refinement, data request and management, technical and policy analysis, and draft final deliverable review. The project team will invite participation by representatives from the service workers’ union to participate in the policy analysis and development and draft deliverables review.

At the conclusion of the project, the team will report the tracked staff employee in kind labor amount in total for the project, the number and type of fora where presentations were made to other practitioners, and the substance of these 4 evaluations and how course corrections were made to ensure timely completion of the plan.

7. Future Funding and Plans
The City has been successful and stacking and leveraging funding for transportation electrification. One of the outcomes of the plan is a funding strategy that will be implemented after the grant ends. Implementation guidance will be included as part of the final plan deliverable to ensure clarity on roles and expectations.

13.9 5

8. Project Schedule & Budget
June, 2022: Contracting
June, 2022 - May 2023: Project management
July, 2022: Define equity principles and desired outcomes July 2022: Scope refinement
July - August, 2022 Data request and management
August - October, 2022: Technical analysis, policy development and review Oct., 2022 - January 2023: Draft and final products for review July 2022 - February 2023: Fora presentations, Regular check ins including 4 self- evaluations Our team brings many skillsets to this project to enable its rapid completion including deep knowledge of infrastructure, budgets, personnel, code and innovation. This team has worked together and with other staff to deliver the commendable progress made thus far in the transportation electrification transformation. The City will also invite participation from historically under represented employees in the project to gain crucial insight into the equity aspects of our work.

The City’s Climate Action Manager will act as the project administrator, completing grant administration, contracting and reporting. The Climate Action Manager will also review each deliverable and provide feedback, linking into other climate action planning processes.

The City’s Public Works Department’s Facilities and Energy Divisions will act as project manager jointly with the Climate Action Manager, and will be responsible for providing data as requested by Pine Spire, and reviewing all analytical approaches and deliverables.

The budget is a $75,000 lump sum consulting contract to perform the tasks noted above to produce the planning document. The City provides all staff as a grant match valued at $30,000 over the duration of the project.

13.10 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 15, 2021
AGENDA OF: 3/7/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Small Housing Units General Plan, Downtown Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Updates – Single Room Occupancy, Small Ownership Units, and a New Use Called Flexible Density Units (PL) RECOMMENDATION:
1) Resolution amending the General Plan, Downtown Plan, and, in doing so, the Local Coastal Program to reflect the elimination of the Small Ownership Unit use and the addition of the new Flexible Density Unit use.
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code regulating small housing units including replacing Small Ownership Units with Flexible Density Units and making minor clarifying amendments to the Single Room Occupancy regulations. 3) Direct staff to submit the approved ordinance to the Coastal Commission for review following the second reading, should the ordinance be adopted as part of the second reading, as well as the changes to the Downtown Plan and General Plan, as changes to the Local Coastal Program.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz currently has two small housing unit types: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Small Ownership Unit (SOU). SROs are a nationally recognized residential use for the development of small rental units that can have shared facilities like kitchens and bathrooms. These units are historically available for rent as seasonal, transitional, or permanent-supportive housing and the City has seen fairly consistent development of SRO projects over the years.

In 2007, Santa Cruz adopted the SOU Ordinance to allow for the creation of complete, small-size residential units and incentivize their development through a reduced parking ratio and open space requirement, as well as an exemption from General Plan & Zoning Ordinance density maximums. SOU developments must be wholly composed of SOUs, and no more than 50% of those units can be rented. Smaller units are often lower cost and provide an additional housing option to those seeking to live in the City. Chapter 4 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element affirms this notion, indicating that SOUs are intended to create lower-cost market rate housing tailored to lower income residents and small households (pg. 60 and 63).

Yet, over the past 14 years, only two projects have been developed using the SOU ordinance, indicating possible discord between the real estate development market and the regulations that are currently in place. During work on the Housing Blueprint in 2018, the community noted their

14.1 continued interest in small unit development and housing for small households. Ultimately, the City Council directed staff to:
“…review State laws related to efficiency units and compare those with the City’s Small Ownership Unit (SOU) and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to assess whether City Code changes are needed to help promote the production of smaller units and a variety of housing types”.

Staff was fortunate to have an intern (John Jezek) for six months in 2021 to initiate this work, provide detailed research, and help in forming this proposal that seeks to meet the City Council direction.

This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission on October 21, 2021, and the Commission continued the item at that time, electing to form a Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to further discuss the topic. Following deliberations by the Subcommittee, the item was heard by the City Planning Commission during a regularly scheduled public hearing on February 3rd of this year and was recommended for City Council approval.

This report summarizes the potential deficiencies in the existing municipal code, the proposed amendments to address these issues, and the discussion held by the Planning Commission on this topic.

DISCUSSION: SROs and SOUs are distinct housing types and the recommended approach for addressing each is described below.

Single Room Occupancy Units
SROs are a nationally-recognized unit type that has been produced in cities around the country for many decades. Comparing the City of Santa Cruz regulations to other SRO standards identified few differences. SRO units have been produced in reasonable numbers over the past 15 years, indicating that this unit type is functioning effectively in the current Santa Cruz housing market.

Proposed Changes to Clarify Existing SRO regulations
The Planning Commission and staff recommend adding two clarifications to the SRO regulations in order to codify the standard practices applied to these units. The first clarification is to codify a standard explicitly stating that SROs are not subject to any density limitation, and the second is to codify the limitation that SROs are only available for rental housing and cannot be subdivided such that individual units could be sold separately. Both of these requirements are part of current and historical practice, but are not currently explicitly stated in the Municipal Code.

Small Ownership Units
Staff researched regulations for small units throughout the country and while many small unit and micro unit ordinances were identified across the state and country, a unit type directly comparable to Santa Cruz’s SOU ordinance was not identified to use for guidance on potential amendments. Staff then looked at the existing projects approved under the ordinance to try to understand the limitations that might be preventing other proposals from building this housing type. Two primary obstacles were identified:

14.2 1. The requirement that 50% or more of the units be sold to homebuyers and cannot be rented.

2. The prohibition on allowing SOUs to mix with other types of dwelling units.

Along with housing legislation like Density Bonus and parking reductions that provide some incentives by right, the two requirements enumerated above appear to create a limited scope of opportunity for new SOU development, and staff believes these requirements account for the lack of project proposals for SOUs.

One of the options that staff considered for amending the small unit regulations was to simply delete the SOU ordinance. However, there are a few situations in which this change would reduce the amount of housing that could be built because studio and 1-br units have to conform to Zoning Ordinance density standards while SOUs do not (per the 2030 General Plan). Thus, staff did not pursue that option further, nor could they, since the Housing Accountability Act precludes reductions in residential development capacities without a corresponding and simultaneous increase in residential capacity elsewhere. Instead, staff sought to maintain desirable aspects of the SOU ordinance and fix what was discouraging development of the unit type.

Flexible Density Units
Staff recommends replacing SOU with a new use called the Flexible Density Unit (FDU). This proposal would preserve sections of the SOU code that function well and modify other sections to address the limitations mentioned above and re-incentivize the creation of small units. Staff believes that the recommendation to remove the ownership requirement warrants the name change away from SOU. FDU more accurately reflects the flexible nature of the use in that, among other proposed changes, allows for a smaller unit size and allows both ownership and rental units. A matrix comparing SROs, SOUs, and the proposed FDU housing type is included as an attachment (FDU, SOU, and SRO Comparison Matrix).

Proposed SOU Standards to be Maintained
Beyond the two key changes this ordinance proposes, many existing features of SOUs are proposed to be maintained in the transition to FDUs. The current permitted zoning districts, density, open space, parking, storage, and inclusionary standards that apply to SOUs would continue to apply to FDUs. Additional information on these preserved standards is included with the Planning Commission Staff Report included as an attachment (Planning Commission Agenda Report of February 3, 2022).

Proposed SOU Amendments
The proposed ordinance contains the following amendments to implement the change from SOUs to FDUs.

Ownership Structure
In order to promote the production of smaller units, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that FDUs exist within rental or for-sale developments. FDUs can be rented in ownership residential developments either before or after the initial sale of the unit.

14.3 Unit Size
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend lowering the minimum floor area for FDUs from the 400 square feet allowed in the SOU Ordinance to 220 square feet. The maximum square footage of an FDU is proposed to be the same as an SOU (650 square feet). This area allows for a studio, a one bedroom, or even a small two-bedroom unit.

Bedroom limit
Currently, SOUs are limited to a maximum of one bedroom within a maximum unit size of 650 square feet. By proposing to remove the bedroom limit but keep the maximum size, FDUs create the potential for new units to serve a greater variety of incomes and household sizes. A smaller two-bedroom unit could benefit small families, students, and first time buyers alike, given that the market rate of an FDU would likely be lower than a larger market rate unit with the same number of bedrooms and equivalent amenities.

The current limit on bedrooms also means that developers cannot show more than one enclosed bedroom on floor plans, even if other areas such as “dens,” “offices,” or “lounges” are often used as sleeping areas without meeting the building and safety codes for bedrooms, including the requirement for emergency egress. Allowing more than one bedroom in these units means that areas intended for sleeping can be designed and inspected as such, creating a higher quality of housing.

Minimum Number of Dwelling Units
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that a development project must contain at least three dwelling units in order to qualify for use of FDUs. This requirement ensures that FDUs are used in the context of multi-family housing development and are not pursued as a stand-alone housing unit in the four zone districts where FDUs would be allowed.

Ability to Mix with Other Unit Types
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend allowing FDUs to mix with other unit types.

The proposal to allow FDUs to mix with other unit types came from a desire to be responsive to community concerns around creating “monocultures” of unit types and moving towards policies that allow for a greater mix of household types, sizes, and price ranges in new housing development. This change would allow developers to produce a greater variety of housing types even within a single development to create more housing options for more income levels as well as more opportunities for residents to age in place.

Like SOUs, FDUs would not have to meet density requirements but would still be limited by other zoning standards for setbacks, floor area ratio, parking, height, and open space. For example, a development project could contain larger units up to the maximum density allowed and then add FDUs, so long as all of the other site standards allow it. This development approach would still result in a lower density development than a stand-alone SOU or SRO project under current regulations but a slightly higher density than would be allowed in those situations. Staff believes that this creative feature of the proposal could make housing development in commercial zones more feasible based on the mix of unit sizes and will encourage the creation of small housing units and mixed-income development.

FDUs are only allowed in commercial districts zoned: C-C, CBD, CBD-E, and R-T(C) (see the attachment “Map of Proposed FDU Zone Districts”). These districts are where employment, entertainment, and daily needs are in close proximity, so increased housing production in these

14.4 areas would meet several other General Plan and City policy objectives, such as improving walkability, creating opportunities for active transportation, and encouraging transit use.

Mixed-use Requirement
Three out of four zoning districts where SOUs are currently allowed represent the commercial core of the City in the Downtown and Beach area. City staff and the Planning Commission recommend that development proposals containing FDUs in the R-T(C) (Beach area), CBD (Downtown), and CBD-E (Downtown, south of Laurel) zoning districts be required to include a ground floor commercial component in order to maintain commercial capacity and to strengthen existing walkable environments via neighborhood amenities. In the C-C zone district, however, staff is proposing that mixed-use be allowed but not required with FDU development because existing standards can allow for stand-alone residential development, and because the C-C zone district only allows mixed-use on parcels over 8,000 square feet.

Shared Laundry Facilities
The proposed amendments would require on-site laundry facilities in response to a community concern that residents with disabilities or lack of private transportation might find it hard to access an off-site laundromat. The proposed standards for the laundry facilities are based on the existing requirements for SRO laundry facilities.

Proposed General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments
This proposal also includes minor amendments to the Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan and the Downtown Plan. The amendments would only change terminology from ‘Small Ownership Unit’ to ‘Flexible Density Unit’ and make no other changes.

Community Outreach
Staff conducted two outreach events in developing the proposed ordinance. On September 29, 2021, staff invited local developers and lenders to a focus group in order to gather feedback on the proposal for FDUs. Participants expressed interest in allowing FDU developments to be fully rented.

Next, staff hosted a public workshop on October 5, 2021, in order to explain the proposed changes to small units as well as to gather feedback from the broader community. Two participants voiced concerns about the low ratio of one parking space per FDU and shared concerns about the cost of these units for potential purchasers or renters. A few attendees wondered whether parking should be required at all for FDUs given that the units are only permitted in commercial and mixed-use residential areas. The level of building amenities was also raised as a concern. Staff incorporated laundry facility requirements into the proposal based on community comments.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission (Commission) continued the item at its October 21, 2021 hearing and voted to form a subcommittee to discuss the item. More information on the subcommittee’s recommendations is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report for the public hearing held on February 3, 2022. Public correspondence was received at both meetings and is included as an attachment (Public Correspondence). At that February 3, 2022 hearing, following a presentation by staff, the Commissioners heard testimony from three members of the public and then began deliberations. The Commission was unanimously supportive of all aspects of the

14.5 proposal except allowing FDUs to mix with other sizes and types of housing. The merits of moving to mixed residential unit types in the commercial core of the City were weighed against the more conservative approach of retaining the prohibition on mixing unit types. Ultimately, the Commission voted 4-3 in favor of the current proposal with the mixing of unit types, citing that the approach better supports the production of housing and allows for more mixed-income residential opportunities. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Downtown Plan were also included in the Commission’s recommendation for approval.

Next Steps
Following Council consideration of the proposed ordinance, if approved the ordinance will be brought back for a second reading at the next available regularly scheduled public hearing. If approved by the City Council the ordinance would become effective outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after the final approval. Because portions of the proposed ordinance are part of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, Coastal Commission approval will be required prior to the ordinance taking effect inside the Coastal Zone. Planning Staff will submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission for review following final approval by the City Council.

Local Coastal Program Consistency
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the tool used by the City and the Coastal Commission to effectively regulate development activities within the Coastal Zone. The proposed ordinance adds the FDU unit type to the list of allowed uses within the four identified zone districts, and it makes no change to the parking ratio that would be required or to the location, size, or design of the buildings in which FDUs might be included. Because SROs are allowed to be smaller and denser than FDUs and because these units are already permitted by the LCP in these areas, staff concludes that the proposed ordinance will have no physical effect on the size or type of development permitted within the Coastal Zone.

Health in All Policies
In 2019, the City adopted a Health in All Policies strategy in order to eliminate inequities in health and well-being and attain equity for all residents. The proposed amendment package supports the City’s Health in All Policies strategy as the intent of the proposal is to support creation of a wider variety of housing options that can support small households with more modest incomes, promoting more equitable access to housing. The proposal would serve to support development of dense housing in areas of the City with a mix of employment, housing, retail, and entertainment uses, thus promoting a sustainable development pattern and making efficient use of urbanized land. This land use pattern also encourages active transportation, which promotes personal health. By incentivizing a variety of new housing opportunities that meet residents’ needs, this proposal supports the social, economic, and environmental health of the community.

Environmental Review
The zoning code amendment falls within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR using the existing zoning and General Plan. The proposed amendment would not result in increased densities or intensification of uses because FDU developments would be permitted only in zoning districts that already allow Small Ownership Units (SOUs) or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments of equal or greater intensity.

FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of these amendments varies given their indirect impact on the development of housing. The goal of this proposal is to provide support for housing production. New and denser housing can create greater demand for City services, which can

14.6 create a negative fiscal impact over the long term, given Proposition 13 property tax implications. The services associated with the increased demand will be located in central areas that are already well-served, so that will have lower costs to the City as compared to development in the periphery of the City. Development fees are collected to cover short term permit processing and inspection service demands, as well as some capital improvements, such as those associated with Transportation Impact Fees.

Submitted by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Reviewed by:

Lee Butler
Deputy City Manager
Approved by:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution adopting proposed General Plan Amendments 2) Resolution adopting proposed Downtown Plan Amendments 3) Proposed Small Housing Units General Plan Amendments, Strikeout Version 4) Proposed Small Housing Units Downtown Plan Amendments, Strikeout Version 5) Proposed Small Housing Units Ordinance Amendments
6) Proposed Small Housing Units Ordinance Amendments, Strikeout Version 7) FDU, SOU, and SRO Comparison Matrix
8) Map of Proposed FDU Zone Districts
9) Planning Commission Agenda Report of February 3, 2022 10) Public Correspondence

14.7 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN 2030 BY DELETING REFERENCES TO SMALL

OWNERSHIP UNITS AND ADDING REFERENCES TO FLEXIBLE DENSITY UNITS WHEREAS, the City adopted the General Plan 2030 by Resolution No. NS-28, 527 on June 26, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public meeting on February 3, 2022 and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to terminology in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 8, 2022, and now finds:

1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.

2. The proposed amendment to terminology is consistent and compatible with the rest of the adopted 2030 General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. The terminology amendment is consistent with the Land Use Element since no land use amendments will be necessary. The proposed terminology is also consistent with the Environmental Quality Element and Circulation Element.

3. The potential impacts of the terminology amendment have been assessed and have been determined to not to be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.

4. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed change in terminology will not affect the analysis conducted as part of the initial General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report adopted June 26, 2012 and all addenda there to.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that with respect to the environmental review of the amendment to terminology that there is no substantial evidence that the amendment will have a significant effect upon the environment; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, that it hereby adopts the amendment to terminology deleting Small Ownership Units and adding Flexible Density Units, as shown below.

Chapter 4: Land Use

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS
Cities need to accommodate a variety of land uses if they are to provide for all of their community’s needs. For example, Santa Cruz requires a variety of housing types, including single-room occupancy (SRO) units and Flexible Density Units (FDUs) for students and single adults, as well as homes, apartments, and co-housing projects that accommodate larger households. These “places to live” must be arranged in some fashion in relation to other parts of the community. Residents need access to parks, open space, and other places where they can relax and socialize. They also need stores nearby so that they don’t have to drive across town to do laundry or buy a few groceries. Many residents also desire community gardens so they can

14.8 become more self-sustaining by growing some of their own food. These desires and basic needs are relevant to the city’s remaining undeveloped lands as well as its existing residential neighborhoods, most of which lack at least some of these amenities.

LU3.8 Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter:

Cf. LU1.3 and 3.7.1.
 Single-room occupancy (SRO) units;
 Flexible density units (FDU);
 Small studio and one-bedroom units;
 Accessory dwelling units (ADU);
 Density bonus units; and Residential uses within areas designated High-Density Overlay District (HD-O).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

14.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING

THE DOWNTOWN PLAN TO AMEND TERMINOLOGY REFERRING TO SMALL

HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AREA
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Downtown Recovery Plan, a specific plan, by Resolution NS-20-084 on September 10, 1991, and adopted subsequent modifications to the plan in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2016, 2017, and 2020; and WHEREAS, the City desires to modify the Downtown Plan to delete the references to Small Ownership Units (SOUs) and replace them with references to Flexible Density Units (FDUs); and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3, 2022, and found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered with the adoption of the Downtown Plan amendments; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designation set forth in the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 8, 2022 and now finds:

1. That the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered with the amendments to the Downtown Plan; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designation set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Downtown Plan specific plan.

2. The proposed Downtown Plan amendments are determined to be in the public interest.

3. The proposed Downtown Plan amendments are consistent and compatible with the all elements of the adopted General Plan 2030 and associated implementation programs.

4. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential impacts of the proposed amendments have been assessed and have been determined to not to be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare and are consistent with the Downtown Plan Final Environmental Impact Report certified by City Council by Resolution NS-29,324 on November 14, 2017.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the referenced Downtown Plan amendments dated March 8, 2022 are adopted and will become effective thirty days after the associated Zoning Ordinance amendments are adopted by the City Council, except within the Coastal Zone, where the amendments will become effective upon final certification by the California Coastal Commission.

14.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

14.11 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
3 Section 1.b through Section 3.b remain unchanged.

TABLE 4-1: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Ground Floor (Street Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit
S = Special Use Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front
Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North
Pacific
Additional Regulations
Residential
Community Care Residential Facility — — P/A — (1)
Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse A A A A (2)
Dwellings, One-Family & Two-Family — — P — (2)
Dwellings, Flexible Density Unit
Housing
A A A A (2)
Dwellings, SRO Single Room
Occupancy Housing
A A A A (2)
Family Day Care Homes, Small — P P P (1)
Family Day Care Homes, Large A A A A (1)
Supportive and Transitional Housing A A A A (1)
Commercial (3)
Banks and Financial Institutions A P A P (4)
Business Support Services A P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
- Bar, Tavern A A S A (5)
- Brewpubs A A A A (5)
- Bona Fide Restaurant P P P P (5)
- Tasting Rooms A A A A
- Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries A A A A (6)
General Market P/A P/A P/A P/A (7)
Hotels / Motels A P A P (8)
Instructional Services
- Schools, Business and Technical
A A A A (9)
Live/Work Quarters A A A A (10)
Nightclubs and Live Entertainment S S S S (11)
Offices, Professional A A A P (12)
Parking Facilities, Surface and
Structured
A A A A (13)
Personal Services
- General Personal Services A A A P (14)
- Health/Fitness Studio A A A A (15)
Retail Sales P/A P/A P/A P/A (7), (16)

14.12 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
4 TABLE 4-1: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Ground Floor (Street Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit
S = Special Use Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front
Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North
Pacific
Additional Regulations
Theaters/Commercial Entertainment P P S P
Thrift Stores/Pawn Shops S S S S (17)
Institutional and Community Facilities (3)
Community/Religious Assembly A A A A
Day Care Centers A A A A
Government Buildings P P P P
Medical Centers and Clinics A A A A (12)
Museums/Galleries/Cultural Institutions A A A A (18)
Social Service Centers A A A A
Other Similar Uses as Determined by
the Zoning Administrator to be
consistent with the purpose of the
subdistrict

P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S
TABLE 4-2: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Upper Floors (Includes Riverwalk Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit
S = Special Use Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front
Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North
Pacific
Additional Regulations
Residential
Community Care Residential Facility — — P/A — (1)
Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse A A A A (2)
Dwellings, One-Family & Two-Family — — P — (2)
Dwellings, Flexible Density Unit
Housing
A A A A (2)
Dwellings, SRO Single Room
Occupancy Housing
A A A A (2)
Family Day Care Homes, Small — P P P (1)
Family Day Care Homes, Large A A A A (1)
Supportive and Transitional Housing A A A A (1)
Commercial
Banks and Financial Institutions A P A P

14.13 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
5 TABLE 4-2: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Upper Floors (Includes Riverwalk Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit
S = Special Use Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front
Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North
Pacific
Additional Regulations
Business Support Services A P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
- Bar, Tavern A A S A (3)
- Brewpubs A A A A (3)
- Bona Fide Restaurant P P P P (3)
- Tasting Rooms A A A A (3)
- Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries A A A A (6)
General Market P P P P
Hotels/Motels A P A P (4)
Instructional Services
- Schools, Business and Technical
A A A A (5)
Live/Work Quarters A A A A
Nightclubs and Live Entertainment S S S S (7)
Offices, Professional P P P P (8)
Parking Facilities, Surface and
Structured
A A A A (9)
Personal Services
- General Personal Services P P P P
- Health/Fitness Studio A A A A (10)
Retail Sales P P P P (11)
Theaters/Commercial Entertainment P P S P
Thrift Stores/Pawn Shops S S S S
Institutional and Community Facilities (3)
Community/Religious Assembly A A A A
Day Care Centers A A A A
Government Buildings P P P P
Medical Centers and Clinics A A A A (8)
Museums/Galleries/Cultural Institutions A A A A (12)
Communication Facilities P P P P (13)
Industrial and Other
Artist Studio A A A A
Bakery, microbrewery, handicrafts or
similar light manufacturing and
assembly use associated with retail
sales/services

A A A A

14.14 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
6 TABLE 4-2: Central Business Districts Use Allowances — Upper Floors (Includes Riverwalk Level) P = Principally Permitted
A = Administrative Use Permit
S = Special Use Permit
“—” = Not Permitted
Use Categories Pacific
Avenue
Retail
Front
Street
Riverfront
Cedar
Street
Village
North
Pacific
Additional Regulations
Other Similar Uses as Determined by
the Zoning Administrator to be
consistent with the purpose of the
subdistrict

P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S P/A/S
The remainder of the Downtown Plan remains the same.

14.15 Proposed General Plan Text Amendments, Strikeout
Chapter 4: Land Use
Complete neighborhoods
Cities need to accommodate a variety of land uses if they are to provide for all of their community’s needs. For example, Santa Cruz requires a variety of housing types, including single-room occupancy (SRO) units and small ownership units (SOUs) Flexible Density Units (FDUs) for students and single adults, as well as homes, apartments, and co-housing projects that accommodate larger households
LU3.8 Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Cf. LU1.3 and 3.7.1.
 Single-room occupancy (SRO) units;
 Small ownership units (SOU); Flexible density units (FDU);  Small studio and one-bedroom units;
 Accessory dwelling units (ADU);
 Density bonus units; and Residential uses within areas designated High-Density Overlay District (HD-O).

14.16 Proposed Downtown Plan Text Amendments, Strikeout

Page 36 ends

Use Categories
Residential
Community Care Residential Facility
Dwellings, Multiple and Townhouse
Dwellings, One-Family & Two-Family
Dwellings, Small Ownership Housing Flexible Density Unit Housing Dwellings, SRO Single Room Occupancy Housing
Family Day Care Homes, Small
Family Day Care Homes, Large
Supportive and Transitional Housing

Page 43 ends

14.17 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTERS 21.06, 24.10,

24.12, AND 24.22 OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE AND LOCAL

COASTAL PROGRAM TO CLARIFY CERTAIN REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-ROOM

OCCUPANCY UNITS AND AMEND REGULATIONS FOR SMALL OWNERSHIP UNITS BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 21.06.020 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

21.06.020 DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases are defined as follows:

A. “Building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances” shall refer to the current adopted codes specified in Title 18, the California Fire Code and International Fire Code, all as modified, adopted and codified in this code. The phrase “building, housing and sanitation codes or ordinances” shall also refer to the city of Santa Cruz zoning ordinance as codified at Title 24, the city of Santa Cruz subdivision ordinance as codified at Title 23, and all provisions of California statutory law and this code pertaining to property-related sanitation, health, safety and nuisance, as well as state regulations promulgated pursuant to California statutory law, for which the city has enforcement authority.

B. “Director” shall refer to the city’s director of planning and community development.

C. “Owner” shall mean any person who owns one or more residential rental dwelling units.

D. “Person” means and includes any individual, partnership of any kind, corporation, limited liability company, association, joint venture or other organization or entity, however formed, as well as trustees, heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, or any combination of such persons.

The terms “person,” “owner,” “operator,” and “landlord” may herein be used interchangeably.

E. “Residential rental dwelling unit” shall mean a building or portion of a building that is rented or leased to tenants for residential purposes on a nontransient basis (when one or more tenants reside on the property or rent or lease the property for thirty consecutive days or longer) and which is owned in whole or in part by a landlord. This shall include but not be limited to single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, townhouse dwellings, condominiums, boarding houses, lodging houses, rooming houses, single room occupancy units, flexible density units, hotel and motel units, sober living facilities, fraternities, sororities, and dormitories in the city of Santa Cruz.

14.18 Section 2. Section 24.10.620 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Part 7C: R-T(C) SUBDISTRICT C – BEACH COMMERCIAL

24.10.620 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.
(1) The following uses require an administrative use permit and design permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
(a) Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to provisions of Section 24.12.140;
(b) Acting/art/music/dance/studios/schools (610);
(c) Apparel and accessory stores (250);
(d) Churches (500);
(e) Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570); (f) Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (240B); (g) Developed parks (710);
(h) Undeveloped parks and open space (700);
(i) Eating and drinking establishments (except bars and fast-food restaurants) subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280); (j) Educational facilities (public/private) (510);
(k) Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (15 units or fewer) as part of a mixed-use project;
(l) General merchandise stores (drug and department stores) (230); (m) Government and public agencies (530);
(n) Home furnishings (270);
(o) Large family daycare homes (no design permit required unless otherwise required as a result of a structural modification to the residence);

14.19 (p) Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (240B); (q) Mixed residential, and commercial developments when multiple family units are located above first floor of commercial uses, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830);
(r) Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups and condominiums (three to nine units) subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830); (s) Museum and art galleries (600);
(t) Professional offices associated with a visitor-serving use (400); (u) Repairs, alterations, maintenance services to household items (except boat repair) (340);
(v) Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, fifteen units or fewer (860); (w) Specialty retail supply stores (290);
(x) Supportive and transitional housing (three to nine units) subject to the R-T(A) District regulations;
(y) Temporary structures and uses;
(z) Video rental (360B);
(aa) Sports and recreation facilities, without alcohol sales (720); (bb) Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 15.
(2) The following uses require a special use permit and design permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
(a) Bars/taverns subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (280C); (b) Communication and information (550);
(c) Duplexes (810);
(d) Educational facilities (public/private) (510);

14.20 (e) Fast-food restaurants subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (280H); (f) Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);
(g) Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (16 units or more) as part of a mixed-use project; (h) Marine facilities and related uses (560E):
(i) Related research facilities (400L);
(ii) Related storage and warehousing (330);
(iii) Fish/seafood wholesale sales (200F);
(i) Medical/health offices (410);
(j) Mixed residential and commercial developments with noncommercial uses on the ground floor, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830); (k) Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups and condominiums ten units or more subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (840);
(l) Nightclubs/music halls, subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (630);
(m) Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); n) Personal services (except contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310); (o) Professional offices (400), except as associated with a visitor-serving use; (p) Single-family residences if lot size does not allow multifamily development (800); (q) Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, sixteen units or more (860); (r) Sports and recreation facilities subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (720);
(s) Supportive and transitional housing, ten or more units subject to the R-T(A) District regulations;
(t) Theaters (620);
(u) Triplexes (820);
(v) Utilities and resources (540).

14.21 Section 3. Section 24.10.730 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Part 8: C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

24.10.730 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses require an administrative use permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the municipal code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to provisions of Section 24.12.140;
b. Ambulance services (410B);
c. Auto services and repair subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.900 (350); d. Bakery, handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly uses associated with retail sales if floor area is less than seven thousand square feet and retail sale or service area occupies at least thirty percent of the floor area; e. Brewpubs and microbreweries, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12;
f. Boat repairs (340D);
g. Building materials/garden supplies (220);
h. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;
i. Churches (500);
j. Communication and information services (550);
k. Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570); l. Developed parks (710);
m. Educational facilities (public/private) (510);

14.22 n. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.290, and subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280H);
o. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing, 15 units or fewer; p. Foster family homes;
q. Government and public agencies (530);
r. Lodging (300);
s. Mixed residential and commercial/office developments involving permitted or administrative uses on the ground floor and from three to nine multiple dwellings or condominiums above the first floor;
t. Motor vehicle dealers and supplies (260);
u. Multiple dwellings or condominiums, three to nine units subject to the minimum (net) land area per dwelling unit of the R-M District (830);
v. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); w. Recycling collection facilities;
x. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, fifteen units or fewer (860); y. Tasting rooms, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; z. Temporary structures and uses;
aa. Thrift stores (290m);
bb. Undeveloped parks and open space (700);
cc. Utilities and resources (540);
dd. Veterinarians (410A);
ee. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12.

14.23 Management provisions (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Bar and cocktail lounges subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Carpenter, electrical, plumbing, heating, and furniture upholstery shops; c. Community care facilities;
d. Large family daycare;
e. Contractor/building (310E);
f. Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B); g. Fabricated metal products (manufacturing) (150);
h. Fabricated wire products (manufacturing) (155A);
i. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing, 16 units or more; j. Food and beverage preparation (manufacturing) (100); k. Furniture and fixtures (manufacturing) (120);
l. Hospitals (520);
m. Laboratory research experimentation, testing, software development; n. Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; o. Local/interurban passenger transit (bus, cab) (560B); p. Millwork, textile products, knit goods, woven fabrics, clothing (manufacturing) (105); q. Mixed residential and commercial/office developments, with ten or more multiple dwellings or condominiums, either above commercial uses or units on the same lot (840); r. Multiple dwellings and condominiums, ten or more units subject to the minimum land area (net) per dwelling unit of the R-M District (840); s. Mortuaries (310I);

14.24 t. Motion picture production (manufacturing) (155E); u. Nightclubs/music halls subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (630);
v. Rental services (360);
w. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing sixteen units or more (860); x. Solar equipment (manufacturing) (155C);
y. Sports recreation facilities, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
z. Stone, clay, glass products (manufacturing) (140);
aa. Storage and warehouse when connected with permitted use (330); bb. Wholesale trade (nondurable goods) (200):
(a) Bakery,
(b) Confectionery,
(c) Dairy,
(d) Health foods;
cc. Wholesale trade (durable goods) (210):
(a) Paper products and related (210E),
(b) Special equipment (machine supply) (210F);
dd. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

Section 4. Section 24.10.2370 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Part 24(A): CBD SUBDISTRICT E – LOWER PACIFIC AVENUE

24.10.2370 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit in the Lower Pacific Avenue Subdistrict and possibly other requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical

14.25 references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s Land Use Codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the Land Use Codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Auto supply stores (260C);
b. Bakery, micro-brewery (subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12), handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly uses associated with retail sales, if floor area is less than seven thousand square feet and retail sale or service area occupies at least thirty percent of the floor area;
c. Brew pubs, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; d. Churches (500);
e. Communication and information services (550);
f. Community organizations, associations, clubs, and meeting halls (570); g. Developed parks (710);
h. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.14.290 and subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 and Section 24.14.290 (280H);
i. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);
j. Financial services (320);
k. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (15 units or less) as part of a mixed-use project; l. Foster family homes;
m. Government and public agencies (530);
n. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians and ambulance services) (410); o. Off-site public/private parking facilities (930);
p. Professional offices (400);
q. Professional/personal services (except contractors yards and mortuaries) (310); r. Recycling collection facilities;

14.26 s. Sports, recreation and entertainment facilities subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
t. Temporary structures and uses;
u. Utilities and resources (540);
v. Veterinarians (410A);
w. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and design permit in the Lower Pacific Avenue Subdistrict and possibly other requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s Land Use Codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the Land Use Codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Bar and cocktail lounges, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Community care facilities;
c. Community care residential facilities;
d. Contractor/building (310E);
e. Convenience/liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations of Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B);
f. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (16 units or more) as part of a mixed-use project; g. Night clubs (amplified live entertainment), subject to alcohol regulations of Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (630);
h. Single-room occupancy (SRO) (860);
i. General retail merchandise (drug and department stores) exceeding sixteen thousand square feet (230);
j. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

Section 5. Section 24.12.240, Subsection s. Residential Uses, of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.27 24.12.240 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

Number of Bedrooms
Type Efficiency 1 2+
Single-family (including
townhouses), houseboat,
duplex, triplex, multiple
mobilehomes, community
housing projects, other
multifamily dwelling units

1.0 1.0 2.0
Community housing projects,
townhouses, and multifamily
projects of 5 units or more
In addition to meeting above residential parking
requirements, guest parking spaces shall be
provided at a rate 10% of the above standards.

Fractional spaces will be rounded up to the next
whole number.

Lodging, rooming houses and
bed-and-breakfast inns
2 spaces, plus 1 for each bedroom that is rented
Residence halls, dormitories 0.75 space for each guest or occupant Senior housing development 1 for each 3 dwelling units or rooms intended for separate occupancy, plus an area of land equal to
the required off-street parking for multifamily
units, not including required open space, which
could be converted to parking should the retirement
center change to a multifamily residential use
Flexible Density unit (FDU) 1 space for each dwelling unit Single-room occupancy
dwelling unit, less than 300
square feet

0.75 for each dwelling unit
Single-room occupancy
dwelling unit, 300 square feet
or more
1 for each dwelling unit
Accessory dwelling unit The parking standards for accessory dwelling units are as follows (these standards do not affect the
amount of required parking for the primary
residence):

Outside the coastal zone, no off-street parking shall
be required for an ADU and spaces removed to
accommodate an ADU will not require
replacement.

On parcels located inside the coastal zone and
within the designated areas shown in the LCP
Figure “ADU Parking Required” (which follows
this table), at least one off-street parking space shall be required for each ADU, and all off-street
parking requirements associated with all other
residential uses at the site shall be met on site,

14.28 including replacement parking spaces if any are
removed to accommodate an ADU.

On parcels located inside the coastal zone but not
within the designated areas shown in LCP Figure
“ADU Parking Required” (which follows this
table), zero parking spaces shall be required for
each ADU. When a garage, carport, or covered
parking structure is demolished in conjunction with
the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or
converted to an accessory dwelling unit, those offstreet parking spaces are not required to be replaced. If other parking areas on a site (e.g., a
driveway or other nonstructural parking area) are
removed to provide for an ADU, off-street
replacement parking spaces shall be required for
the primary (non-ADU) residential use.

Section 6. Section 24.12.1050 is hereby added to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to read as follows:

24.12.1050 PROGRAM STANDARDS.

1. SRO units shall comply with the underlying development standards of the zoning district in which they are located, except that requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not apply to SRO units.

2. SRO units shall not be subdivided or individually sold.

Section 7. Part 16 of Chapter 24.12 (Community Design) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Part 16: FLEXIBLE DENSITY UNIT HOUSING

24.12.1500 PURPOSE.

The purpose of these regulations is to provide additional options for housing by producing incentives for the development of reduced size dwelling units, defined as Flexible Density Units (FDU). This unit type encourages developers to create a community where a variety of income levels and household sizes interact.

24.12.1510 DEFINITION.
“Flexible Density Unit” or “FDU” is a dwelling unit ranging from two hundred twenty to six hundred fifty square feet that is exempt from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance density standards. Developments including this unit type may consist solely of FDUs or include other residential units.

14.29 24.12.1520 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

1. Density. FDU units shall comply with the underlying development standards of the zoning district in which they are located, except that requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not apply to FDU units.

2. Unit Size. The floor area of FDU units may range from a minimum of two hundred twenty square feet to a maximum of six hundred fifty square feet.

3. Minimum Dwelling Units Requirement. Residential or mixed-use projects shall contain at least three dwelling units to qualify for use of the FDU unit type. FDU units can count towards this requirement.

4. Open Space. FDU units shall comply with the underlying development standards of the zoning district in which they are located, except that requirements for minimum open space per dwelling unit shall not apply to FDU units. In lieu of the district regulations for open space, minimum usable open space per dwelling unit for FDU units shall be defined by Section

24.12.1530.

5. Storage Facilities. All FDU units shall have access to private usable storage space containing a minimum of two hundred cubic feet. The required storage space may be incorporated into private garages or carports; provided, that the garage or carport has adequate space for a vehicle, as required by Part 3, Chapter 24.12.

6. Bicycle Parking. One Class 1 bicycle storage facility shall be provided for each FDU unit.

The required private usable storage space provided for each FDU unit may be utilized to meet this requirement.

7. Covered Parking. Covered parking is not required.

8. Zoning. In addition to the permitted land use districts in Chapter 24.10, FDUs shall be permitted in the Central Business District (CBD) pursuant to the Development Standards and Design Guidelines section of the Downtown Plan.

24.12.1530 OPEN AND COMMON SPACE.

1. Residential or mixed-use projects containing FDUs shall contain at least one hundred fifty square feet of usable open space per FDU unit. This requirement may be met by any combination of private space, outdoor open space, or indoor common space.

2. Residential or mixed-use projects containing FDUs shall require a minimum of two hundred square feet of outdoor open space and two hundred square feet of indoor common space.

Maintenance areas, laundry facilities, storage (including bicycle storage), and common hallways shall not be included as usable indoor common space. Landscape areas that are less than ten feet wide shall not be included as outdoor open space.

14.30 3. Outdoor open spaces and indoor common spaces shall be designed to accommodate appropriate furnishings and shall be furnished for use by residents. Appropriate furnishings for indoor common space may include such items as lounge chair(s) and/or couch(es), table(s) with chairs, writing desk(s), and television(s). Appropriate furnishings for outdoor open spaces may include such items as outdoor bench(es), table(s) with chairs, barbecue(s), and shade umbrella(s).

4. In any residential or mixed use development containing FDUs, common laundry facilities shall be provided on site at the rate of one washer and one dryer per ten residential units that do not contain both a washer and a dryer. Fractional ratios shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

5. Laundry facilities that have a minimum of two washers and two dryers must be provided in a separate room.

Section 8. Section 24.22.362 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added and shall read as follows:

24.22.362 FLEXIBLE DENSITY UNIT (FDU)
“Flexible Density Unit” or “FDU” is a dwelling unit ranging from two hundred twenty to six hundred fifty square feet that is exempt from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance density standards. Developments including this unit type may consist solely of FDUs or include other residential units.

Section 9. Section 24.22.748.1 (Small Ownership Unit(SOU)) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby deleted:

24.22.748.1 SMALL OWNERSHIP UNITY (SOU).

A dwelling unit containing no more than one bedroom and a floor area ranging from four hundred to six hundred fifty square feet, located on a separate subdivided parcel and included in a residential development where all dwelling units are SOU units and are offered for sale to the general public.

Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption for areas of the City outside the Coastal Zone, and shall take effect and be in force upon certification by the California Coastal Commission for areas of the City located inside the Coastal Zone.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 8th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

14.31 APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this __th day of March, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ___________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above
and foregoing document is the
original of Ordinance No. 2022-___________
and that it has been published or
posted in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Santa Cruz.
___________________________
City Clerk Administrator

14.32 1

21.06.020 DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases are defined as follows:

B. “Director” shall refer to the city’s director of planning and community development.

C. “Owner” shall mean any person who owns one or more residential rental dwelling units.

E. “Residential rental dwelling unit” shall mean a building or portion of a building that is rented or leased to tenants for residential purposes on a nontransient basis (when one or more tenants reside on the property or rent or lease the property for thirty consecutive days or longer) and which is owned in whole or in part by a landlord. This shall include but not be limited to single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, townhouse dwellings, condominiums, boarding houses, lodging houses, rooming houses, single room occupancy units, small ownership units flexible density units, hotel and motel units, sober living facilities, fraternities, sororities, and dormitories in the city of Santa Cruz.

Part 7C: R-T(C) SUBDISTRICT C – BEACH COMMERCIAL

14.33 2
(d) Churches (500);
(e) Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570); (f) Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (240B); (g) Developed parks (710);
(h) Undeveloped parks and open space (700);
(i) Eating and drinking establishments (except bars and fast-food restaurants) subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280); (j) Educational facilities (public/private) (510);
(k) Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (15 units or fewer) as part of a mixed-use project; (k l) General merchandise stores (drug and department stores) (230); (l m) Government and public agencies (530);
(m n) Home furnishings (270);
(n o) Large family daycare homes (no design permit required unless otherwise required as a result of a structural modification to the residence);
(o p) Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (240B); (p q) Mixed residential, and commercial developments when multiple family units are located above first floor of commercial uses, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830); (q r) Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups and condominiums (three to nine units) subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830);
(r s) Museum and art galleries (600);
(s t) Professional offices associated with a visitor-serving use (400); (t u) Repairs, alterations, maintenance services to household items (except boat repair) (340);
(u v) Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, fifteen units or fewer (860); (v w) Specialty retail supply stores (290);
(w x) Supportive and transitional housing (three to nine units) subject to the R-T(A) District regulations;

14.34 3
(x y) Temporary structures and uses;
(y z) Video rental (360B);
(z aa) Sports and recreation facilities, without alcohol sales (720); (aa bb) Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 15.
(2) The following uses require a special use permit and design permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
(a) Bars/taverns subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (280C); (b) Communication and information (550);
(c) Duplexes (810);
(d) Educational facilities (public/private) (510);
(e) Fast-food restaurants subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (280H); (f) Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);
(g) Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (16 units or more) as part of a mixed-use project; (g h) Marine facilities and related uses (560E):
(i) Related research facilities (400L);
(ii) Related storage and warehousing (330);
(iii) Fish/seafood wholesale sales (200F);
(h i) Medical/health offices (410);
(I j) Mixed residential and commercial developments with noncommercial uses on the ground floor, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (830); (j k) Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups and condominiums ten units or more subject to the R-T(A) District regulations (840);

14.35 4
(k l) Nightclubs/music halls, subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (630);
(l m) Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); (m n) Personal services (except contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310); (n o) Professional offices (400), except as associated with a visitor-serving use; (o p) Single-family residences if lot size does not allow multifamily development (800); (p q) Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, sixteen units or more (860); (q r) Sports and recreation facilities subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (720);
(r s) Supportive and transitional housing, ten or more units subject to the R-T(A) District regulations;
(s t) Theaters (620);
(t u) Triplexes (820);
(u v) Utilities and resources (540).

Part 8: C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

24.10.730 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

14.36 5
e. Brewpubs and microbreweries, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; f. Boat repairs (340D);
g. Building materials/garden supplies (220);
h. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12; i. Churches (500);
j. Communication and information services (550);
k. Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570); l. Developed parks (710);
m. Educational facilities (public/private) (510);
n. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.290, and subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280H);
o. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing, 15 units or fewer; o p. Foster family homes;
p q. Government and public agencies (530);
q r. Lodging (300);
r s. Mixed residential and commercial/office developments involving permitted or administrative uses on the ground floor and from three to nine multiple dwellings or condominiums above the first floor;
s t. Motor vehicle dealers and supplies (260);
t u. Multiple dwellings or condominiums, three to nine units subject to the minimum (net) land area per dwelling unit of the R-M District (830);
u v. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); v w. Recycling collection facilities;
w x. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, fifteen units or fewer (860); x y. Tasting rooms, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; y z. Temporary structures and uses;

14.37 6
z aa. Thrift stores (290m);
aa bb. Undeveloped parks and open space (700);
bb cc. Utilities and resources (540);
cc dd. Veterinarians (410A);
dd ee. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12.

2. The following uses require a special use permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the municipal code. All industrial classifications from 100 to 155 shall be limited to operations that occupy less than five thousand square feet of floor area and shall comply with all performance standards listed in Part 2 of the Environmental Resource Management provisions (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Bar and cocktail lounges subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Carpenter, electrical, plumbing, heating, and furniture upholstery shops; c. Community care facilities;
d. Large family daycare;
e. Contractor/building (310E);
f. Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B); g. Fabricated metal products (manufacturing) (150);
h. Fabricated wire products (manufacturing) (155A);
i. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing, 16 units or more; i j. Food and beverage preparation (manufacturing) (100); j k. Furniture and fixtures (manufacturing) (120);
k l. Hospitals (520);
l m. Laboratory research experimentation, testing, software development;

14.38 7
m n. Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; n o. Local/interurban passenger transit (bus, cab) (560B); o p. Millwork, textile products, knit goods, woven fabrics, clothing (manufacturing) (105); p q. Mixed residential and commercial/office developments, with ten or more multiple dwellings or condominiums, either above commercial uses or units on the same lot (840); q r. Multiple dwellings and condominiums, ten or more units subject to the minimum land area (net) per dwelling unit of the R-M District (840); r s. Mortuaries (310I);
s t. Motion picture production (manufacturing) (155E);
t u. Nightclubs/music halls subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (630);
u v. Rental services (360);
v w. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing sixteen units or more (860); w x. Solar equipment (manufacturing) (155C);
x y. Sports recreation facilities, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
y z. Stone, clay, glass products (manufacturing) (140); z aa. Storage and warehouse when connected with permitted use (330); aa bb. Wholesale trade (nondurable goods) (200):
(a) Bakery,
(b) Confectionery,
(c) Dairy,
(d) Health foods;
bb cc. Wholesale trade (durable goods) (210):
(a) Paper products and related (210E),
(b) Special equipment (machine supply) (210F);

14.39 8
cc dd. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

Part 24(A): CBD SUBDISTRICT E – LOWER PACIFIC AVENUE

24.10.2370 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit in the Lower Pacific Avenue Subdistrict and possibly other requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s Land Use Codes.

Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the Land Use Codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Auto supply stores (260C);
b. Bakery, micro-brewery (subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12), handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly uses associated with retail sales, if floor area is less than seven thousand square feet and retail sale or service area occupies at least thirty percent of the floor area;
c. Brew pubs, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; d. Churches (500);
e. Communication and information services (550);
f. Community organizations, associations, clubs, and meeting halls (570); g. Developed parks (710);
h. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.14.290 and subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 and Section 24.14.290 (280H);
i. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);
j. Financial services (320);
k. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (15 units or less) as part of a mixed-use project; lk. Foster family homes;
ml. Government and public agencies (530);
nm. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians and ambulance services) (410);

14.40 9
on. Off-site public/private parking facilities (930);
po. Professional offices (400);
qp. Professional/personal services (except contractors yards and mortuaries) (310); rq. Recycling collection facilities;
sr. Sports, recreation and entertainment facilities subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
ts. Temporary structures and uses;
ut. Utilities and resources (540);
vu. Veterinarians (410A);
wv. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and design permit in the Lower Pacific Avenue Subdistrict and possibly other requirements of the Municipal Code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s Land Use Codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the Land Use Codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Bar and cocktail lounges, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Community care facilities;
c. Community care residential facilities;
d. Contractor/building (310E);
e. Convenience/liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations of Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B);
f. Flexible density unit (FDU) housing (16 units or more) as part of a mixed-use project; f g. Night clubs (amplified live entertainment), subject to alcohol regulations of Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (630);
g h. Single-room occupancy (SRO) (860);
h i. General retail merchandise (drug and department stores) exceeding sixteen thousand square feet (230);

14.41 10
i j. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

24.12.240 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

Small ownership unit (SOU) Flexible density unit (FDU) 1 space for each dwelling unit

24.12.1050 PROGRAM STANDARDS.

2. SRO units shall not be subdivided or individually sold.

Part 16: SMALL OWNERSHIP UNIT HOUSING
Part 16: FLEXIBLE DENSITY UNIT HOUSING

24.12.1500 PURPOSE.

The purpose of these regulations is to provide additional options for affordable ownership housing by providing incentives for the development of reduced-size ownership dwelling units, defined as small ownership units (SOU).

24.12.1510 DEFINITION.
“Small ownership unit” or “SOU” is a dwelling unit containing no more than one bedroom and floor area ranging from four hundred to six hundred fifty square feet, located on a separate subdivided parcel and included in a residential development where all dwelling units are SOU units and are offered for sale to the general public.

14.42 11
“Flexible Density Unit” or “FDU” is a dwelling unit ranging from two hundred twenty to six hundred fifty square feet that is exempt from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance density standards.

Developments including this unit type may consist solely of FDUs or include other residential units.

24.12.1520 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

1. Density. SOU FDU units shall comply with the underlying development standards of the zoning district in which they are located, except that requirements for minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not apply to SOU FDU units.

2. Unit Size. The floor area of SOU FDU units may range from a minimum of four hundred two hundred twenty square feet to a maximum of six hundred fifty square feet.

3. Unit Configuration. SOU units may have a maximum of one bedroom. No additional separate enclosed rooms with doors, except for bathrooms, shall be allowed in SOU units.

4. Open Space. A residential project comprised of SOU units shall contain at least one hundred fifty square feet of usable open space per SOU unit. This requirement may be met by any combination of private and/or common open space. Common landscaped areas less than ten feet wide shall not be included in usable open space.

5. Storage Facilities. All SOU FDU units shall have access to private usable storage space containing a minimum of two hundred cubic feet. The required storage space may be incorporated into private garages or carports; provided, that the garage or carport has adequate space for a vehicle, as required by Part 3, Chapter 24.12.

6. Bicycle Parking. One Class 1 bicycle storage facility shall be provided for each SOU FDU unit.

The required private usable storage space provided for each SOU FDU unit may be utilized to meet this requirement.

7. Covered Parking. Covered parking is not required.

14.43 12

24.12.1530 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS.

1. All projects comprised of SOU units shall be common interest developments as defined by Section 1351 of the California Civil Code.

2. Prior to approval of a final map for a residential project comprised of SOU units, the city attorney and director of planning and community development shall review the project’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions to ensure that they conform to the requirements of this section. The approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded against the residential project concurrently with recordation of the final map.

3. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions for a residential project comprised of SOU units shall conform with all provisions of state law, including requirements for maintenance reserves, and shall in addition include the following provisions:
a. Prohibition on the use of garages and carports for any use other than parking moving vehicles and other uses specifically identified in the approved plans; b. Prohibition on rental of more than fifty percent of the SOU units in the residential project; c. Requirement that any SOU unit that is rented be managed by a single management company designated by the homeowners association to manage all rental units in the residential project; and
d. Requirement that the homeowners association submit an annual report to the city identifying all rental units; verifying compliance with restrictions on the use of garages and carports; and identifying the management company responsible for managing all rental units in the development.

4. SOU developments may be located in the following zoning districts:
a. R-T(C) Subdistrict C – Beach Commercial;
b. C-C Community Commercial District;
c. CBD Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue;
d. Central Business District (CBD).

24.12.1530 OPEN AND COMMON SPACE.

2. Residential or mixed-use projects containing FDUs shall require a minimum of two hundred square feet of outdoor open space and two hundred square feet of indoor common space.

14.44 13
Maintenance areas, laundry facilities, storage (including bicycle storage), and common hallways shall not be included as usable indoor common space. Landscape areas that are less than ten feet wide shall not be included as outdoor open space.

3. Outdoor open spaces and indoor common spaces shall be designed to accommodate appropriate furnishings and shall be furnished for use by residents. Appropriate furnishings for indoor common space may include such items as lounge chair(s) and/or couch(es), table(s) with chairs, writing desk(s), and television(s). Appropriate furnishings for outdoor open spaces may include such items as outdoor bench(es), table(s) with chairs, barbecue(s), and shade umbrella(s).

5. Laundry facilities that have a minimum of two washers and two dryers must be provided in a separate room.

24.22.361 FIRST APPROVAL.

The first of the following approvals to occur with respect to a residential development: specific plan, development agreement, planned development permit, tentative map, minor land division, use permit, design permit, building permit, or any other permits listed in Section 24.04.030.

Developments including this unit type may consist solely of FDUs or include other residential units.

24.22.366 FLOOR AREA.

The sum of the gross horizontal real floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of all buildings, including accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units, on a lot as measured from the exterior surface of the exterior walls, with no deduction for hallways, stairs, closets, wall thickness.

The area includes covered residential parking and is the total of all stories. Stairways shall count only once for floor area, however, any portions of buildings, including stairwells, over seventeen feet in interior height, are counted twice for the purposes of computing floor area. Uncovered courtyards or atriums enclosed by three sides and with the space open to the street above the first floor do not count as floor area. Unenclosed porches, balconies, decks, patios, roof overhangs and similar architectural features and non-habitable basements that are fully subterranean below finished grade do not count as floor area.

24.22.748.1 SMALL OWNERSHIP UNIT (SOU).

14.45 PROPOSED
Flexible Density Unit (FDU) Small Ownership Unit (SOU) Single Room Occupancy Unit (SRO) Size 220-650 sf 400-650 sf 150-400 sf
Required Parking
Spaces/Unit 1 1 1, can be reduced to 0.75
Required Open
Space/Unit
150sf
Can be private and/or
common
At least 200 sf/project of
indoor common area
At least 200 sf/project of
outdoor common area
150 sf
Can be private and/or
common
10sf
At least 200 sf/project of
indoor common area
At least 200 sf/project of
outdoor common area
Laundry Facilities Required Not required Required
Required Private
Bathroom Yes Yes
No for units 150-219 sf
Yes for units 220-400 sf
Required Private
Kitchen Yes Yes
No for units 150-219 sf
Yes for units 220-400 sf
Required Storage
Space 200 cubic feet minimum 200 cubic feet minimum Must have a closet Inclusionary
requirement
20% of units @ low income
level
20% of units @ low income
level
20% of units @ very low
income level
Ownership or Rental
Rental units or for sale units
For sale units can be rented by
developer or purchaser
For Sale. No more than 50% of
units can be rented 100% rental units
Density Exemptions
Exempt from zoning and
general plan density
(units/acre)
Project size governed by other
site standards
Exempt from zoning and
general plan density
(units/acre)
Project size governed by other
site standards
Exempt from zoning and
general plan density
(units/acre)
Project size governed by
other site standards
Miscellaneous
requirements
A project can include FDUs,
other unit types (+ commercial
units)
Projects can only include SOU
units (+ commercial units)
Projects can only include
SRO units (+ commercial
units)
Zone districts C-C, R-TC, CBD, CBD-E C-C, R-TC, CBD, CBD-E C-C, R-TC, CBD, CBD-E

14.46 CC
CBD
CC
RTC
CC
CC
CC
CBD-E
CC
CC
CC
BAY ST
SR 9
3D ST

OCEAN ST
SB SR 1

PACIFIC AVE

PINE ST

CAYUGA ST

ESCALONA DR

E CLIFF DR

PARK WY

FRONT ST

CEDAR ST
2D ST

WINDHAM ST

MARKET ST

CHESTNUT ST

WALNUT AVE

MURRAY ST
6TH AVE

BROADWAY

HIGH ST

SEABRIGHT AVE

W CLIFF DR

GOSS AVE DARWIN ST
RAMP

HIGHLAND AVE

MIRAMAR DR

CALIFORNIA ST

OLIVE ST

MELROSE AVE

POPLAR AVE
9TH AVE

SOQUEL AVE

WATER ST

SEASIDE AVE

OTIS ST

ALMAR AVE

ENCINAL ST
3D AVE

CENTER ST

SAN JUAN AVE

LINDEN ST

DUFOUR ST

BUTTON ST

PROSPECT HEIGHTS

KING ST

MOORE ST

WASHINGTON ST
ELK ST

FAIRMOUNT AVE

DELAWARE AVE

SANTA CRUZ ST

BARSON ST

BEACH ST
NB SR 17

MYRTLE ST

N BRANCIFORTE AVE

ROXAS ST

MISSION ST
LEE ST

CLINTON ST

CORAL ST
NB SR 1

MAIN ST

SEASIDE ST

EATON ST
EFFEY ST 1ST AVE

STANFORD AVE

LA FONDA AVE

COLUMBIA ST

HANOVER ST

DAKOTA AVE

WALK CIR

FAIR AV
ALLEY

S RIVER ST

FREDERICK ST

GILBERT LN

DUBOIS ST

ANTHONY ST
5TH AVE

BERKELEY WY

GOLF CLUB DR

COOLIDGE DR

BALDWIN ST

WINDSOR ST OWEN ST

FERN ST

PARK PL

FOREST AVE

MAY AVE

ISBEL DR

JETER ST

HARBOR DR

IOWA DR
ELM ST

PEARL ST

LAUREL ST

MEADOW RD SUBURBIA AVE

GRANT ST

KENNETH ST

ALLERTON ST

FELIX ST

BAYONA DR
7TH AVE

MONTEREY ST

PARNELL ST

SAN LORENZO BL

SPRING ST

GAULT ST

LAURENT ST

BLAINE ST

SWIFT ST

BERKSHIRE AVE

PALM ST

OCEAN ST EXT

RAYMOND ST

HAGEMANN AVE

ALTA VISTA DR

PRYCE ST

GHARKEY ST

KALKAR DR

RIGG ST

MORRISSEY BL

SYLVANIA AVE

BUENA VISTA AVE

VAN NESS AVE

MORA ST

FELKER ST

LOGAN ST

HUBBARD ST

GLENWOOD AVE

WILKES CIR
ALLEY 78

MILES ST

CALEDONIA ST

COULSON AVE

TOWNE TER

BLACKBURN ST

MAJORS ST

ARCHER DR

JAMES ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SUTPHEN ST

GREEN ST

MASON ST

JESSIE ST

ROSS ST

ALHAMBRA AVE

WALTI ST

LINCOLN ST

HARRISON AVE

RIVERSIDE AVE

LOCUST ST

CHILVERTON ST

PIONEER ST

UNION ST

SHERMAN ST

CATALPA ST

LAGO LN

DE LAVEAGA PARK RD
ALLEY 906

OCEAN VIEW AVE

PACHECO AVE

S BRANCIFORTE AVE

TRINITY ST

MAGNOLIA ST

PECK TER

BELMONT ST

COLOMA ST

WASHBURN AVE

ARBOR AVE

SYLVAR ST

HAGAR CT
ALLEY 2672
ALLEY 263

SERRA CT

E CLIFF DR

FRONT ST

LAUREL ST

WATER ST

BROADWAY
LEE ST
ALLEY

OCEAN ST

PACHECO AVE

MORRISSEY BL

KING ST
2D ST
BAY ST

WINDSOR ST FREDERICK ST

WALK CIR
RAMP

GHARKEY ST
RAMP
RAMP

WATER ST

LAUREL ST
SB SR 1

SOQUEL AVE

MAY AVE

HIGH ST

KING ST

FAIR AV

SPRING ST
Text
FDU Proposed Zones
Santa Cruz City Limit
ZONING
CBD
CBD-E
CC
RTC
¸
October 2021

14.47 1
Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 1/27/22
AGENDA OF: 2/3/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Small Housing Units Zoning Ordinance Updates – Single Room Occupancy, Small Ownership Units, and a New Use Called Flexible Density Units
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of proposed amendments to the Municipal Code regulating small housing units including recommending a policy choice regarding whether the proposed Flexible Density Units can be included in developments with larger multifamily housing units, with staff recommending that Flexible Density Units be allowed in larger multifamily housing units.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Santa Cruz currently has two small housing unit types: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Small Ownership Unit (SOU). SROs are a nationally recognized residential use for the development of small rental units that can have shared facilities like kitchens and bathrooms.

These units are historically available for rent as seasonal, transitional, or permanent-supportive housing and the City has seen consistent development of SRO projects over the years.

In 2007, Santa Cruz adopted the SOU Ordinance that allows for the creation of complete, reduced-size residential units and incentivizes their development through a reduced parking ratio, lowered open space requirements, and an exemption from General Plan & Zoning Ordinance density maximums. SOU developments must be wholly composed of SOUs, and no more than 50% of those units can be rented. Smaller units are often lower cost and provide an additional housing option to those seeking to live in the City. Chapter 4 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element affirms this notion, indicating that SOUs are intended to create lower-cost market rate housing tailored to lower income residents (pg. 60 and 63).

Yet, over the past 14 years, only one project has been developed using the SOU ordinance, indicating possible discord between the real estate development market and the regulations that are currently in place. During the work on the Housing Blueprint in 2018, the community noted their continued interest in small unit development and housing for small households. Ultimately, the City Council directed staff to:
“…review State laws related to efficiency units and compare those with the City’s Small Ownership Unit (SOU) and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to assess whether City Code changes are needed to help promote the production of smaller units and a variety of housing types”.

14.48 2
In October of 2021, staff brought the Planning Commission a proposal to amend the Municipal code in response to the above direction. The Commission declined to hear the item as proposed and instead continued the item to a date uncertain in order to create a subcommittee of Planning Commissioners to work with staff to address Commission concerns. The Subcommittee was established at the Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 2021, and Chair Schiffrin appointed Commissioner Dawson, Commissioner Greenberg, and himself to the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee met with staff twice during November and December of 2021 and discussed the recommended ordinance amendments. All parties were hopeful that a revised proposal would be ready for review at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on December 16, and therefore a public notice was published but the proposal was not complete at that time. The item was continued to a date certain during the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting..

This report summarizes the deficiencies in the existing municipal code, the proposed amendments to address these issues, and the discussion held by the Subcommittee on this topic.

DISCUSSION:

SROs and SOUs are distinct housing types, as discussed in the Background Section. The Subcommittee and staff recommend different approaches to the regulations for these two housing types.

Single Room Occupancy Units
Unlike SOUs, SROs are a nationally-recognized unit type that has been produced in cities around the country for many decades. Comparing the City of Santa Cruz regulations to other SRO standards identifies few differences. SRO units have been produced in reasonable numbers over the past 15 years, indicating that this unit type is functioning effectively in the current Santa Cruz housing market.

Proposed Changes to Clarify Existing SRO regulations
The Subcommittee and staff recommend adding two clarifications to the SRO regulations in order to codify the standard practices applied to these units.

Density
Currently the Municipal code is silent regarding the maximum density for SRO units. No minimum lot area per dwelling unit is stated in any section of the municipal code. Functionally, this means that development applications for SRO developments are limited by the site standards that apply to a site (height, setbacks, parking requirements, etc.). The proposed amendments would explicitly state that the limit on development density for SRO projects is established based on these site standards.

Rental Requirement
SROs are often used for seasonal, transitional, or permanent-supportive housing rather than longterm housing, and these units are permitted to be smaller and have limited habitability features within the individual units (SROs can share cooking, bathing, and sanitation facilities). The Subcommittee and staff recommend adding a requirement that SRO developments are prohibited

14.49 3
from being subdivided or individually sold in order to maintain these units as rental housing, as intended.

Small Ownership Units
After researching regulations for small units throughout the country and finding nothing directly comparable to Santa Cruz’s SOU ordinance, staff looked at the existing projects approved under the ordinance to try to understand the limitations that might be preventing other proposals from building this housing type. Two primary obstacles were identified:

1. The requirement that 50% or more of the units be sold to homebuyers and cannot be rented.

2. The prohibition on allowing SOUs to mix with other types of dwelling units.

Along with recent housing legislation that provides some of the incentives mentioned above by right, these two requirements appear to create a limited scope of opportunity for new SOU development and staff believes these requirements account for the lack of project proposals for SOUs. A matrix comparing SROs, SOUs, and the Proposed FDU ordinance is included as Attachment 1.

Flexible Density Units
The previous section showed that there was a need to maintain the ability to plan for SOUequivalent housing density in allowed zone districts but allow for additional ways to incentivize construction of these small units. Staff recommends replacing Small Ownership Units with a new use called the Flexible Density Unit (FDU). This proposal would preserve sections of the SOU code that staff believes continue to function well and also modify sections of the SOU code to address the limitations mentioned above in order to re-incentivize the creation of small units.

Staff believes that the recommendation to remove the ownership requirement warrants the name change away from Small Ownership Unit. Flexible Density Unit more accurately reflects the flexible nature of the use in that, among other proposed changes, it allows for a smaller unit size and allows for both ownership and rental units.

Proposed SOU Standards to be maintained
Beyond the two key changes this ordinance proposes, several existing features of SOUs are proposed to be maintained in the transition to FDUs.

Density
A key advantage of SOU developments is their exemption from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance density maximums. Continuing to allow density exemptions for FDUs ensures that the City will retain this incentive for small unit housing development by still allowing equivalent densities with the proposed FDU use.

Keeping the density exemptions for FDUs will encourage developers to build housing that seeks to introduce greater variety and affordability options to the market.

Open Space
Staff recommends that FDUs carry over the same required amount of open space as SOUs, and then incorporate some of the requirements about shared open space and common indoor space

14.50 4
from the SRO ordinance. Specifically, we propose that FDUs will have a minimum open or common space requirement of 150 square feet per unit, that this space be allocated between private open space or shared outdoor space and indoor common space, and that a minimum of 200 square feet of both outdoor open space and indoor common space be included with any project that contains FDUs. Bringing the standards for these shared indoor and outdoor spaces into the proposed FDU ordinance serves to create more equivalence between SRO units and FDUs which could potentially be the same small size.

Parking and Storage
Staff recommends no change in parking or storage regulations from the SOU ordinance to the proposed FDU ordinance. Currently, the SOU regulations:
 Require one car parking space per unit.
 Do not require covered car parking.
 Require one ‘Class 1’ bicycle storage facility per unit.  Require that all units have access to a private usable storage space containing a minimum of 200 cubic feet.

Zone Districts
SROs and SOUs are permitted in 4 zone districts: C-C (Community Commercial), CBD (Central Business District – Downtown Plan Area), CBD-E (Central Business District, Subdistrict E) and the R-T(C) (Tourist Residential, Subdistrict C) zones. The proposed ordinance would maintain the limit that FDUs are only permitted within these four zones. A map of the zone districts where FDUs would be allowed is included as Attachment 2.

Conforming to standard practice in the Municipal Code, the zone districts that allow FDU use will be identified in Chapter 24.10 as opposed to Section 24.12.1530, where the proposed ordinance would add FDUs to the list of allowed uses in the same zones where SOUs are currently allowed.

Ability/Inability to mix with other unit types
The previous proposal for FDUs would have allowed the units to be mixed with other unit types and sizes within the permitted zone districts. This feature of the proposal was not favored by the Subcommittee. Concerns were raised by the Subcommittee that this additional housing option would make review of development more difficult and more confusing to the public. As noted above, the homogeneous nature of SOUs has been one of the primary critiques brought forward by community members. See further discussion below, under Subcommittee Discussion.

Proposed SOU Amendments
The Subcommittee and staff are recommending the following amendments to implement the change from SOUs to FDUs.

Ownership Structure
Staff has spoken with lenders to better understand standard practices for granting residential and mixed-use development loans. Lenders prefer backing either 100% rental unit projects or 100% for sale projects. Enabling a split ownership structure can discourage lenders from investing.

In order to promote the production of smaller units, staff recommends that FDUs do not continue the SOU’s ability to split or partially convert the ownership structure of a development. Instead,

14.51 5
FDUs will exist within rental or for-sale developments. FDUs can be rented in ownership residential developments either before or after the initial sale of the unit.

Unit Size
Staff recommends lowering the minimum floor area for FDUs from the 400 square feet allowed in the SOU Ordinance to 220 square feet. The maximum square footage of an FDU is proposed to be the same as an SOU (650 square feet.) This area allows for a studio, a one bedroom, or even a small two-bedroom unit. While the minimum allowable square footage for FDUs will be lowered, they will still be categorized as a dwelling unit. Therefore, they require the same living, sleeping, eating, sanitation, and food preparation facilities as mandated for SOUs.

Minimum Dwelling Units Requirement
Staff proposes that a development project must contain at least three dwelling units in order to qualify for use of FDUs. This requirement ensures that FDUs are used in the context of multifamily housing development and are not pursued as a stand-alone housing unit in the allowed zone districts.

Mixed-use Requirement
Three out of four zoning districts where SOUs are currently allowed represent the commercial core of the City in the Downtown and Beach area. City staff recommends that development proposals containing FDUs in the R-T(C) (Beach area), CBD (Downtown), and CBD-E (Downtown, south of Laurel) zoning districts be required to include a mixed-use component in order to maintain commercial capacity and to strengthen existing walkable environments via neighborhood amenities.

In the C-C zone district, however, staff is proposing that mixed-use not be required with FDU development because existing standards can allow for stand-alone residential development, though General Plan policies may call for mixed use, and the C-C zoning district only allows mixed-use on parcels over 8,000 square feet. In the C-C zone, staff is proposing to apply the same standards and allowances for mixed-use proposals with FDUs as would apply to any other type of housing development.

Shared Laundry Facilities
Staff recommend requiring on-site laundry facilities for developments that do not provide private washers and dryers for all units. This is in response to a community concern that residents with disabilities or lack of private transportation might find it hard to access an off-site laundromat.

The proposed standards for the laundry facilities are based on the existing SRO laundry facility requirements.

Inclusionary Requirements
The proposed ordinance does not include any amendments to the inclusionary requirements that would apply to either FDUs or SROs. See the Subcommittee discussion of this policy in the following section. The current requirement for SOUs is the same as all other for-sale housing in the City – 20% of the units must be sold to income-qualifying households at a low or moderate income level. For SROs, the current standard is a deeper level of affordability than for other rental units – 20% of the units must be made available at an affordable rent to households qualifying at the very-low income level. As currently written, the inclusionary ordinance would apply to FDUs based on their tenancy as either rentals or for-sale units. As rentals, 20% of the units would need to be rented to low-income households at an affordable rent, and as ownership

14.52 6
units, 20% of the units would need to be sold at an affordable price to qualified buyers at the low or moderate income level. This existing standard now applies to SOUs and would then be applied to FDUs, with the added allowance for FDUs to be rented.

Subcommittee Discussion
As noted above, the Subcommittee convened twice in November and December 2021 to discuss the proposed amendments. Committee members were concerned about allowing FDUs to mix with other types of housing, as previously recommended by staff. Committee members expressed concerns that allowing unit types to mix created the potential for confusion among community members seeking to understand what can be developed on various properties around the City.

The Subcommittee also indicated a preference to proceed cautiously in making these smaller units more attractive and feasible for developers and hesitancy around making too much change.

They preferred a strategy that would moderate the rate of production of these units. Finally, the Subcommittee was concerned that, when combined with the density bonus, the potential for the FDU unit type to be used to intensify development in the four zone districts identified could lead to projects that are excessively intense.

Together, with the change in ownership structure, this change would allow developers to produce a greater variety of housing types even within a single development. Greater housing variety could allow for more housing options for more income levels as well as more opportunities for residents to age in place.

Like SOUs, FDUs would not have to meet density (minimum lot area per unit) requirements.

However, if FDUs are be able to mix with other unit types a development project could contain multiple larger two-bedroom+ units up to the maximum density standard and then add FDUs until other site standards like maximum height, setback, and parking standards are reached. This would result in a slightly lower overall number of units than a stand-alone SOU project under current regulations but might be more feasible to develop based on the mix of unit sizes.

Staff believes the ability to mix with other unit types could provide benefits for housing production. Given that these unit types are only allowed in commercial districts (C-C, CBD, CBD-E, and R-T(C), see Mapp in Attachment 2) where employment, entertainment, and daily needs are in close proximity, increased housing production in these areas would meet several other General Plan and City policy objectives, such as walkability, opportunities for active transportation, and transit use, all contributing to a greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and to the City’s Health in All Policies goals (see more discussion below). For these reasons staff is recommending that the Planning Commission retain this provision in the recommended ordinance amendments.

Attachment 3 shows the proposed ordinance language in a strikeout and underline format, and each of the sections of the code that address mixing of unit types include two options. In each case, Option A reflects the Subcommittee’s preferred policy of maintaining FDUs in development consisting only of FDUs or FDUs with a commercial component, and Option B reflects the staff recommendation that FDUs be permitted to mix with other unit types with in the four identified zone districts.

14.53 7
The Subcommittee also expressed concerns with the manner in which the proposed FDU units interact with State Density Bonus Law and discussed potential adjustments to the City’s inclusionary ordinance that could address their concerns. Because the code sections addressing the inclusionary ordinance were not included in the continued public notice, the discussion of this topic was moved to another part of this Planning Commission Agenda.

Flexible Density Unit Summary
The proposed Ordinance replacing Small Ownership Units with Flexible Density Units would make a series of amendments to preserve standards, like density exemptions, which already incentivize the development of small units in the City while modifying standards, like the minimum 50% for-sale requirement, which currently hinder their development. While the standard for the required amount of open space will be carried over from SOUs, additional requirements on common space borrowed from the existing SRO ordinance would be applied to ensure there is equivalence between FDUs and SROs. In reviewing these small unit types and considering the potential development opportunities the proposed ordinance could create, staff also recommends adding a requirement for mixed-use in certain locations where FDUs are proposed in order to plan for the continued viability of our commercial areas and to ensure that new and existing local businesses are not lost to exclusively residential developments. Finally, staff recommends that FDUs be allowed to mix with other unit types. While the Subcommittee favored a more restrictive approach, allowing the mixing of units could further incentivize the creation of these smaller units and create greater housing variety.

A matrix showing the differences and similarities between SOUs, the proposed new FDU use, and SROs can be found in Attachment 1.

Proposed General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments
This proposal also includes amendments to the Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan and the Downtown Plan. The amendments would change the terminology from ‘Small Ownership Unit’ to ‘Flexible Density Unit’ and make no other changes. These amendments are shown as Attachments 4 and 5.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

Staff conducted two outreach events in developing the proposed ordinance. On September 29, 2021, staff invited local developers and lenders to a focus group in order to gather feedback on the proposal for FDUs. Generally, the participants showed interest in allowing FDU developments to be fully rented. The participants also recommended that the proposed FDU code remain separate from the SRO code for financing purposes. Certain state and federal affordable housing funds target SROs specifically, and maintaining an ordinance that can be easily located and understood by the funders will make it easier for developers of both affordable and market rate housing to qualify for those resources.

Next, staff hosted a workshop on October 5, 2021, in order to explain the proposed changes to small units as well as to gather feedback from the broader community. Two participants voiced concerns about the low ratio of one parking space per FDU (the same as other similar-sized units in the Municipal Code) and shared concerns about the cost of these units for potential purchasers or renters. A few attendees wondered whether parking should be required at all for FDUs given that the units are only permitted in commercial and mixed-use residential areas. The level of building amenities was also raised as a concern.

14.54 8
Community feedback was considered and integrated into the proposal in requiring on-site common laundry facilities for developments that do not provide private washers and dryers for all units. Regarding parking, staff still recommends that FDUs be subject to the same parking standard as all other studio and 1-bedroom units (1 parking space/unit), and that the projects be eligible for the allowed reductions in parking requirements found in Section 24.12.290 which allow for up to a 35% reduction in parking requirements for qualifying projects.

NEXT STEPS:

If recommended by the Planning Commission, this item will be scheduled for a hearing with the City Council within the next few months. Two readings are required, and if approved by the City Council, the ordinance would become effective outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after the final approval by the City Council. Because portions of the proposed ordinance are part of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, Coastal Commission approval will be required prior to the ordinance taking effect inside the Coastal Zone. Planning Staff will submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission for review following final approval by the City Council.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES. In 2019, the City adopted a Health in All Policies strategy in order to eliminate inequities in health and well-being and attain equity for all residents. The proposed amendment package supports the City’s Health in All Policies strategy as the intent of the proposal is to support creation of a wider variety of housing options that can support small households with more modest incomes, promoting more equitable access to housing. The proposal would serve to support development of dense housing in areas of the City with a mix of employment, housing, retail, and entertainment uses, thus promoting a sustainable development pattern and making efficient use of urbanized land. This land use pattern also encourages active transportation, which promotes personal health. By incentivizing a variety of new housing opportunities that meet residents’ needs, this proposal supports the social, economic, and environmental health of the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The zoning code amendment falls within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR using the existing zoning and General Plan. The proposed amendment would not result in increased densities or intensification of uses because FDU developments would be permitted only in zoning districts that already allow Small Ownership Units (SOUs) and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments of equal or greater intensity.

Submitted By:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Approved By:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Advance Planning
ATTACHMENTS:
1) FDU, SOU, and SRO Comparison Matrix
2) Map of Proposed FDU Zone Districts
3) Proposed Small Housing Units Ordinance Amendments, Strikeout Version 4) Proposed Small Housing Units Downtown Plan Amendments, Strikeout Version 5) Proposed Small Housing Units General Plan Amendments, Strikeout Version

14.55 From: A Webb
To: City Plan
Subject: 10.21.21 Agenda - SRO/SOU/FDU ordinance changes - and SRO inclusionary definitions Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:46:46 PM
Attachments: ATT_2_-_MAP_OF_PROPOSED_FDU_ZONE_DISTRICTS.PDF.pdf I encourage the Planning Commission not to support the changes with regard to "exempting" these types of units (SROs and FDUs) from all General Plan and zoning guidelines.

These should be handled as any other housing or mixed-use developments with objective review standards, with base zoning and density included in evaluating qualifications for any market rate density bonuses and waivers or concessions, with public process.

Further, the Staff Report states that these types of FDUs (mix of rental and/or for sale and commercial) will be focused in (all of) downtown, beach area, and a category area called "Downtown/South of Laurel".

However, the map provided in the agenda packet shows these areas, plus:
part of Center St (that includes up to the 130 Center St project on this Agenda),
Center St north of Elm St,
W. Cliff Dr north of the Trestle bridge,
Chestnut St,
Washington St,
Mission St,
Water St,
Soquel Ave,
River St,
Harvey West area,
Ocean St, etc
This is an extensive area to designate these development types as exempt from General Plan and zoning density guidelines! This is not an equitable process for the community.
“Flexible Density Unit” or “FDU” is a dwelling unit ranging from two hundred twenty to six hundred fifty square feet that is exempt from General Plan and Zoning Ordinance density standards. Developments including this unit type may consist solely of FDUs or include other residential units"
-------------------------------------------------------------- Since SRO policy is being reviewed here, I want to bring up an issue previously submitted to Ryan Bane when I was trying to make sense of the 130 Center St developer's Project Statement letter posted from August that didn't match the City's SRO inclusionary ordinance.

Here are the conflicting parts of the Inclusionary Ordinance that needs attention and amending to avoid confusion and reducing the intent

14.56 and minimum inclusionary requirements of SROs.

24.16.020 5.b. states SRO Rental developments require 20% to Very Low Income

24.16.030, 9.* (paraphrasing from below definition) 5% option including SROs per agreement that states 15% can be to "Low Income" and 5% to Low Income at subsidy payment standards or to Moderate income defined as 110%. Also offers Low Income units to subsidy holders if dedicated units are full.

Again, SROs inclusionary is 20% Very Low Income units by minimum requirement, not "Low Income" or Moderate Income.
*" 24.16.030, 9. Rental to Tenant-Based Subsidy Holders. a.Owners of rental residential developments or single-room occupancy unit (SRO) developments may elect to use the following procedures to offer inclusionary units comprising up to five percent of the total units in the development as payment standard units available to tenant-based subsidy holders (subsidy holders). The developer affordable housing agreement, as defined in Section 24.16.040, shall require that fifteen percent of the total units in the development will be restricted to low income households at an affordable rent, and that five percent of the total units in the project will be payment standard units restricted to moderate income househds at an affordable rent as defined in Section 24.16.015(2)(b) or rented to subsidy holders, so long as the development complies with the procedures described in subsections (b) through (e) to offer the five percent payment standard units in the development to subsidy holders. Both the low income units and the payment standard units shall remain affordable in perpetuity as per Section 24.16.025(1)." It appears there are conflicts or confusion in the City's ordinance for SRO inclusionary requirements, but also for the 5% option which suddenly changes the VLI category to L. How can a 5% option that actually increases the payment to the owner to near market rates by using a rent subsidy program or 110% of AMI, also increase the entire remaining 15% inclusionary category (from VLI up to LI) when minimum requirement is 20% for VLI?
Sincerely,
Anita Webb

14.57 CC
CBD
CC
RTC
CC
CC
CC
CBD-E
CC
CC
CC
BAY ST
SR 9
3D ST

OCEAN ST
SB SR 1

PACIFIC AVE

PINE ST

CAYUGA ST

ESCALONA DR

E CLIFF DR

PARK WY

FRONT ST

CEDAR ST
2D ST

WINDHAM ST

MARKET ST

CHESTNUT ST

WALNUT AVE

MURRAY ST
6TH AVE

BROADWAY

HIGH ST

SEABRIGHT AVE

W CLIFF DR

GOSS AVE DARWIN ST
RAMP

HIGHLAND AVE

MIRAMAR DR

CALIFORNIA ST

OLIVE ST

MELROSE AVE

POPLAR AVE
9TH AVE

SOQUEL AVE

WATER ST

SEASIDE AVE

OTIS ST

ALMAR AVE

ENCINAL ST
3D AVE

CENTER ST

SAN JUAN AVE

LINDEN ST

DUFOUR ST

BUTTON ST

PROSPECT HEIGHTS

KING ST

MOORE ST

WASHINGTON ST
ELK ST

FAIRMOUNT AVE

DELAWARE AVE

SANTA CRUZ ST

BARSON ST

BEACH ST
NB SR 17

MYRTLE ST

N BRANCIFORTE AVE

ROXAS ST

MISSION ST
LEE ST

CLINTON ST

CORAL ST
NB SR 1

MAIN ST

SEASIDE ST

EATON ST
EFFEY ST 1ST AVE

STANFORD AVE

LA FONDA AVE

COLUMBIA ST

HANOVER ST

DAKOTA AVE

WALK CIR

FAIR AV
ALLEY

S RIVER ST

FREDERICK ST

GILBERT LN

DUBOIS ST

ANTHONY ST
5TH AVE

BERKELEY WY

GOLF CLUB DR

COOLIDGE DR

BALDWIN ST

WINDSOR ST OWEN ST

FERN ST

PARK PL

FOREST AVE

MAY AVE

ISBEL DR

JETER ST

HARBOR DR

IOWA DR
ELM ST

PEARL ST

LAUREL ST

MEADOW RD SUBURBIA AVE

GRANT ST

KENNETH ST

ALLERTON ST

FELIX ST

BAYONA DR
7TH AVE

MONTEREY ST

PARNELL ST

SAN LORENZO BL

SPRING ST

GAULT ST

LAURENT ST

BLAINE ST

SWIFT ST

BERKSHIRE AVE

PALM ST

OCEAN ST EXT

RAYMOND ST

HAGEMANN AVE

ALTA VISTA DR

PRYCE ST

GHARKEY ST

KALKAR DR

RIGG ST

MORRISSEY BL

SYLVANIA AVE

BUENA VISTA AVE

VAN NESS AVE

MORA ST

FELKER ST

LOGAN ST

HUBBARD ST

GLENWOOD AVE

WILKES CIR
ALLEY 78

MILES ST

CALEDONIA ST

COULSON AVE

TOWNE TER

BLACKBURN ST

MAJORS ST

ARCHER DR

JAMES ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SUTPHEN ST

GREEN ST

MASON ST

JESSIE ST

ROSS ST

ALHAMBRA AVE

WALTI ST

LINCOLN ST

HARRISON AVE

RIVERSIDE AVE

LOCUST ST

CHILVERTON ST

PIONEER ST

UNION ST

SHERMAN ST

CATALPA ST

LAGO LN

DE LAVEAGA PARK RD
ALLEY 906

OCEAN VIEW AVE

PACHECO AVE

S BRANCIFORTE AVE

TRINITY ST

MAGNOLIA ST

PECK TER

BELMONT ST

COLOMA ST

WASHBURN AVE

ARBOR AVE

SYLVAR ST

HAGAR CT
ALLEY 2672
ALLEY 263

SERRA CT

E CLIFF DR

FRONT ST

LAUREL ST

WATER ST

BROADWAY
LEE ST
ALLEY

OCEAN ST

PACHECO AVE

MORRISSEY BL

KING ST
2D ST
BAY ST

WINDSOR ST FREDERICK ST

WALK CIR
RAMP

GHARKEY ST
RAMP
RAMP

WATER ST

LAUREL ST
SB SR 1

SOQUEL AVE

MAY AVE

HIGH ST

KING ST

FAIR AV

SPRING ST
Text
FDU Proposed Zones
Santa Cruz City Limit
ZONING
CBD
CBD-E
CC
RTC
¸
October 2021

14.58 From: City Plan
To: Sarah Neuse; John Jezek
Subject: FW: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Sou Letter Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 7:40:00 AM
Attachments: SOU Letter Oct 21 2021 Planning Commission.docx From: Candace Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:42 PM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Sou Letter Please include the attached letter attached as Word document for Item 2 of the Oct 21, 2021 Planning Commission.

Thank you, Candace Brown
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Team <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 5:18 PM
Subject: Sou Letter
To: Candace Brown <[email protected]>

14.59 Item #2 – October 21, 2021 – Small Housing Units Ordinance Updates-Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Small Ownership Unit (SOU)
Dear Planning Commission,
The changes to the SOU ordinance open many issues that need to be looked at more closely.

It is noteworthy that there is NO OTHER ORDINANCE OF ITS KIND IN THE COUNTRY. Its original intent was to provide a way for young professionals to enter the market with smaller units as owners rather than renters. The major public concession was that the density minimum per unit was eliminated, and the public benefit was that the units would be sold rather than rented. The loan market does not like a mix of owner and renter units in the same complex and so it makes sense to have owner only units.

Without that goal, the SOU ordinance should be eliminated entirely.

Changing it without CEQA review is something that should not be allowed without the normal public review and analysis process for rezoning and the General Plan Amendment that Advanced Planning said is normally required with something of this significance.

The General Plan Mixed Use Designations below show the areas of discussion originally for higher density that were not matching the higher density of the General Plan for the 4 main designated Corridors of Mission Street, Ocean, Soquel, and Water.
https://santacruzlocal.org/2021/01/10/where-will-new-housing-go-in-santa-cruz/

14.60 However, the map submitted for this discussion of Proposed FDU Zones is much broader and brings up many questions.

The remove of density of 30 to 55 units per acre and removal of the requirement for Mixed-Use Commercial space would have significant impact for the Eastside in particular.

You will note that it would impact primarily Ocean, Soquel, and Water Street all the way to Capitola Road. That area would also include the Auto Zone which brings significant revenue to the city and was therefore not part of the Corridor Plan. What is the revenue impact of eliminating that area? The issue of Equity has been of concern for those involved in the Corridor Plan discussion. The emphasis on Eastside development when 30% of the population are UCSC students has always been a noteworthy point. The existing density below shows that the Eastside already has higher density than the areas near the University and other Corridors heading to the University. There are also significant areas of empty acreage called the Industrial Zone that could be used for Mixed Use Live/Work/Education Housing.

On the map below, each dot is one person and therefore demonstrates the level of density already in place.

14.61 https://santacruzlocal.org/2021/03/13/racial-exclusion-zoning-and-potential-change-in-the-city-ofsanta-cruz/ When one switches to a level of density that is only constrained by FAR (Floor Area Ratio) somewhat and knowing that State Laws allow for further waivers and concessions including heigh and setback and unconstrained density as proposed with FDU, any area would have to be completely redesigned to accommodate any transportation infrastructure to handle that level of density.

Instead, the areas of vibrant Commercial areas that serve the surrounding Eastside neighborhoods are being targeted for density without the constraint of dwelling units per acre or even with the allowance of Commercial space in the future. This proposal is especially concerning when considering the Economic data from the Corridor Plan. The Economic model shows that if they built out the density at 55 units per acre at 1 parking space per unit at 70% of the density of 2.75 FAR and the remaining 30% as Commercial and with ½ the parking required for Commercial (2 parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft of space rather than 4), from May Street to Morrissey alone, they were short 2550 parking spaces. There is simply not enough space to build at that density and accommodate even one parking space per unit at

14.62 70% housing. 600 spaces are about 8 Whole Foods Parking lots equivalent or about 4 acres and so that would be about 17 acres or 33 Whole Food parking lots not accommodated in the zoning plans.

Of course, you could consider accommodating bus rapid transit on that Corridor and encouraging everyone to take the bus and walk with a Complete Street redevelopment of the Eastside and assume that most would not have a car (even if parked). To do so, 40-50 building would have to be demolished and stepped back on Soquel. Parking would have to be removed on Soquel and Water eliminates another 300 parking spaces and impacts the existing business licenses that require minimum parking for patrons.

Bob Thornton, the owner of the Ebert's building and the third generation Santa Cruz owner, at the Dec 5th, 2017, City Council meeting said you are trying to put 30 pounds of potatoes in a 5-pound bag....

Sometimes you hope that Common Sense would abound.”
Please strike the SOU Ordinance and do not allow Santa Cruz to be a guinea pig for an Ordinance that DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.

Sincerely, Candace Brown
Santa Cruz resident

14.63 From: Doug Engfer
To: City Plan
Cc: Andy Schiffrin
Subject: FDU and density limits
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:17:23 AM
Chair Schiffrin and Commissioners -
Writing with respect to the FDU item on this week’s Planning Commission agenda. My specific concern relates to the proposed expansion and codification of the current City policy regarding which units in multi-family developments count against dwelling unit density limits.

The current policy, applied under an expansive reading of LU3.8 from the General Plan (expansive in that the policy does not qualify as an “objective standard” under SB35, yet is used to justify density bonuses far out of scale with the City’s land use plans), exempts SROs, studios, and 1-bedroom units from counting against unit-count-based density limits. This policy would seem to be oriented toward making it more economical to include affordable housing in mixed-affordability developments. To the extent that it encourages the development of affordable housing within the City’s documented land-use patterns, it’s certainly laudatory. However, pushed to the extreme (as we have seen and are seeing in some proposed projects), the policy serves to support the development of projects that are out-ofplace and out-of-scale with the City’s land-use rules, without necessarily increasing the inventory of affordable dwellings. Further, those out-of-scale projects certainly generate impacts on our built infrastructure and City services: water, sewer, transportation, public safety, etc. It’s simply intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is no impact from these “small units”, especially when built at the scale we are now seeing. Incentives, well crafted, should not only encourage the behaviors we desire, but also align with community goals, values, and realities.

My suggestion is that the Commission direct Staff to further modify the policy before codifying it. Specifically, the policy should take note of the local and cumulative impacts of essentially unlimited-density development by counting these small units against documented and codified dwelling unit density units. Market-rate units should be counted as any other residential dwelling unit, irrespective of the square footage of such units. As an incentive to build affordable housing, deed-restricted affordable units should be counted on a fractional basis (say, at a 1/5 rate?), rounded down to the nearest whole number when evaluating development projects. Given that Staff is already proposing a modification to the General Plan, including this provision would not cause much if any additional work or cost additional time in the process. It would have the virtue of enhancing the intellectual integrity of our planning polices and codes, and aligning our incentives with reality.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my suggestion, and for your service to our town.

Best,
Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz
"Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all things." — Thomas Merton

14.64 14.65
From: Gary Patton
To: City Plan
Subject: February 3, 2022 Agenda - Flexible Density Unit Proposal Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2022 11:52:46 AM
Attachments: Letter To Planning Commission re Flexible Density Unit Propoasal.pdf Dear Planning Department,
Please make sure that the Planning Commission has this letter when it takes up its agenda tomorrow.

Thank you!
Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1038
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: 831-332-8546
Email: [email protected]
Website / Blog: www.gapatton.net
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gapatton

14.66 Gary A. Patton
Telephone: 831-423-2984¨ Email: [email protected] February 2, 2022
Santa Cruz City Planning Commission [Sent By Email to: [email protected]] City Planning Department
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: – Proposed Ordinance Revision Re Flexible Density Units - February 3, 2022, Agenda Dear Chairperson Dawson and Members of the Commission:

This very brief letter is to indicate my strong opposition to a proposal, supported by the planning staff, according to the report in the Commission’s agenda packet, that so-called “Flexible Density Units” should be allowed in developments that include larger multifamily housing units. The effect of this change would be to remove many developments from current density requirements, allowing for outsized and highly impactful developments that could have major adverse community impacts.

As the Commission knows, state laws have made it increasingly difficult for local communities to try to balance the positive effects of development proposals with their potentially negative neighborhood and community impacts. If the staff recommendation were adopted, it would be more difficult for the Commission and the Council to strike the best balance. The staff recommended proposal adopts the “any development is good development” approach that the state legislature thinks is appropriate. I don’t think that approach is appropriate, and neither do groups like Save Santa Cruz, and the other community groups that have been deeply engaged in planning items in the last several years.

Please do NOT approve proposed amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow the inclusion of Flexible Density Units in developments with larger multifamily housing units.

Thank you for your consideration of my very strongly held views.

Yours truly,
Gary A. Patton

14.67 From: Lira Filippini
To: City Plan
Subject: Agenda Item 2: 10/21/21
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:27:20 AM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I write to you today with extreme concern over Agenda Item 2: Small Housing Units Ordinance Updates-Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Small Ownership Unit (SOU).

The item before you poses serious threat to the welfare of our City. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would have dramatic effect in implementation on our land use, and consequently, on many aspects of our infrastructure, carrying capacity, affordability, environment and long term sustainability.

The FDU structure put forward by the Staff's report fundamentally removes meaning and purpose from having any dwelling unit per acre (du/acre) zoning within a large swath of the City. What is basically up for assessment is a removal of density restrictions for all units that are less than 3-bedrooms in size, so long as they are under 650 square feet. Please take a minute to think about what that will encourage in future development.

It is important to consider what this is incentivizing when a stated goal is to incentivize production of housing, primarily in large developments considering the specific zones this amendment would affect. A change of this nature would reduce production of housing that can accomodate families and further destabilize the fabric of our community.

Even more importantly, Staff is asking for the clarification of both this new FDU land use and the existing SRO ordinance that is much more significant in application than is explained by Staff. Though LU3.8 "Allow[s] the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Cf. LU1.3 and 3.7.1..." and includes SROs and SOUs (with proposed change to FDUs) - its meaning and implementation has not been that there is no density limit. This may be the "policy" of staff in implementation of LU3.8, but it is not what has been lawfully adopted and has not been used without discretion and oversight within the consideration of all other zoning and development standards, site specifics, local infrastructure, etc...

Staff is well aware that their internal policy of applying LU3.8 and SRO/SOU[/FDU] is not the actual local law or official "policy." That is why it is coming before you now. "Staff recommends adding two clarifying amendments to the SRO regulations in order to codify existing policy."
It is of utmost importance that Commissioners understand the real life consequences of codifying what Staff is proposing - in the context of other applicable laws. Specifically, new state housing laws like SB330, SB35 and the updated State Density Bonus Law. These laws take away local jurisdictional discretion. This is a new world of applying zoning parameters and land use elements and must be considered in assessing the weight and consequence of possible changes to our recorded and codified land use regulations.

Let's look at an example. A Mixed Use High Density land use parcel (like much of the zoning where Staff recommends this change be applied to) has a du/acre of 10-30 as of right. However, the General Plan says it can go up to 55 du/acre if the development fits specific criteria delineated in the Zoning Ordinance. That criteria doesn't exist.

14.68 State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) now allows for up to a 50% density bonus and all density bonus units can be market rate. Let's think about how that proportional change would affect our AMI in a City that already has an affordable housing shortage that is irrestricably caused by the percentage of market rate units to affordable units being developed.

SDBL also allows for endless waivers of objective development standards if denial of each waiver would physically preclude the developer from being able to build at the density proposed. This means almost all of the parameters and regulations our City has put in place to ensure a healthy living environment, like open space requirements, can simply be waived out of the way if applying that standard would result in less density.

Within the landscape of these new state laws, if the City adopts the FDU structure and codifying "change" to the SRO regulations, a developer could build over 300 units on an acre in a CC/CM zone with Mixed Use High Density use of 10-30 du/acre (with SROs/FDUs not counting as "dwelling units"). This can be achieved by building SROs that are less than 300 square feet, providing almost no open space from the granting of a "waiver," removal of the "mixed use" requirement of providing commercial space (as proposed in Staff's report), and an additional density bonus "concession" that allows almost twice the height set forth by the zoning. A reminder that City Council and Planning Staff will be under strict new state laws limiting the ability to deny any such extreme waivers and concessions under the SDBL.

Because of the context of these new state housing laws, an amendment that would have the level of impact of this size and nature, absolutely warrants a CEQA review. Though the Staff postulates the effect would not be substantially significant, adequate assessment of these changes, in context of these new state laws, clearly shows significant impact on both the built and natural environment within Santa Cruz.

We rely on our Planning Commission to be more versed than City Council in land use laws and regulations, as well as the actual affect those regulations would have. Please recommend that a CEQA review is necessary in order to more thoroughly assess the level of impact these amendments would have within the new land use regulations imposed by the state housing laws. That may give the Commission the level of information lacking in Staff's assessment so that you may recommend an amendment accordingly.

With hope you will carefully measure the extreme nature of Staff's proposed amendments and address them with the care warranted,
Lira Filippini
130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
(831) 226-2853

14.69 From: [email protected]
To: City Plan
Subject: SOU revisions Planning Commission 10/21/21 Planning Commission agenda Item 22 Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 12:13:32 PM
Dear Commissioners:

The proposed revisions to the Small Ownership Unit (SOU) ordinance, while good intentioned, may have some adverse consequences that should be analyzed before approving them. Other City objectives, such as for more homeownership opportunities, more affordable housing, vibrant livable streets, and neighborhood preservation may be compromised in this attempt to make SOUs more attractive to build. In fact given that the SOU ordinance preceded new General Plan and recent state law density bonus provisions to encourage more affordable housing and mixed use projects, it may be best to just eliminate the ordinance as no longer necessary.

In allowing smaller and a greater number of units (no density limits), the intent of the SOU ordinance was to offer an incentive for a developer to provide affordable housing. However, State law now has a series of incentives for affordable housing through the use of a density bonuses. Since SOU developers do not need density bonuses (because there is no density limit to start from), they lose the incentive to maximize providing affordable housing. Because the going rates for studio rentals and small condo units now generally exceed affordability limits in Santa Cruz, an SOU developer has no incentive to provide more than the required 20% affordable units. They can charge market rate for the rest of the units. The cited Housing Element contention that SOUs are capable of creating low-cost market rate housing tailored to lower income residents seems to now be an oxymoron as market rate housing is largely out of the acceptable reach of lower income residents.

The staff report notes that although there is no density limit for SOUs, projects will still have to abide by height, setback and other standards. But, this does not account for current State law which allows for various concessions and exceptions to standards. By virtue of the City’s 20% affordability requirement, a project may not have to meet all city standards; if an SOU developer choses to make more of the units affordable, the City has even less control over the size and design of the project and hence its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The map showing where SOUs are allowed reveals some parcels that are large, deep, and separated from the neighborhoods by roads or other parcels, while other potential SOU parcels are shallow, directly adjacent to single family neighborhoods. On these latter parcels it will be more difficult to site the building infrastructure necessary to support high density SOU projects, such as common laundries and HVAC systems, in a manner that their odor, noise and similar impacts can be minimized. Perhaps, SOU projects should not be allowed throughout all of the CC zoning district.

An intent of the SOU ordinance was to increase ownership opportunities. As housing prices rose, less people could afford to buy. So, the thought was that allowing smaller ownership units would allow more people to be in a position to buy a starter dwelling. The proposed revision to eliminate the ownership requirement negates this objective.

The ownership requirement also serves to induce the developer to offer some level of amenity to compensate for the small unit size in order to entice sales. This incentive may disappear given that rental apartments as small as 220 sq ft. with almost all required open space allowed to be indoors

14.70 will be permissible under the proposed revisions. Given our community’s experiences with Covid, earthquakes, fires and their smoke it may be more difficult to guarantee the health, safety, and wellbeing of residents of such units without some different or additional design criteria than the proposed revised ordinance offers.

One reason given to revise the ordinance is that currently SOUs are only permitted in projects that must be 100% SOU thereby not allowing for a mix in of larger units that would likely serve larger families. Having a range of housing sizes and configurations mixed into one project is certainly a worthy goal – the City needs more housing suitable for families, especially with children - but the proposed revision does not require nor necessarily incentivize this to occur, just allows it.

Another proposed revision would not require SOUs to include some commercial uses in CC zones.

Given that needed retail space may be diminishing due to more online commerce, it certainly makes sense to not require every new project in commercial districts to have some commercial use.

However, there are definite benefits to mixed use projects, including contributing to a more vibrant and pedestrian friendly ambience and to serving some nearby residents so they can walk or take a bus rather than drive – thus, lessening congestion and carbon emissions. Hence, the City General Plan favors such projects along major commercially zoned corridors. It would thus make more sense to allow some commercial uses in SOU projects to be required on a case-by-case basis. For example, at the intersection of major streets where there are bus stops, mixed use developments may be desired while at some midblock locations they may not.

In conclusion, the concepts of providing for a range of housing sizes, including small units and preferably mixed together in large projects, as well as providing for ownership or rental options are laudable. But before trying to revise the SOU ordinance which has been on the books for a long time, but hardly been used, consideration should be given as to whether it is even still necessary or desirable. Many, if not all, of the recently proposed multi-unit residential projects already include 600 sq ft or smaller units. Will such units now be considered SOUs (or flexible density units) subject to a different ordinance than the other units in the same project; and, if so, will that not just create confusion as to how to apply the varying provisions? Since the SOU ordinance was adopted the City has updated its General Plan to provide for higher densities, larger projects and mixed use developments. The ability to construct accessory dwelling units has been greatly increased, and parking requirements have also been made flexible. Furthermore, State law has changed to allow for even higher densities and even larger buildings, but in return for more affordability. Together, these tools may better satisfy the objectives of both the original SOU ordinance as well as other city priorities; whereas retaining a revised SOU ordinance could result in the unintended consequences mentioned in this letter. I, thus, hope you will take the time to consider these effects before passing along these revisions to the City Council.

Sincerely,
Rick Hyman

14.71 From: [email protected]
To: City Plan
Subject: Small Housing Units -- PC Meeting of Feb 3, 2022 Items #2 & 3 Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2022 11:35:11 AM
Dear Commissioners:

Although the staff report mentions the relationship of State law with this proposed and existing city ordinances, the recommended zoning revisions appear to have resultant unwelcome consequences and should not be forwarded to the City Council.

First, as you know and as shown in the report’s table, the more and the more deeply affordable units provided, the greater the density bonus incentive available to developers. However, if there is no density limit, as proposed, there is no need for a bonus incentive and thus no incentive to provide more than the minimum affordability requirement (20%). Given current housing costs and demand, sale or rental prices of the 80% of units that don’t have to be affordable, won’t be, nor possibly anywhere near close to affordable.

Second, as you know State “Density Bonus” law, also provides for various exceptions to local zoning regulations for affordable housing projects. Given the City’s 20% affordability requirement, all of these proposed flexible density unit projects will be eligible for certain of these exceptions. Thus, the staff report’s assertion that even though there is no density limit, these projects must comply with other city standards, such as height and setback is not totally accurate.

While the staff report recommends these ordinance revisions because only one project has been built under current SOU rules, in reality most of the currently pending multi-family projects are comprised of small units. Thus, it appears that the City Council’s direction to help promote production of smaller units is already being met under current regulations. As the staff report notes, the City is deficient in providing housing for very low income (VLI) people and the City Council’s other direction is to promote production of a variety of housing types. Since, VLI units are needed to ensure this variety and since ending density limits doesn’t promote VLI’s, that should continue to be the focus of the Planning Commission’s attention, not these recommended ordinance changes.

Sincerely,
Rick Hyman

14.72 From: [email protected]
To: City Plan; Sara DeLeon; Tess Fitzgerald; Allison Webster Subject: Planning Commission Comments
Date: Tuesday, February 01, 2022 9:08:35 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: Planning Commission Comments
Date & Time: 02/01/2022 9:08 PM
Response #: 15
Submitter ID: 95718
IP address: 2601:647:cd01:c8c0:f48e:dcc6:b254:e5cc
Time to complete: 4 min. , 2 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

You are currently able to comment for all items scheduled for the February 3, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

COMMENT PERIOD
The comment period for items scheduled will close at 12 PM the day prior to the meeting. Please select an item and provide your comment. Please note that all information submitted is releasable per the Public Records Act.

1. Please select the agenda item you would like to discuss. (○) Small Housing Units

2. Please select one of the following regarding the item you are commenting on:
(○) Concerns

3. Comment/Question:

FDUs will add more density to our already crowded streets. Our infrastructure will not accommodate more flexibility in density. Please vote "No" on adding FDUs to Santa Cruz. This type of zoning does not exist anywhere in California for good reason. It is not likely UCSC regents will honor their word to build housing on UCSCs campus if we cram so much housing onto the busy streets in Santa Cruz. Why should they when developers will build the housing for them! There are already many small SROs approved to be built in Santa Cruz. Why open the door to more density? Please do your job and stay with ADUs and SROs. FDUs are not needed in Santa Cruz.

4. Contact Information: If you would like us to contact you regarding your comment or question, please provide your contact information. Contact information will not be included as part of the list provided during the public meeting.

14.73 First Name: Not answered
Last Name: Not answered
Phone Number: Not answered
Email: Not answered
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

14.74 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2022 4:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Meeting of March 8 2022 Agenda Item 14
Dear Mayor and Council:

I have read the agenda packet materials for this item. Though I try to keep aware of many city matters, the Planning Commission meeting of Feb 3, 2022 slipped past me, and I only became aware of Agenda Item 14 two days before you will discuss the significant changes regarding SOUs and FDUs.

To quote Gary Patton's Feb 3 letter to the Planning Commission, "The effect of this change would be to remove many developments from current density requirements, allowing for outsized and highly impactful developments that could have major adverse community impacts. As the Commission knows, state laws have made it increasingly difficult for local communities to try to balance the positive effects of development proposals with their potentially negative neighborhood and community impacts. If the staff recommendation were adopted, it would be more difficult for the Commission and the Council to strike the best balance. The staff recommended proposal adopts the “any development is good development” approach that the state legislature thinks is appropriate. I don’t think that approach is appropriate, and neither do other community groups that have been deeply engaged in planning items in the last several years. Please do NOT approve proposed amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow the inclusion of Flexible Density Units in developments with larger multifamily housing units."
I don't agree that these changes will "not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare." This headlong rush to cram ever more people (and their cars!) into our limited and environmentally sensitive city and region WILL negatively impact our community's health, safety and welfare.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

14.75 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Alison Russell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 14, SOU and FDU housing density
Dear Mayor Brunner and council members,
Please do not change the SOU ordinance to allow FDUs and “unlimited” density in certain areas of our city.

This proposal seems radical, at best, and not well considered, given the myriad impacts such developments would have on existing neighborhoods, traffic and emergency services. At the very least, such a proposal should be discussed at length with potentially affected residents, business owners and others who are not aware of it and all that it could entail.

SOUs are small enough, but who would wish to live for any length of time in a 200‐square‐foot FDU space? Since Santa Cruz is a college town, my bet would be on college students — yet FDUs apparently would not be built anywhere near the university. Instead, it appears that the proposal would target the old Corridors Plan areas—but at a far greater density. Shouldn’t the university be pushed to provide adequate housing on campus? Why should city residents be required to shoulder the additional burden of super‐dense development? And what about green space and tree canopy? Why would the city consider this proposal when new state laws on housing density are just beginning to be implemented? Surely we should understand the impacts of those laws before we complicate our own housing regulations further. Rather than simply cramming more and more people into tinier units, shouldn’t the city try every other initiative to actually make housing more affordable? What creative solutions are other cities exploring?
Mixed uses in residential areas create neighborhood vibrancy and encourage walking and cycling for errands, socializing, etc. Yet this proposal discourages it, apparently to maximize housing. That seems to me a very short‐sighted view that risks neighborhood health and vitality.

I am not a planner and find the discussion of density limits and how density may be calculated confusing. But from what I can see, there’s a certain dishonesty built into this proposal. How would it be acceptable that a developer could cite a lower density limit on a project while still being able to mix in additional FDUs? Could we have a situation where a density limit of 40 units has an actual density of 140 units, due to 100 FDUs being mixed in? In such a case, although the lower density number might be cited, the higher density number (and actual number of people living in close proximity) and its impacts on the surrounding area are what we should be concerned with.

Let’s see what transpires with the state housing laws and look into other options besides SOUs and FDUs.

Creating more affordable housing is a laudable goal, but FDUs do not appear to be the way to accomplish it.

Sincerely,
Alison M. Russell
548 Sumner Street

14.76 2
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

14.77 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: nancy maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2022 11:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Water St and Soquel density
I do not think adding so much density to Water St. and Soquel Ave. with FDUs is a good idea. Water St. is too narrow for the type of density FDUs provide.

Nancy Maynard

14.78 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 3/8/22 City Council agenda item # 14
Dear Major Brunner & City Council Members,
Agenda item # 14 is addressing a complex issue, which asks you to give green light to ignore the zoned density limit of 40 units/acre by accepting FDU (flexible density units).

This would allow that FDUs below 650 square feet are not counted in the legal density limit.

In effect permitting a 40 unit Project to build 150 units, because the State Density waivers would apply to the density bonus allocations.

I am concerned that the FDUs will incentive large developments with family unfriendly units that will not reduce our need for very low, low, affordable housing, which we are mandated to build.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Jane Mio

14.79 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:41 AM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Justin Cummings; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder
Subject: FDU Proposal; Agenda Item 14, 3/8/22
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council members,
I write to you today with grave concern over the FDU proposal. It's important to look beyond the selling points of this proposal and look at the actual effect it would have on our City.

The new state housing laws are just starting to be used here and we are only now beginning to understand some of what that means for our future. But the senate and house have not stopped drafting and passing new laws.

In this climate, should we be dramatically changing our local development regulations and structure to incentivise massive and densely packed developments even more than they already are by the state? Please allow our development trajectory to level out and establish some form of predictability before passing changes that would further burden our community.

Here are just some of the major issues I see with the FDU proposal and SRO amendment:

1. There would be no practical density limit for these developments.

2. The density limit would be based on "site standards." These site standards include things like height and set-backs.

3. Each of these site standards can be "waived" or be set aside through a concession with a density bonus. Cities must grant these waivers under new state law.

4. All significant development projects in Santa Cruz will qualify for a State Density Bonus, simply by abiding by our Inclusionary Ordinance.

5. All SROs and FDUs won't be counted as dwellings toward a density limit. However, they DO get counted as dwelling units toward getting a density bonus, so their sheer density numbers are what dictates how many more units will be allowed.

6. Density bonuses, through the State Density Bonus Law, can currently increase a development's allowed density by 50%, and up to twice the zoned height. And the state keeps changing the allowance. It is possible that the state will start requiring cities to approve twice the density and even higher than twice the allowed height.

7. The proposal also includes removing the "mixed-use" requirement for these FDU developments and their higher density zones, which increases the potential density by another 1-2 floors, thereby increasing the base density that the "density bonus" is then calculated by. This could result in even more dramatically dense developments that don't have nearby amenities. The mixed-use requirement is there to encourage walk-able communities where people have access to groceries and other needed services, where they live.

We cannot truly fathom how the State Density Bonus Law and other state housing laws that continue to come down the pipeline - will interact with this FDU proposal. Needless to say, it would further limit the city's ability

14.80 2
to regulate our development and our ability to ensure we do not exceed our infrastructure limitations and carrying capacity.

This type of change to our general plan or municipal code would have dramatic effect on both our community and our environment, and clearly should not be considered exempt from CEQA review. But that is almost beside the point; we really shouldn't be entertaining something like this while we are still learning how all of these new state laws will effect our community.

This particular City Council is uniquely positioned to have some understanding of this, because you have first hand experience with diving into some of these state laws being applied locally with the 831 Water project. You saw the complexity of how the State Density Bonus Law, SB 35, and our local un-codified "policy" of not counting certain unit types as units in a zoned density limit - interacted and removed local oversight over almost all elements of the proposal.

Please do not make changes to our general plan and municipal code that compound these interactions and take away even more oversight. The community is relying on you to have some foresight and protect our ability to grow sustainably.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

14.81 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Patton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposal Re "Flexible Density Units" / Agenda Item #14, March 7, 2022 Agenda Attachments: March 7, 2022 Letter To Council re Flexible Density Units.pdf Importance: High
Dear Mayor Bruner and Council Members,
Here is my letter on Agenda Item #14, which is on your agenda tomorrow. PLEASE have these proposed amendments reviewed for their potential environmental impacts, as the California Environmental Quality Act requires, and do not vote to enact the proposals as currently proposed by staff.

Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1038
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: 831‐332‐8546
Email: [email protected]
Website / Blog: www.gapatton.net
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gapatton

14.82 Gary A. Patton
Telephone: 831-423-2984
Email: [email protected]
March 7, 2022
Mayor and Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Proposed Ordinance Revision Re Flexible Density Units Agenda Item #14 - March 8, 2022, Agenda
[Sent by Email to: [email protected]]
Dear Mayor Bruner and Council Members:

This letter is to indicate my strong opposition to the proposal that is before you as Agenda Item #14 on your March 8, 2022, agenda. The recommendation is that you amend the City’s General Plan, the City’s Downtown Plan, and the City’s Local Coastal Program, and adopt ordinance amendments that would replace “Small Ownership Units” with “Flexible Density Units,” then allowing such “Flexible Density Units” to be included in developments that also include larger multifamily housing units. This is a very significant proposed change to our existing zoning codes, and the effect of this proposed change would be to remove many developments from current density requirements, allowing for outsized and highly impactful developments that could have major adverse community impacts.

In fact, the proposal before you adopts the very same “any development is good development” approach that the state legislature has tried to advance through legislation like last year’s Senate Bill 10 and Senate Bill 9. I don’t think that this approach is the right way to deal with community concerns, and neither do groups like Save Santa Cruz, and the other community groups that have been so deeply engaged with planning issues in the last several years.

As Council Members will probably remember, on August 27, 2019, the Council directed the Planning Department staff to initiate efforts to resolve the existing inconsistencies between corridor-related General Plan policies and the City’s

14.83 2
Zoning Ordinance by making General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes as necessary to meet the following two objectives:

1. Preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses, as the City’s highest-level policy priority; and

2. Encourage appropriate new residential and mixed-use development, specifically including enhanced affordable housing opportunities, at appropriate locations along the City’s main transportation corridors (emphasis added).

The proposal before you is in direct contradiction to this direction from the City Council. Not only would developments including the proposed “Flexible Density Units” not have to meet current density requirements, thus placing outsize stress on residential neighborhood areas, the new scheme could well undermine the ability of existing businesses to survive in the zoning districts targeted for “Flexible Density Unit” developments.

Importantly, the City has not properly subjected these proposed changes to legally-required environmental review. There is no doubt that the changes might have a number of significant adverse environmental impacts.

While materials presented to the Council state that “the zoning code amendment falls within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR using the existing zoning and General Plan,” the claim that “the proposed amendment would not result in increased densities or intensification of uses because FDU developments would be permitted only in zoning districts that already allow Small Ownership Units (SOUs) or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments of equal or greater intensity” is refuted by the staff report presented to the Council. PLEASE require an environmental review of these proposed changes, as the California Environmental Quality Act demands, and please do NOT approve proposed amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow the inclusion of Flexible Density Units in developments with larger multifamily housing units.

Thank you for your consideration of my very strongly held views.

Yours truly,
Gary A. Patton
cc: Save Santa Cruz Steering Committee
Other Interested Persons

14.84 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Scott Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: March 8, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 14 Revisions to Zoning Plan Dear Mayor Brunner and Members of the City Council:

We urge you to vote no on the proposed amendments to Title 24 of the Municipal Code to replace Small Ownership Units (SOUs) with Flexible Density Units (FDUs). We are especially concerned for the part of the city along Soquel Avenue and Water Street where the negative consequences to our commercial and residential neighborhoods could outweigh potential benefits.

We have a vibrant, growing mix of local businesses here along Soquel Avenue and Water Street. As one Eastside resident said, “If we can’t find it in the ‘hood we don’t need it.” Removal of mixed-use commercial designation would sabotage the gains our local commercial area has made despite the pandemic. Shoppers come from near and far to “Midtown” stores and enjoy our restaurants. The Auto Zone also brings much needed revenue to the City. Please don’t remove the commercial zoning designation.

Seriously consider the environmental implications. The increased building density allowed under the FDU model would have major cumulative impacts. As other public letters demonstrate, our area is already more dense than many in the city. Allowing basically unlimited housing development along or closely adjacent to our narrow streets would increase water usage, traffic congestion as well as increase burdens on city infrastructure such as streets and sewers. Think also of how few evacuation routes there are in case of wildfires.

Would the amendments proposed really result in the desired effect to incentivize developers to actually start building the kind of housing we need in Santa Cruz? Who knows? We need housing which is affordable to local workers making local wages and their families, not luxury and market rate. Please do not approve building-related policies without thinking through the consequences for current and future residents.

Thank you for considering these issues and for your dedication to our community.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Scott
Isabelle B. Scott
Santa Cruz Residents

14.85 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:34 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers
Subject: March 8, 2022 Council agenda Item #14: Small Housing Units General Plan, Downtown Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Updates – Single Room Occupancy, Small Ownership Units, and a New Use Called Flexible Density Units (PL) Re. Item #14: Small Housing Units General Plan, Downtown Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Updates – Single Room Occupancy, Small Ownership Units, and a New Use Called Flexible Density Units (PL)
Good afternoon Council and Mayor Brunner.

There is absolutely no reason to enact the Zoning Ordinance updates as presented in Item #14. Current State Legislation under AB 35, SB 9 and SB 10, and the Density bonus laws are excessively adequate. These enacted pieces of legislation already take away local land use control as well as provide unrestrained incentives to developers to build Neo-Ugly, environmentally destructive, high density market rate housing with the barest minimum of affordable housing. Why is staff hellbent on injecting methedrine to further stimulate development in Santa Cruz that’s already on steroids? Who benefits from these projects? Certainly not young families and local working folks. If you’re looking at your Council legacy and like the idea that you’ll be remembered for letting real estate and big development interests run roughshod and destroy the ambience and quality of life in Santa Cruz then I urge your vote for these Zoning Ordinance updates.

Sincerely
Ron Pomerantz

14.86 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: lisa ekström <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 4:53 PM
To: City Council; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: No on Item #14
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
Having just heard about what is being proposed in Item #14, I’m tremendously troubled that this resolution is being seriously considered for approval. Do not change the SOU ordinance to allow FDUs, especially not without the community being better informed about what is intended. Virtually no one that I’ve spoken with has heard anything about this, and everyone I’ve spoken with is very concerned if not alarmed. This is a decision that would have enormous effects and repercussions, and to move this forward now is premature at best.

Thank you,
Lisa Ekström

14.87 Click to edit Master title style
1 Small Housing Units
Ordinance
Amendments –

SRO/SOU
City Council , March 8, 2022

14.88 Click to edit Master title style
2 “[…] review
“
State laws related to efficiency units and
compare those with the City’s Small Ownership Unit
(SOU) and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to
assess whether City Code changes are needed to help
promote the production of smaller units and a variety
of housing types.”
-Housing Blueprint Subcommittee (HBS), 2018, page 9
2 14.89
Click to edit Master title style
3 Background and Definitions
3 Small Ownership Unit (SOU) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) • Local unit type
• Full dwelling unit
• At least 50% of the units must
be for sale
• Slightly larger (400-650 sf)
• No density limit
• National unit type
• Can share facilities
(kitchen/washroom)
• Typically rented
• Smaller units (150-400sf,
average 345 or less)
• No density limit

14.90 Click to edit Master title style
4 Examples of SOUs, 400-650 sq ft
4 Photo Credits: five55santacruz.com

14.91 Click to edit Master title style
5 Examples of SROs, 250~ sqft
5 Photo Credits: http://stgeorgesantacruz.com

14.92 Click to edit Master title style
6 SRO Code Clarifications
6 • SROs function well
• No major changes proposed
• Minor clarifying amendments:
• Codify existing density exemption
• Codify rental requirement

14.93 Click to edit Master title style
7 Challenges for SOUs
• Minimal use
• Split ownership structure
• Community critique: “Monocultures”
• The reality of changing circumstances:
• Parking changes
• Demand for rental housing
• Desire to mix housing and household types
7 14.94
Click to edit Master title style
8 Replace SOUs with Flexible Density Units
8 • Amend SOU policies to address challenges:
• 50% for-sale requirement
• Inability to mix with other unit types
• Other minor issues

14.95 Click to edit Master title style
9 Key Proposed Changes
9 Small Ownership Units Flexible Density Units
• At least 50% must be for sale
• 400-650 square feet of floor area
• Cannot mix with other units
• Can be wholly rental or for sale
• 220-650 square feet of floor area
• Can mix with other unit sizes

14.96 Click to edit Master title style
10 Additional Proposed Changes
10 • Shared laundry facilities
• Minimum number of units
• Remove explicit bedroom limit
• Only allowed in the same 4 zone districts:
• C-C, R-T(C), CBD, and CBD-E (will
require a mixed use component)

14.97 Click to edit Master title style
11 11 14.98
Click to edit Master title style
12 Standards proposed for no change
12 • No density assigned
• Open space requirements (additional requirement for
shared facilities)
• 1 parking space per unit
• Inclusionary requirement
• Allowed in the same zone districts:
• C-C, R-T(C), CBD, and CBD-E (will require a mixed use component)
• Density Bonus process

14.99 Click to edit Master title style
13 Density Bonus
13 • Conforming base project
• Zoning
• Area Plans
• General Plan
• Density Bonus project
• 35% more units
• Waiver for site standards
• Eligible for concessions

14.100
Click to edit Master title style
14 General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments
14 • Amendments would change text to reflect FDU
rather than SOU
• No other changes

14.101
Click to edit Master title style
15 Community Outreach
15 • Two outreach events:
• Lender/Developer focus group
• Interest in ability to mix units
• Questions on Open Space and Parking Requirements
• Community meeting
• Concerns over parking (too much and not enough)
• Desire for increased amenities (laundry, storage, common space) for FDUs
• Concerns about rent prices

14.102
Click to edit Master title style
16 Planning Commission Recommendation
16 • Debated allowing mixing with other units
• Move toward a more “form-based” standard for
residential uses
• Could make redevelopment more feasible
• SROs represent maximum development density
• FDUs can’t be as dense.
• Base density calculations for Density Bonus
remain unchanged
• Recommend allowing mixing and promoting
housing for small households

14.103
Click to edit Master title style
18 Next Steps
18 • Second Reading
• Coastal Commission Review
• Takes effect outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after final approval

14.104
Click to edit Master title style
19 Recommendation:
19 Motion to:
1) Approve resolutions amending the General Plan, and Downtown Plan. , and, in doing so, The amendment to the Downtown Plan will also constitute an amendment to the Local Coastal Program to reflect the elimination of the Small Ownership Unit use and the addition of the new Flexible Density Unit use.
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Title 24 of the Municipal Code regulating small housing units including replacing Small Ownership Units with Flexible Density Units and making minor clarifying amendments to the Single Room Occupancy regulations.
3) Direct staff to submit the approved ordinance to the Coastal Commission for review following the second reading, should the ordinance be adopted as part of the second reading, as well as the changes to the Downtown Plan and General Plan, as changes to the Local Coastal Program.

14.105
Click to edit Master title style
20 Questions?

14.106
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/17/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) Appointment (CC) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint one member to the Transportation and Public Works Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2024.

BACKGROUND: Due to a resignation, there is a vacancy on the Transportation and Public Works Commission.

DISCUSSION: The following people are seeking appointment:

Sabrina Lopez
Joy Schendledecker
FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. APPLICATIONS.PDF

15.1 15.2

15.3 Sabrina Lopez
, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

EDUCATION
2015 – 2019 B.S., Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology University of California, Santa Cruz 2019 UC Center Sacramento Program University of California, Davis 2018 UCD School of Earth Sciences exchange program University College of Dublin, Ireland

EXPERIENCE
June 2020 – Current. Health Program Specialist, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY • Case manages patients and families who experience childhood lead poisoning • Leads outreach and education activities for community members • Maintains inter and intra-agency connections and collaborations • Communicates with medical personnel, public health officials, families/patients, and other collaborators • Educates community on pedestrian and cyclist safety
• Collaborates with Residential Care Facilities for COVID-19 prevention education October 2017 – August 2019. University and Student Life Guide, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ • Led groups of 30+ people on 90 minute campus tours 2-3 times a day • Gained extensive public speaking skills, acting as a campus representative • Developed expansive knowledge base of UCSC academics, student life, and history January 2019 – March 2019. Undergraduate Intern, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/UC CENTER

SACRAMENTO
• Conducted personal project regarding asbestos testing at a low-income public school • Assisted CalRecycle with recycling facility compliance in West Oakland • Worked with stakeholders and Non-Profit Organizations on the Stockton Air Quality and Water Quality improvement efforts • Aided in document editing and analysis for various projects • Educated in policy courses
• Carried out individual research about methane gas and climate change policy implementation June 2018 – August 2018. Big Lift Inspiring Summers (BLIS) Learning Facilitator Intern, SAN MATEO COUNTY LIBRARIES • Facilitated a summer learning camp of rising kindergarteners focused on STEM for cognitive development • Led low-income children through hands-on educational activities • Collaborated with county faculty, educators, parents, and students for a focus on educational enrichment to prevent summer learning loss
March – June 2018. Undergraduate Research Assistant, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ • Assisted in Diatom research in an Earth and Marine lab at UC Santa Cruz, utilizing micro and molecular biology techniques under the supervision of principal investigator Marilou Sison-Mangus Summer 2016 – 2018. Lead Outreach Intern, SAN MATEO COUNTY LIBRARIES • Managed and supervised high school summer interns across the county library system • Helped lead trainings for new employees (ex. 3-D printing training) • Organized and facilitated community events for children, teens, and adults SKILLS
• Strong analytical and critical thinking skills
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills
• Proactive and enthusiastic approach to work
• High attention to detail
• Works well both independently and as part of a
team
• Adaptable and flexible
• Strong time management skills

15.4 15.5

15.6 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 02/22/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/08/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: CORE Investments RFP and Updates on Application Process, Review Panels and Scoring, Award Funding Decisions Process, and Amended Appeal Process (CM)
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Accept report on the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments Request for Proposals (RFP) amended timelines; review panel process; coordination with funders. 2) Direct to staff to return in June 2022 as described.

BACKGROUND: CORE Investments is both a funding model and a movement designed to improve the well-being of county residents. On November 9, 2021, the Santa Cruz County (County) Board of Supervisors and Santa Cruz City Council approved the CORE RFP and funding for a total of $5,879,000 in CORE Investments by the County and City annually.

Key features of this RFP include:
• A three-year contract term;
• A hybrid tiered funding approach that awards grants based on small, medium, and large contract amounts across the CORE conditions; and
• One Targeted Impact Award
Staff also presented information on the application process, technical assistance options for applicants, and possible opportunities for collaboration with the Community Foundation (CF) and Area Agency on Aging (AAA). City Council directed staff to return in March 2022 with an application update including information on the rating panel process.

On November 17, 2021, the County and the City jointly released the RFP for the next CORE Investments funding cycle with an application due date of February 4, 2022. On January 25, 2022, the County Health Services Department (HSD) received approval from the County Board of Directors to extend the application submission deadline for the CORE RFP following numerous requests from community partners to delay due to the impact of the COVID-19 Omicron surge on their workforce. The deadline was extended to March 4, 2022, with a statement that the extensions would result in impacts to other RFP-related timelines. CORE stakeholders were updated regarding the initial proposal and final decision to extend the

16.1 application deadline, and an amended RFP was formally release to the public on February 2, 2022.

DISCUSSION: Application Update
Information regarding the number of applications submitted across all tiers was not available prior to publication of this City Council agenda packet. Preliminary information will be provided during the public presentation.

RFP Amendment and Appeal Process
When HSD and the City extended the deadline for CORE proposals in response to the impacts of the Omicron surge, Technical Assistance Support opportunities were also extended, and an additional Question and Response period was added to provide potential applicants an opportunity to complete their application processes with the intended level of support. As a result of the application deadline extensions, the time for analysis of the submitted applications, scoring panel review, and award recommendations were compacted. To alleviate the constrained timeline, the dates for completing the scoring panels reviews and making final funding recommendations were extended slightly so that funding recommendations can be made to the City and the County on June 7, 2022.

In updating the RFP deadline and specifically preparing for adjustments to the appeal timeline, HSD learned that changing the CORE RFP appeal process required County Board approval as the changes differed from the procedures in the County purchasing policy manual. HSD communicated the intent to stakeholders to change the appeal process within the text of the RFP amendment issued February 2, 2022.

The CORE RFP appeal process is being streamlined and simplified from a two-part process to a one-part process, clarifying that County staff is the party responsible for hearing appeals, and to clarify that final funding awards will be determined during the budget hearing process by the legislative bodies funding CORE Investments, the County Board of Supervisors, and the City of Santa Cruz City Council. The appeals period is also shortened for both the applicants and the County. Applicants will have 3 days to submit an appeal, reduced from 5, and the County will have 5 days to respond to an appeal, reduced from 10. County and City staff have coordinated closely throughout this process and are in agreement on this simplification. As primary administrator of the RFP, HSD recommends the changes to ensure that appeals can be reviewed prior the final budget meeting on June 28, 2022, and final funding decisions can be approved for the start of the next fiscal year that starts July 1, 2022.

With Board approval of this amended appeals process, HSD will issue another amendment to the RFP with the amended appeals process, which would be in line with information previously communicated to stakeholders. There is no City approval required for the amended appeals process.

Scoring Panel Process
HSD, in partnership with the City, is striving to create diverse, representative panels in line with the goals of the RFP. Recruitment efforts have targeted community partners, county departments, local cities, educators, regional partners and community groups, current and former community leaders and researchers from across the county and region. A process has been established to ensure panel members do not have a conflict of interest with the applications being reviewed.

16.2 The review panel approach mirrors the RFP. Separate review panels will be arranged by funding tier, and proposals will be scored based on the criteria of the tier for which the organization applied.

A scoring rubric aligned with the RFP has been developed, and panelists are being provided training on how to utilize the rubric to ensure alignment in how to use the tool and support consistency across raters. Once all proposals within a tier have been scored, they will be ranked, and funding awards will be recommended based on the score of the proposals within the tier Funding Partners Update
County and City staff will be recommending that the County act as the administrator of the CORE contracts assuming that some County funding will be braided into the contracts in which City funding is directed. A memorandum of understanding outlining the agreements around CORE contract administration between the City and County will be presented for consideration in June to City Council.

The City and County HSD also committed to exploring collaboration with the CF and AAA as potential funding partners as a potential way to increase collective impact. HSD has discussed the possibilities of coordinating funding recommendations with both organizations and communicated with County Counsel and the General Services Department regarding the prospects and challenges. The CF informed HSD that they will be applying for CORE funding as part of a partnership with other organizations. Given this, both parties agreed it would be a conflict of interest for CF to both apply for CORE funding, and at the same time coordinate with the County and City to consider braiding funding. The AAA is going through their own RFP process to fund local services for Older Adults, and the outcome is still under review. In considering the existing parameters of the CORE RFP and the status of the AAA RFP, coordination between HSD and AAA for specific funding is not feasible at this time, as doing so would necessitate a change to the parameters of the RFP.

Next Steps
HSD and City staff will return to the Board and City Council, respectively, on June 7, 2022, with a report on the CORE applications received, completed review process, and funding recommendations.

FISCAL IMPACT: CORE Investments awards are funded through the City's General Fund.

Award of funds for the next contracting cycle will be contingent upon City Council’s approval of these funds in the FY 2022-23 budget.

Prepared By:

Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability & Climate
Action Manager
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. COLLECTIVE OF RESULTS AND EVIDENCE-BASED INVESTMENTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AMENDMENT 4, DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2022.DOCX

2. COLLECTIVE OF RESULTS AND EVIDENCE-BASED INVESTMENTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, DATED FEBRUARY 2, 2022.PDF

16.3 ADDENDUM #7
Request for Proposal (RFP HSD1-2021)
Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments Issued February xx, 2022
This addendum (#6) is being issued to update the following sections for HSD1-2021:
 Protests and Appeals Procedures
All changes are denoted in yellow highlight.

15. Protest and Appeals Procedures
Protests and Appeals to the County General Services Director Protests and appeals in connection with this solicitation are to be submitted to the Santa Cruz County General Services Director, who will coordinate and consult as needed with the Santa Cruz County Human Services Director, City of Santa Cruz Manager and/or Assistant and jurisdictional legal counsel.

The appeal process provided herein applies solely to decisions of the Department on this CORE RFP.

Organizations shall submit their protest and/or appeal in writing within three (3) working days from the date the notification of decision is emailed by the county. The Protest and/or appeals shall state the reason(s) for such action, stating all relevant facts, information, and evidence, and note as applicable, any of the following:
 A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the solicitation,  There was an error or abuse of discretion,
 The record includes inaccurate information, or
 A decision is not supported by the record.

New or supplemental information not included in the original submission will not be considered in the protest or appeal. No applicant shall have the right to protest and/or appeal a decision related to another organization’s submission.

Protests and appeals are preferred to be submitted by email to: [email protected] Or by U.S.P.S or other reliable mail carrier to:

General Services Department
Purchasing Division, Att: CORE RFP
701 Ocean Street, Suite 330
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Upon receipt of an appeal and following consultation with those named above, the General Services Director shall issue a final, written decision within five (5) working days after receipt of the protest via email or written letter with an explanation of the Director’s determination.

Final Funding Decisions

16.4 At the public budget hearings regarding CORE funding, held in June, the Board of Supervisors and City Council will adopt their budget and come to a final decision on all CORE RFP funding.

16.5 HSD1-2021 Addendum #4
1 ADDENDUM #4
Request for Proposal (RFP HSD1-2021)
Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments Issued February 4, 2022
This addendum (#4) is being issued to update the following sections for HSD1-2021:
• 1 Summary
• 5.1 Submission
• 5.2 Deadline and Late Applications
• 5.5 Online Portal Support
• 5.6 Questions and Responses
• 5.9 Awards
• 5.10 Timeline
All changes are denoted in yellow highlight.

RFP SUBMITTAL DEADLINE HAS CHANGED.

RFP DUE:

Friday, March 4, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. PST using either the Reviewr online portal (preferred) or to:

Centralized Contracting Unit
Human Services Department
1000 Emeline Ave.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Please note, the sections below have been modified due to the extension of the RFP. In order to meet Board and funding timelines, modifications have been made to various timelines and processes. A separate addendum will be issued once the Board of Supervisors approves the amended the appeals process.

RFP Section Updates
1 Summary
The County and City of Santa Cruz, California invite applications based on the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments model to impact the community’s equitable well-being as described in the CORE framework. Both the County and the City of Santa Cruz are investing significant local dollars, with the County intending to award approximately $4.8 million per year and the City of Santa Cruz to award approximately $1 million per year for three years. Funds are to focus on improving conditions of well-being for community members experiencing the greatest challenges and barriers in the County.

Applicants are invited to use community data and community member perspectives to describe the nature of the challenges and who they consider most affected by these challenges.

16.6 HSD1-2021 Addendum #4
2 CORE funding will be distributed using a hybrid approach, in which most of the funds will support a broad base of direct service programs and a smaller portion of the funds directed to a single “Targeted Impact” model rooted in principles of collective impact. Applicants are to review the entirety of the RFP.

The summary points below provide a quick glance at the information articulated in the document. • Who is eligible? Eligible applicants include Non-profit 501(c)(3), federally recognized tribal entities, and public education agencies. (Further specifications are detailed in section 3.1 Eligibility, page 4)
• How will funds be distributed? Funds will be distributed through a tiered framework, intended to better align the size of the grant award with the depth of information required. Most of the funds are for programs or projects that directly serve the community. • What are the Funding Tiers?
o Small: $5,000 - $25,000/year for 3 years (multiple awards) o Medium: $25,001 - $150,000/year for 3 years (multiple awards) o Large: $150,001 - $450,000/year for 3 years (multiple awards) o One tier, titled Targeted Impact, is for one $795,000/year for 3 years grant. This grant is intended to achieve a deeper impact.
• How will the County and City partner together? County and City staff will partner to review and award all tiers. The City of Santa Cruz funding will primarily be directed to serve City residents and not necessarily programs that primarily target City residents. • Are there any parameters in applications or awards to consider? Applicants are encouraged to review specifications about parameters outlined in this RFP. In summary:
o If funded, requested amounts will not be reduced by more than 10% from the original requested amount to preserve the integrity of the program or project design as much as possible.
o Agencies may submit multiple applications; however, they may not propose the same program or project in more than one tier (i.e., Small, Medium, large) or application. o Agencies may not apply for more than 25% of the total funding available across all tiers. • How do I apply? Applications are to be submitted on an online portal found here:
https://my.reviewr.com/s2/site/core_investments_rfp. Support is available and detailed in this RFP. If needed, paper applications are also available. • How do I learn more and ask questions about this RFP? The County and City will host an applicant conference and answer questions throughout the application period. Training and assistance on concepts in this RFP will also be available throughout the application period. • When is the application due? Applications in response to this RFP must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. PST on March 4, 2022.

5.1. Submission
Applicants for all tiers must consider all information included in this RFP as relevant to the application.

To submit the application, an online portal will be available on release date at:
https://santacruzhumanservices.org/Home/FundingOpportunities/RequestforProposals

16.7 HSD1-2021 Addendum #4
3 The application portal is a web/cloud based digital tool for collecting, managing, and reviewing online application submissions. Technical assistance on use of the application portal is available. All applicants are encouraged to utilize the online application portal.

Alternative formats are available and will be posted at the web page noted. The application form and any attachments must either be delivered in a USB flash drive or paper format at the address below by the specified deadline:

Attn: CORE Investments
Centralized Contracting Unit
Human Services Department
1000 Emeline Ave.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

5.2. Deadline and Late Applications
Applications in response to the RFP must be submitted by 5pm PST on Friday, March 4, 2022.

Late applications will not be accepted, and applicants are solely responsible for timely submission.

Time of submission will be recorded in the following ways:
• The online application portal will time stamp when the applicant submits the application. • Digital or paper submissions will be recorded at the time of receipt by staff at the address above. If submitted prior to March 4, to ensure staff will receive applicant promptly please leave a voice mail of the approximate time of delivery 3 days prior-to the date. • Mailed applications will be stamped with dated of receipt when they arrive at address above.

Postmarks shall not be accepted in lieu of time of receipt recorded by staff. Applicants submitting alternative applications via postal service or other courier delivery services (e.g., UPS, FedEx) are encouraged to account for potential delays in delivery by these services and to use tracking numbers/systems provided by these services. It is at the sole discretion of the funders if exemptions are made due to delays in mail or courier delivery due to extremely significant, unforeseeable circumstances, such as natural disasters.

A complete application via online portal or hard copy by tiers include:

Small Medium Large Targeted Impact
Complete Application
(Questionnaire)
With completed Budget
Form
Complete Application (Questionnaire)
With completed Budget Form
Complete Application (Questionnaire)
With completed Budget form
If relevant, letters of support
Last Fiscal Year Financial Statements
available to agency
Last Fiscal Year Financial Statements
available to agency
Applicants will be informed if their application is considered incomplete or does not meet parameters by March 15, 2022.

5.5. Online Portal Support
Group Virtual training will be offered twice on how to navigate the online portal. Friday, December 3, 2021, 10:00 to 11:00 AM, Wednesday, January 12, 2022,

16.8 HSD1-2021 Addendum #4
4 With the extended submission deadline, an additional Online Portal Support Office Hour will be offered. Please visit the CORE RFP website for the specific date and time.

The sign-up process and recording of the training may be found on the HSD web page noted above.

Further assistance may be requested by leaving a voice mail at: at 831-454 -4816. Follow up on a request for on-line portal assistance may take up to 3 business days. Please plan accordingly to ensure timely submission.

5.6 Questions and Responses
Questions: Applicants are encouraged to submit questions related to the RFP process, documents, or application content via email [email protected] Alternatively, if applicants are unable to email, questions may be left on the voice mail listed above.

Emails or voice mails regarding questions on the RFP will not be returned and instead the following process will occur.

Responses: County and City will collate and post question and responses, rather than answering questions individually. The purpose is to ensure consistent, transparent responses are provided to all applicants.

A “Questions and Responses” document will be posted at least three times in the application period on the site noted above. Applicants may also check the website at any time for updates. Questions will be collated and posted along with responses on:
• Thursday, December 9, 2021
• Thursday, January 6, 2022
• Thursday, January 20, 2022
• Thursday, February 17, 2022
All questions submitted by the close of business the Monday prior to these dates will be included in posting. All responses are intended to be addressed in the final posting to allow enough time for application completion. Please consider questions and submit no later than Monday, February 14, 2022, at 5pm. No further questions will be answered after that date.

5.9. Awards
County and City staff will request the County Board of Supervisors and City Council to approve the proposed awards in June 2022. The City Council and Board will adopt the conditional awards in the June budget process. Contracts will be in English. All awarded applicants must agree to a County or City contract to receive funds. The provisions included in County agreements may be found in section 14.

5.10. Timeline
The following are the anticipated RFP milestones. Links to sign up to events are found at: CORE Investments (santacruzhumanservices.org)
Activity Due Date
RFP released and posted, including but not limited to: Final RFP document & Online Application Portal
Tuesday, November 16, 2021

16.9 HSD1-2021 Addendum #4
5 Activity Due Date
Applicant conference (virtual meeting). Wednesday, December 1, 2021, 2:00 - 4:00 PM 1 st Online Portal Technical Assistance Session. Friday, December 3, 2021, 10:00-11:00 AM 1 st Question and Response Posting Thursday, December 9, 2021, 8:30 AM For questions submitted by Monday, December 6, 5PM
2 nd Question and Response Posting Thursday, January 6, 2022, 8:30 AM For questions submitted by Monday, January 3, 2022,
5PM
Training and TA by Optimal Solutions Consulting. Dates posted on website (Dec through Feb) Individualized Online Portal Support Offered Requested by e-mail (Nov through Feb) 2 nd Online Portal Technical Assistance Session Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 2:00-3:00 PM 3 rd Question and Response Posting Thursday, January 20, 2022, 8:30 AM For questions to be submitted by
Monday, January 17, 2022, 5:00 PM
3rd Online Portal Technical Assistance Office Hour To Be Scheduled, visit the CORE Website for details 4 th Question and Response Posting Thursday, February 17, 2022 For questions to be submitted by
Monday, February 14, 2022, 5:00 PM
Applications Due Friday, March 4, 2022, 5:00 PM
Applicants informed if their application is considered
incomplete or does not meet parameters
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
County Board and City Council panel status update March 2022 County Board and City Council update April 2022
Panel Review April 2022
County Board and City Council approve the list of
proposed awards and notices of intent to award are
submitted to awardees
Late May/Early June 2022
County Board and City Council adopt (and finalize) awards June 2022 Contracts approved. (Contracts retroactive to July 1) August - September 2022

16.10 Collective of Results and
Evidence-based (CORE)
Investments
March 8, 2022
County of Santa Cruz,
in partnership with City of Santa Cruz

16.11 Agenda
• CORE RFP Highlights
• Timeline & Appeals Process
• Applications Received
• Review Panel Process
• Funding Partner Updates

16.12 Highlights of CORE RFP
Community driven process
$5,879,000 available including set aside and city funds Proposals and awards by tier and one targeted-impact
Equity

16.13 CORE RFPTraining & TA
64 Training & TA
opportunities
298 Participants
*152 unduplicated
“I have learned so much”
“Helped to rethink and reframe approach”
“It’s very clear and straight forward”

16.14 CORE RFP Timeline and Appeals
Timeline
• Due date extended one month, to
March 4, 2022 in response to surge
• Recommended awards June 7, 2022
• Final awards June 28, 2022
Appeals Process
(recommended)
• One-step appeals process
• Truncated timeline
• Final awards determined during
budget hearings

16.15 Application Update
Tier
Applications
Received
Requested
Funding
Anticipated
Funding
Small (under $25k) 26 $598,040 $605,488
Medium ($25K-$149k) 87 $9,923,729 $3,083,705
Large ($150k-$450K) 13 $4,372,950 $1,394,807
Targeted Impact 2 $1,670,000 $795,000
Grand Total 128 $16,564,719 $5,879,000

16.16 Review Panel Process
• Review Panels – 85% local
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Scoring Rubric
• Panelist Training

16.17 Funding Partner Update
• City of Santa Cruz
• MOU (June)
• County Contract Administration
• Appeals Process
• Community Foundation
• Area Agency on Aging

16.18 Next Steps
• March/April: Rating Panels Review
• June 7, 2022: Recommended Awards
• June 28, 2022: Final Awards
• Summer 2022: Contract Approval
• Fall 2022: Initiate Lessons Learned Process

16.19 Questions &
Discussion

16.20 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 3, 2021
AGENDA OF: March 8, 2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: Homelessness Response Programming Quarterly Update, Homelessness Response Action Plan, Homelessness Staffing, and Homelessness Response Funding Sources (CM)
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive updates regarding Council directed homeless response programs and services including the Camping Services and Standards Ordinance (CSSO) and the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance (OVO).
2) Adopt Homelessness Response Action Plan (Action Plan), by motion, acknowledging associated funding requirements and sources, including use of the $14 million from the state for homelessness response.

BACKGROUND:

The City and County of Santa Cruz continue to grapple with the challenges associated with homelessness. Both entities are working independently and collaboratively to expand services that provide appropriate and stable shelter options and connect individuals to the necessary wraparound services to facilitate pathways to long-term housing. Both the County and City have significantly expanded their operational capacity, adding homeless response staffing; applying for new and additional funding sources; exploring sheltering best practices; and committing a joint, collaborative effort to effect real change. These important steps are necessary to move our region forward in tackling this enormous public health crisis.

The City recognizes the importance of collaboration at the county, state, and federal level, while also understanding the need for local, independent, innovative programming to minimize the number and impacts of unhoused living within the City. On December 14, 2021, the City Council received and approved recommendations regarding City-specific homelessness response programming efforts tied to the Council-approved Camping Standards and Services Ordinance (CSSO) and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance (OVO). Today’s report serves as the first of will be a quarterly homelessness response programming update to the Council to ensure the Council and the public have a clear understanding of the ongoing efforts to respond to the homelessness crisis that the City and County are experiencing.

17.1.1 DISCUSSION:

Homelessness response in our region is currently undergoing a significant amount of change.

The COVID pandemic has both exacerbated the issue of homelessness and highlighted what is possible when collective resources are applied to the problem. At the onset of COVID-19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control distributed recommendations to local jurisdictions to leave unsanctioned encampments in place, believing that closing them could disperse illness and disrupt existing support systems. This policy directive resulted in larger, more visible encampments on the streets of cities up and down the West Coast. At the same time, state and federal governments began allocating funding and creating new grant programs to help local and regional agencies rapidly expand shelter capacity, thereby providing a safe location for the most vulnerable to shelter in place. Although this temporary expansion of shelter capacity was a heavy lift for local governments and caused a significant strain on resources, many lessons were learned, including the important role housing stabilization plays in accessing services more readily and regularly, the shared responsibility that the state and federal government have in supporting and funding local and regional homeless response efforts, and the need for regional collaboration to tackle this shared challenge.

The City of Santa Cruz, like other local jurisdictions in California, has been affected positively and negatively by the state and federal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The number and size of encampments in the City have grown significantly – the most visible of which is the Benchlands encampment which was established as a result of a court injunction amid concerns of dispersing individuals during the pandemic. The City has also seen the positive side of the state and federal funding. The state and federal funds allowed the City to invest in additional homelessness prevention efforts, such as security deposit and rental assistance, and it funded expanded restroom and hygiene facilities for those experiencing homelessness. Isolation, Quarantine and Vulnerable (IQV) hotels and the Homeless Outreach Service Sites (HOSS+) were also opened in the County and City. During the COVID pandemic, the number of emergency shelter and transitional housing beds reached a peak of 1,008 beds, more than doubling the pre-COVID shelter capacity of 454 beds in Santa Cruz County.

Now, two years into the pandemic, many of those expanded shelter beds have been closed as the COVID-19 specific resources to maintain that capacity have expired. When the City Council directed staff to add 150 shelter beds and safe parking spots in conjunction with the CSSO and OSV ordinances, expanded COVID-19 sheltering resources were in place. But the County, under the strain of the resource limitations, has shifted its focus from short-term shelter to longer-term temporary and permanent supportive housing. In the long run, this shift should greatly benefit those living on the streets and, by extension, the greater community, as there should be fewer individuals cycling through short-term shelters and the streets. But in the short term, this decrease in emergency, temporary shelter capacity places significant stress on the City.

Although the continually changing landscape of shelter capacity has been a challenge, there have been noted positive outcomes as well. As mentioned above, the region has had the opportunity to experience the benefit, albeit short term, of an influx of state and federal funding devoted specifically to homelessness response. In addition, the County and City of Santa Cruz have come to the table to discuss short- and long-term planning and resource allocations. This collaboration, though complex, as both entities have differing mandates and immediate needs, has been a welcomed change and marks a new chapter in collective efforts to solve these challenges together. The path forward must be a regional approach. One example of the regional collaboration has been the City and County working with developers and applicants to pursue

17.1.2 Homekey funds in four project applications throughout the County, including one in the City.

The City and County are also working with additional applicants so they are poised for the Homekey round expected in Fall 2022, and some of the upcoming actions and funding support these efforts, both in the City and throughout the County.

As City staff has been navigating this changing landscape and working to operationalize the Council directed homelessness response policies, the need to revisit and update the City’s homelessness plan became apparent. Existing plans and recommendations from the 2017 Homelessness Coordinating Committee and the 2020 Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness are both valuable resources that have guided the City’s homelessness response.

The County’s Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz: A Strategic Framework for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Cruz County has also helped shape and inform the City’s direction following the Council’s endorsement of that strategy document. However, a new, holistic, coordinated, and action-oriented plan that articulates the role of all City departments within the current landscape is needed. To this end, staff engaged in an action planning process and developed the new Action Plan to guide and focus the City’s efforts over the next three years.

Contained in this agenda report is a comprehensive update on the City’s homelessness response programming, an update on ongoing City-County collaborations, and an overview of the newly developed Action Plan.

UPDATES:

CSSO Implementation
Implementation of the CSSO requires “an available 24/7 sanctioned sheltering location or available homeless persons’ storage.” Since the ordinance’s passage, the Homelessness Response Team has worked to stand up sanctioned sheltering locations to augment limited County shelter options. The team launched the 30-space transitional community camp at 1220 River Street in January and continues the contracting process with the Salvation Army to open a 75-space program at the Armory, including 10 emergency spaces to facilitate enforcement of the ordinance. The team is also working on a second transitional community camp that will host 20-30 sites, as well as expanded shelter capacity on Coral Street. Until additional programs are operational, the encampment at the Benchlands in San Lorenzo Park continues to serve as an alternate location for individuals as the CSSO is enforced in other areas of the City, such as recently closed areas at Lot 27 (northeast corner of Laurel and Front Streets) and behind the Santa Cruz Memorial cemetery.

Limited staffing in Police, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, and the City Manager’s office poses challenges to the ongoing ordinance implementation, and the team continues to address ad hoc locations on a complaint-driven basis. More information on the efforts to stand up additional sheltering resources and recent enforcement efforts is provided below.

Safe Sleeping Programs
In conjunction with the revision to the CSSO passed by Council on June 8, 2021, direction was given to create 150 emergency shelter beds and an associated storage program. Since the ordinance’s passage, the Homelessness Response Team has worked to stand up sanctioned sheltering locations and storage options for individuals living outdoors. Between the Benchlands camp and the 1220 River Street transitional community camp, the City currently exceeds the 150- space capacity required for enforcement. The Council has directed that the sanctioned camp at the Benchlands be closed in favor of full-managed programs in other locations. Additional safe sleeping spaces are currently provided at the Armory, where the City shares costs with the County, and additional capacity will be added there in the near future. Following the Benchlands closure,

17.1.3 the remainder of the required safe-sleeping capacity will be provided through a combination of new transitional managed camps and partnerships with local community-based organizations to expand our existing capacity.

The Benchlands closure, additional safe sleeping sites, and the Action Plan are discussed later in this report.

Armory City Overlook:

At the December 14, 2021 meeting, the Council approved a contract between the City of Santa Cruz and the Salvation Army to run the Armory City Overlook managed camp. This 24/7 camp will have a total of 75 sites, 10 of which will be on-demand for any immediate overnight need.

Since approval by the Council, the contract has been in the hands of The Salvation Army, and its internal approval process has taken longer than expected. Given the delay in executing this agreement, the term will need to be adjusted to reflect a six-month contract term commencing when the contract is signed by The Salvation Army. The City has been in recent conversations with the local Salvation Army leadership, and they expressed optimism at being able to get the contract signed and the program operational in the next few weeks.

The City’s Homeless and Housing Services Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was created to be open for a year with rolling submission dates. The City has received additional submissions since the first deadline, but no additional application for a large managed camp. The final submission date is June 6, 2022 and the City welcomes additional submissions from local and regional service providers.

The Armory location is itself a changing landscape. Through most of 2021, the City-leased National Guard property hosted three different County-funded emergency shelter programs. Two of these programs have already been closed and the final program may cease operating at that location by the end of this fiscal year. These closures have put a strain on the remaining limited emergency shelter programs and contributed to the continued existence of encampments within the City. Once the City’s contract with The Salvation Army contract is executed, the City Overlook camp will open on the site of the former County-funded “Golflands” program. Staff are also planning for the City’s Tier 3 Safe Parking program at the National Guard property where the County-funded Pavilion program operated until recently. If the County-funded program inside the Armory building closes at the end of this fiscal year, the City will have access to that space to use for shelter programs.

Transitional Community Camps:

Transitional Community Camps (TCCs) are smaller camps (approximately 20-30 participants each) aimed at stabilizing individuals who are committed to work toward change. These TCCs are small by design to ensure participants have sufficient access to the critical case management services needed to connect them to supportive services and to get them on an effective pathway to housing. TCC’s allow for more hands-on case management services and also help to mitigate impacts on surrounding areas, thereby helping to address some of the community concerns often associated with siting shelters.

The City’s first TCC has been open and operational since the beginning of this calendar year. It is located at the City-owned 1220 River St. property and currently has 30 participants. This low barrier camp offers basic services such as showers and cooking facilities, with staff providing daily oversight and case management. A cohesive camp community and camp council has been

17.1.4 established, with participants working together to maintain the facilities and support one another in adhering to the rules and expectations.

The TCC model is founded on a commitment by participants to engage in case management.

Participants are required to meet with staff weekly to assess progress on their individual service plans. Such case management is essential to assist the participants in connecting with and advocating for access to available services. Although the 1220 River TCC has only been operational for a few weeks, some very positive outcomes have already been achieved. To date, three participants have exited to more stable shelter/living environments, two participants have obtained housing vouchers, and two participants have been referred to Janus’ addiction treatment services. In addition, the County recently expanded access to federal Housing and Urban Development vouchers in advance of a February expiration, and the City team jumped into action, facilitating the acquisition of vital documents for 1220 River St. participants and completing voucher referrals to the Housing Authority. It will take a few weeks to know how many of the voucher referrals from this time-constrained push will be approved, but staff expects that a handful of 1220 participants will gain access to housing vouchers.

Based upon the success and learning from piloting this model at 1220 River, additional TCCs could be opened in the coming months. The next TCCs are envisioned to be designed for focused clientele, such as individuals with mobility challenges, women only, or unhoused individuals who are in substance abuse recovery and are seeking a sober environment. The decision as to what population the additional TCCs will target will be based on a number of factors, such as site assessment and outreach staff’s assessment of demand.

Housing Matters’ Shelter Expansion
Recently, the City, the County, and Housing Matters have engaged in collaborative discussions around providing an additional capacity of 30 shelter beds as a part of Housing Matters’ current operations. This proposed program will utilize Pallet Shelters (or similar sleeping structures) and will include the other necessary infrastructure to support the program. This new 24/7 shelter will be operated by Housing Matters, offering program participants access to Housing Matters’ staff who will provide case management and housing navigation. Housing Matters is a highly experienced local shelter provider with existing contracts with the County that can be further leveraged. In the City’s open Homeless Services RFQ there have been proposals for managed camps, but there have been no responses from experienced shelter operators that include case management and housing navigation services. The specific details and budget for this new shelter program are still being developed, but the plan is to use a portion of the $14 million in state funding to purchase the Pallet Shelters (or similar structures) and cover the first year’s operating costs.

OVO Implementation and Safe Parking Program (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) The OVO was adopted by Council on November 9, 2021. The key elements of the OVO include parking restrictions on City streets between midnight and 5 a.m., a new residential permit program, and the restriction of discharging sewage or greywater on streets or in storm drains.

The Council also directed staff to launch a three-tier safe parking program to allow oversized vehicles a legal overnight parking option within the City limits.

In the Coastal Zone, parking regulation changes are considered “development” under the Coastal Act, and parking regulation changes trigger a Coastal Permit. Because the ordinance includes changes to parking allowances in the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit is needed. A Coastal Permit and Design Permit are also triggered to implement Safe Parking Program spaces

17.1.5 in the Coastal Zone. The Zoning Administrator approved the ordinance’s Coastal and Design Permits, but the decision was subsequently appealed by two parties, and they will now go to the Planning Commission for review.

The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear the item on March 3, 2022, so a verbal update on the status of the applications will be provided to the Council at the March 8th meeting. If the Planning Commission approves the permits, the decision can be appealed to either the Council or directly to the Coastal Commission. If appealed to the Council, a Council approval would still be appealable to the Coastal Commission. Enforcement will begin following the conclusion of the appeals process, assuming permits are approved, and following completion of the following steps: establishment of a rate structure for residential permits via Council resolution (April 2022); rollout of the residential permit program, including public education (as soon as mid-May 2022, but dependent on the timing of the Coastal and Design Permits); augmentation of staffing and operations for safe parking (July 2022); and installation of applicable signage (Summer 2022).

Although the full OVO cannot take effect until the appeals process is complete, the Safe Parking programming portions of the ordinance have been activated and will be expanded in the coming months. These newly established Tier 1 and 2 programs are seen as pilot programs to hear from participants and help staff assess demand, feasibility, costs, and service provision needs. Prior to full OVO implementation, the City will continue to cite out-of-compliance vehicles, and Police will encourage individuals to make use of the safe parking locations.

Tier 1 Emergency Safe Parking (3 spaces total): Emergency, night only parking spots have been designated in the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) parking lot. SCPD is administering the Tier 1 program and interested participants can contact SCPD directly.

Tier 2 Multiple Safe Parking Sites (30 spaces total): The Tier 2 program has been opened in two downtown City parking lots (#4 and #5 - on either side of Cedar Street, between Cathcart and Lincoln Streets) with the initial pilot containing three spots in each lot. In this initial phase, the program is being administered jointly by the City Manager’s Office and the Parking Division of the Public Works Department. In the longer-term as safe-parking expands, a dedicated program manager will need to be hired. In the pilot, participants in the Tier 2 program are able to stay overnight for up to 30 days, with extensions possible based on availability. Program parking spots have designated signs and participants are given permits to display in their windshield. After an initial pilot period, the number of spaces at these locations and the opening of additional locations for safe-parking are anticipated, as dictated by demand. At this time, we are planning for locations to be limited to approximately three to six spots, even though some locations could potentially accommodate more vehicles.

Tier 3 Operator Supported 24/7 Safe Parking Site (number of spaces still to be determined, up to 30): The third tier of the Safe Parking Program is designed to provide more stability to participants, so they may be better able to connect to services. This 24/7 parking program is tied to case management and will be administered by an outside service provider. The siting of the Tier 3 program is currently set for the front parking lot of the Armory. This location has been in use as an emergency shelter inside a state-issued pavilion tent. The County closed operation of this shelter on February 28th, but the program infrastructure is still in place. Currently, the site is expected to be available to the City in approximately one month. The City is in the process of determining the capacity of this site. As it is a 24/7 program, staff does not anticipate that oversized vehicles will

17.1.6 be coming and going from this site on a daily basis, limiting the impact on neighborhood traffic.

This program is not designed as a long-term recreational vehicle or mobile home park where participants can stay indefinitely. Program participation will be limited to six months, providing participants stability and time to access services. The goal is to provide case management and connect program participants to more stable shelter and, ultimately, housing.

In response to the City’s open Homeless and Housing Services RFQ, two vendors submitted Tier 3 Safe Parking proposals during the February submission deadline. Staff have reviewed the submissions and are in the process of following up with the vendors. Staff expects to bring a contract for a Tier 3 operator to Council at the next quarterly homelessness programming update in June. Staff should also have a better understanding of the status of the Coastal and Design Permits’ status at that time.

Encampment Management
A number of events related to encampment management have occurred since the Council’s last homelessness agenda item on December 14, 2021. On December 13, 2021, the City implemented an emergency operation to evacuate unhoused individuals in the low-lying areas along the San Lorenzo River due the flood risk created by rising water levels from a winter storm. The City established an immediate short-term evacuation shelter at the River-Front parking garage which is located directly across from the Benchlands encampment and connected by a pedestrian bridge.

Approximately 40 people were relocated to that shelter. The City then set-up a short-term evacuation shelter in the parking lot at Depot Park where those who were evacuated were able to remain until January 19, 2022 when the concern for a subsequent flood event subsided, and this camp was closed. During this time, the low-lying areas of San Lorenzo Park that were evacuated were closed and the City worked to ensure that encampments did not redevelop in these areas.

On January 19, 2022, the City was required to close Lot 27, including the encampment around the lot, due to the Pure Water Soquel pipeline project moving through that location. The persons camping in this area were provided advance notice, and City Homelessness Response Outreach staff reached out to assist in facilitating a move to the Benchlands for those who were interested.

On January 26, the City completed a closure of the encampment behind the Santa Cruz Memorial Cemetery to perform an environmental clean-up and mitigate pollutants from entering the river as a result of run-off from winter storms. As with the closure of Lot 27, City staff provided advance notice and conducted outreach to those camping in the area to facilitate a move to the Benchlands area if they were interested. The clean-up effort at the cemetery encampment was conducted by an outside contractor, who completed the project in approximately two weeks and removed 95 tons of refuse from the area, at a cost of approximately $85,000.

Benchlands Sanctioned Camp next steps
The sanctioned encampment in the lower portion of the San Lorenzo Park known as the Benchlands has been in its current location since April of 2021. Although the court injunction that forced the creation of this camp has been lifted, the region has lacked the available shelter capacity necessary to fully close the encampment. Instead, this encampment has continued as a central site for those living unhoused within the City limits and as an alternative when other unsanctioned encampments need to be closed, as was the case with Lot 27 and the cemetery encampments in January. Limited services such as trash collection, portable toilets, and water have been provided.

The Benchlands sanctioned encampment was never intended to be long-term, and with the creation of new emergency shelter capacity through the CSSO, Benchlands campers will be offered more

17.1.7 stable, appropriate shelter locations when the Benchlands is closed in Summer 2022. Through the establishment of sufficient emergency shelter capacity across the region, our goal is to eliminate the use of the Benchlands for purposes of emergency shelter and restore the area as a community park.

Homelessness Response Action Plan
Process
Recognizing the changing landscape of homelessness response as well as the new role the City is playing in shelter provision, staff took the important and necessary step to create the Action Plan to help guide the City’s homelessness response for the next three years. Using outreach, research, and findings from the Council’s Homelessness Coordinating Committee, the Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness (CACH), California’s Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness, and the County’s three-year strategic plan (Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz: A Strategic Framework for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Cruz County) as a foundation, staff facilitated a process to identify and prioritize the short-term actions needed to ensure the City’s contributions to the homeless crisis are appropriate, effective, and aligned with mutual priorities between the City and County.

The first step in the process of creating this Action Plan was to request feedback from staff throughout the City in all classifications. The voices of staff whose roles and responsibilities are impacted daily by the homelessness crisis is greatly valued, as are the voices of staff who receive regular feedback from constituents regarding the impacts felt in the community. Staff was requested to provide proposed goals, services, projects, and policies that the City should focus on in the next three years.

A two-part facilitated workshop was developed to help management and homelessness response team staff compile and deliberate on the contributions brought forth from the City’s workforce.

The first workshop was a brainstorming session to ensure all services, projects, and solutions could be presented and considered. No idea was too small or too large for consideration. After the first workshop, the brainstorming outcomes were categorized, integrated, and consolidated to create priority actions and objectives to support those priorities. Also, through the process of the first workshop, a series of values were illuminated and used to create a mission statement for the City’s homelessness response efforts.

At the second workshop, the mission, values, priority areas, and objectives were presented, reviewed, and amended. The next step was to create a document that provides sufficient information to explain the priority areas and objectives so as to make the document not only a guide for City staff, but also digestible for the general public so as to ensure transparency and accountability. The result is the Action Plan attached herein.

Summary of Action Plan
The Action Plan commits the City’s homelessness response to balancing individual needs and community impacts from prevention to exit, centering on the values of collaboration, health & safety, economic vitality, fiscal responsibility, practicality, resource stewardship, and transparency. Action areas include: Building Capacity and Partnerships, Permanent Affordable and Supportive Housing, Basic Support Services, Care & Stewardship, and Community Safety.

The Building Capacity and Partnerships action area focuses on the City’s response to homelessness and housing stability, including actions aimed at creating greater internal

17.1.8 coordination and alignment of services, while expanding the City’s overall capacity and effectiveness.

The Permanent Affordable and Supportive Housing action area highlights that affordability and availability are two of the most significant contributors to the region’s homelessness crisis. Santa Cruz is a leader in taking proactive and innovative approaches to expanding permanent affordable and supportive housing, and this goal speaks to advancement and continuation of the City’s longstanding commitment to expanding housing opportunities in the community.

The Basic Support Services action area addresses the provision of effective care and support services, including basic hygiene, shelter, and storage facilities, that play an integral role in breaking the cycle of homelessness and connecting unhoused residents to the support they need to work towards permanent housing.

The Care & Stewardship action area addresses the necessity of effective care and support for our community’s homeless residents to support securing permanent supportive housing, as well as the vital role of managing local habitat restoration in protecting our environment.

The Community Safety action area focuses on developing key partnerships with the County and local agencies and creating new response models that are necessary to keep Santa Cruz a safe environment for all, including enforcement of local ordinances and regulations.

This newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response. The Action Plan does not promise ending homelessness in Santa Cruz, nor will it be able to fully end the occurrence of unsanctioned encampments. The current homelessness crisis cannot be solved at the local level alone. But this Action Plan will help provide staff a clear trajectory and pathway to focus on the action items that fall within the City’s ability and scope. The Plan includes increased staffing for the Homelessness Response Team, but each department in the City will continue to be engaged in implementation of the plan. The Plan also includes advocacy components to achieve reform and garner support and collaboration at the county, state, and federal levels. For the Action Plan to be successful, it will also require the support of the community, including the establishment of shelter sites, expansion of affordable housing opportunities, and understanding the need for additional resources to sustain the new programs set forth in the Action Plan.

Organizational Capacity
The Action Plan identifies the need for a number of new staff positions dedicated to the City’s Homelessness Response. Currently, other than a handful of designated employees and temporary workers within the City Manager’s Office, homelessness response is an amalgamation of decentralized work spanning twelve City departments. The organizational backbone outlined in the Action Plan is absolutely needed to move to a proactive, integrated support model. While a cost analysis is currently in process, initial estimates of total costs budgeted and absorbed across all departments is $13.8 million in FY 2022, with approximately 73% of that being estimated costs that are absorbed by departments as they participate in homelessness response work such as outreach, calls for service, transportation, clean-up, remediation, hygiene station deployment, and management, enforcement, etc.

A key part of the Building Capacity and Partnerships action area is a phased approach, with the first step being funding a more robust central administration, dedicated outreach and sheltering

17.1.9 staff, specific resource and land management experts, plus community safety. Additionally, key service areas will be supplemented and in some cases supplanted with vendor resources via competitive proposal processes. With this foundation, the integrated team will lead an effort to re-engineer service delivery with the goal of delivering a transparent and sustainable homelessness response budget by June 2023 (FY 2024).

The Outreach & Shelter Specialist I/II (2.0 full-time equivalents - FTEs - consisting of 2 at 75% and 1 at 50%) will perform outreach and para-professional case management to unsheltered individuals within the City and will be responsible for implementing programs related to the City’s sanctioned shelters and encampments.. The Resource & Land Management Specialists (2.0 FTE) responsibilities will include response and abatement of illegal encampments, preservation of public lands and environmentally sensitive areas, and restoration of impacted areas. The establishment of this team will reduce the need to pull staff from multiple departments to provide these services.

The Building Maintenance Worker II (0.5 FTE) will be responsible for maintaining the proper function of the physical infrastructure of City safe-sleeping and safe-parking program sites. The Community Relations Specialist (0.5 FTE) will support the Communications Manager in developing and disseminating regular communications updates to the Council and the public on homelessness-related issues and will support community input and engagement efforts related to specific projects.

The Action Plan also calls for adding two full-time Community Services Officers (CSO) to expand the capacity of the CSO team to provide proactive support in homelessness response and enforcement of City municipal code, working in coordination with County outreach, City Outreach and Shelter Specialists, Resource & Land Management Specialists, and the Police Department. Expanding the CSO team will also allow for an increased presence in the downtown.

The implementation of the Action Plan also necessitates some organizational restructuring and changes to existing positions. First, the current Management Analyst (65% FTE) position will be replaced with a higher level Homelessness Response Coordinator position that will be responsible for the operational management of the City’s sanctioned encampments, transitional community camps, safe parking programs and ensuring the successful implementation of the City’s homelessness response policies and projects across City departments. Second, the staffing plan proposes to convert the vacant Assistant to the City Manager position in the City Manager’s Office to a Deputy City Manager I with, among other responsibilities, overall management of the Homelessness Response Team. Last year, the City expanded the Director of Planning and Community Development position to include homelessness response in a newly created role of Deputy City Manager II. While this change has been successful in providing effective executive management of homelessness response functions, the volume of work related to homelessness response and managing the Planning and Community Development Department is unsustainable in the long-term, particularly with the City’s expanding role in homelessness response, as detailed throughout this Action Plan.

The additional needed organizational capacity to support the Action Plan and brought via these recommended position changes are further detailed in a separate Human Resources personnel staff report.

17.1.10 Objectives and Costs
Many of the objectives found in the Action Plan impact staff time but do not incur direct financial cost, such as coordination with the County and internal planning and prioritizing. But other objectives will have associated cost, therefore, a fiscal component was added so that both the Council and public understand the fiscal impacts that implementation of this Action Plan will have on the City over the next three years.

The Action Plan incorporates previous direction from the Council, including from the CSSO, OVO, and related actions authorized on December 14, 2021. In the first year, July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023, the estimated costs associated with implementing the Action Plan totals approximately $14.56 million, of which $7.33 million is capital investments, and $7.22 million is operational expenses. The capital investments include activities, such as property acquisition on Coral Street, purchase of shelter infrastructure (such as Pallet Shelters or similar), hygiene bay repair at 117 Coral Street, and design and pre-development work for a navigation center and other improvements on Coral Street.

The operational expenses include priorities such as new staff positions focused on resource and land management, outreach and case management, and community safety. It also includes resources to contract with the County for expanded mental health response in partnership with Santa Cruz Police. The Action Plan further identifies critical supplemental capacity needed from vendors, working with departments in areas such as refuse management, environmental protection, and vehicle abatement. Nearly all of the first year expenses will be funded by the $14 million allocation from the State of California, with the remainder from American Rescue Plan Act and general funds. Subsequent year operating expenses are presently unfunded and a sustainable revenue stream will need to be identified to maintain these services over the longterm. An attached spreadsheet details the expenditure descriptions, approximate costs, and funding sources. Additional information on the expenditures of the $14 million from the state is included below.

Work in the homelessness space, particularly as the City expands into the delivery of new and expanded services, must be dynamic. The Action Plan is intended to be flexible and adaptable, responsive to emerging needs, informed by what is working, and positioned for leveraging opportunities.

Regional Collaboration on Homelessness & $14 Million from the State The scope and scale of homelessness must be addressed collaboratively, with a range of governmental and non-governmental partners. The City continues to engage with many of the partners who help to address homelessness in our region, including regular meetings with the County regarding the allocation of the $14 million provided by the State of California to the City of Santa Cruz in the current fiscal year for homelessness response work.

Following a meeting with Assemblymember Stone and Senator Laird in late October 2021, the City and County have held regular discussions focused not only on allocation of the state funding but also on improved understanding of roles and responsibilities. Through those discussions, the City and County agreed on the use of the $14 million to enhance and expand our collective homelessness response efforts. The plan agreed upon includes permanent infrastructure investments, funding for predevelopment work to jumpstart low-barrier interim housing and permanent supportive housing and expansion of operational capacity.

17.1.11 As noted above in the discussion of the Action Plan, the spending of the $14 million is focused on making infrastructure investments and structural increases to organizational capacity to create and/or link unhoused individuals and families to stable housing, including: (1) expansion of the Coral Street Campus and increasing low-barrier, housing-outcome-focused sheltering capacity; (2) structural investments to expand operational capacity to shift to a consistent and proactive approach to addressing unsheltered homelessness in our community; and (3) a funding pool to support predevelopment for low-barrier interim housing and permanent supportive housing projects. Additional information is provided in a spreadsheet attached to this report, though a few items are discussed below in more detail.

Acquisition of property on Coral Street will be a key focus of the funds. The additional land will facilitate expansion of homelessness services in the immediate area. To help guide investments and development decisions on the properties currently under control and on those sought, the money from the state will also help fund a Coral Street design charrette that will result in a vision and master plan for the campus that will be presented to the Council and County Board of Supervisors. Future land use changes and entitlements will still be necessary after acceptance of the master plan; however, the plan will help provide a path for upcoming investments, subject to those future land use decisions. The City has prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design charrette work. The draft has been reviewed by the County, and we are completing internal legal and risk management reviews before circulating the RFP, which is expected to occur late this month.

The second area of focused investment will be the creation of a $500,000 predevelopment funding pool to support the predevelopment work for low-barrier interim housing and permanent supportive housing projects with Santa Cruz County.

The third focus area consists of structural investments to expand operational capacity for emergency shelter for individuals and families. This includes the additional allocation of resources outlined previously to implement the Action Plan. This includes: additional shelter infrastructure procurement, funding the shelter operations at the Armory building, safe-sleeping and safe-parking programs, expansion and stabilization of interdepartmental operational capacity related to homelessness response, and expanding capacity and partnerships through legislative advocacy and communications infrastructure. The $14 million allocation from the State would be used to cover the operational costs included in the Action Plan for one year. The City would need to fund subsequent years through a new revenue measure, or other sources would need to be identified.

The City also recently learned that the County’s Encampment Resolution grant proposal submitted on December 31, 2021 was approved and awarded $2.3 million. City staff collaborated with the County staff in the development of this proposal, and the Council provided a resolution in support of the proposal submitted to the State of California. The work plan for this project includes targeted outreach to individuals living in encampments along the San Lorenzo River by a rapid rehousing team, who will work to develop an individualized housing plan coupled with housing scholarships to remove financial barriers impeding progress towards securing stable housing.

The Santa Cruz County Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Census was completed on February 28, 2022. This is the first PIT Homeless Census since January 2019, as the COVID pandemic delayed the PIT Census schedule in January 2021. The results of the PIT Census will be available later this spring, and they will provide important new data to inform our homelessness

17.1.12 response planning. At least six City staff members participated in the PIT Census canvassing on February 28, as did at least four Councilmembers.

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 actions and approaches support the pillar of equity by providing services, such as safe sleeping, safe parking, and case management services that support individuals experiencing homelessness. They support public health by providing mental health, case management, and hygiene resources to those experiencing homelessness. The actions and approaches support sustainability by providing resource and land management staff, shelter, and hygiene resources, thereby decreasing the amount of litter, debris, and human waste that is disposed of improperly. Therefore, these actions and approaches are consistent with the three pillars of HiAP.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Below is a list of funding sources being used or sought to support Council-directed local homelessness response efforts as well as the costs associated with implementation of the Action Plan.
● The special allocation of $14,000,000 from the California State legislature has provided a significant level of one-time support for local homelessness response efforts. The City and County have collaborated to finalize the priority areas for use of these funds.

Although some funds will be used for program support, these monies will primarily be utilized to create long-term siting and shelter options. The County and City have agreed to use this state funding to purchase land along Coral Street for expansion of homelessness response infrastructure and services, fund the construction of the Housing Matters hygiene bay, purchase Pallet Shelters (or similar sleeping quarters), fund one year of operations of additional shelter capacity operated by Housing Matters, and fund the creation of an expanded City homelessness response team. Additional information is contained in the attached spreadsheet.
● Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding has provided a significant level of support to both homeless response expenses and infrastructure. The CDBG Pandemic Response funding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 was used to reimburse just under a million dollars of the City’s homeless-specific COVID expenses (including the cost associated with the Benchlands camp through 2021). FY 2022 CDBG funds were used to purchase two mobile shower units, one standard and one accessible that will be used at the Transitional Community Camps or other shelter facilities. Staff have submitted a grant application for FY 2023 CDBG funds to help cover additional infrastructure costs associated with the CSSO and OVO programs, which could also be used to support Action Plan infrastructure costs.
● A budget appropriation was approved by Council on December 14, 2021 to utilize American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding allocated to the City to implement the CSSO and OVO programming. These funds are currently supporting the opening and operation of the City Overlook 75-bed shelter, the 1220 River Street Transitional Community Camp, as well as the safe parking programs.

17.1.13 ● Congress allocated some of the ARPA funds to be administered through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. The City qualifies for approximately $1,400,000 in these HOME-ARP funds to help support building new affordable housing units. These funds will be used to support some of the objectives in the Permanent Affordable and Supportive Housing action area within the City’s Action Plan. ● The County has taken important steps to apply for newly available funds. Recognizing the need for additional shelter and services, the County has sought and received funding for their “Rehousing Wave” aimed at connecting those who were in the COVID sheltering to vouchers and housing as well as behavioral health program funding, providing expanded mental health services to those living on the streets. The Council approved the City’s support of an additional funding opportunity applied to by the County to increase case management and services specifically to homeless encampments.

All of these County efforts to seek funding for existing gaps in service will greatly benefit those living on the streets and the City by extension. ● Staff is regularly seeking additional possible funding sources to support these Councildirected programs. ● The Action Plan incorporates previous direction from the Council, including programs and costs related to the implementation of the CSSO and OVO ordinances and other action authorized on December 14, 2021. In FY2023 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023), the total estimated cost associated with implementing the Action Plan is approximately $14.56 million, of which $7.33 million is capital investments, and $7.22 million is operational expenses. The one-time allocation for $14 million from the State of California will cover the bulk of the first-year costs with implementing the Action Plan, with the remainder being drawn from CDBG, ARPA, and General Fund. The costs of implementing the Action Plan after FY2023 will require additional funding, as detailed in the attached spreadsheet.

Prepared By:

Larry Imwalle
Homelessness Response
Manager
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Deputy City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Homelessness Response Three-Year Action Plan DRAFT
2) Homelessness Response Three-Year Action Plan Cost Projections DRAFT

17.1.14 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ • HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN | 1

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Homelessness
Response
Action Plan

17.1.15 VALUES

ACTION AREAS
Our City’s response to homelessness centers on:

OUR COMMITMENT
In Santa Cruz, homelessness response will:

Balance individual needs and community
impacts from prevention to exit.

City of
Santa Cruz
Action Areas
Community
Safety
Permanent
Aordable &
Supportive Housing
Building Capacity
& Partnerships
Care &
Stewardship
Basic Support
Services
Health
Safety
Collaboration
Transparency
Economic Vitality
Fiscal Responsibility
Practicality
Resource Stewardship

17.1.16 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ • HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN | 3

ACTION AREAS & GOALS

BUILDING CAPACITY & PARTNERSHIPS
Effective homelessness response requires a holistic approach. These activities focus on an organizational response to homelessness and housing instability, including greater internal coordination and alignment of services and expanding our and our partners’ overall capacity and effectiveness.

Program Administration
• Create and launch three-year action plan, including how to use $14 million in state aid.
• Increase response capacity through integrating citywide services and adding a full-time, dedicated team.
• With the County, develop a roles and responsibilities matrix. • Partner with community-based organizations to expand regional capacity to address homelessness.
• Collect and share critical data, systems and metrics with the County and community-based organizations.

Legislative Action
• Develop annual targeted state and federal legislative asks for policy reform and funding related to substance use disorder, mental health, and homelessness response.
• Lead effort to build a statewide coalition of municipalities for legislative changes and funding.

Financial Responsibility
• Identify and cultivate additional revenue streams.
• Create a standardized process requiring detailed financial impacts for any new homelessness response services, ordinances, and policies.
• Develop estimating tools to help generate cost calculations for homelessness support services.
• Re-engineer for integrated, citywide services and deliver a transparent and sustainable homelessness response budget by June 2023.

17.1.17 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ • HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN | 4

BUILDING CAPACITY & PARTNERSHIPS
Community Engagement
• Build a task force of community and business partners to work collectively on homelessness response solutions for the City. • Share important updates and information through City
communications channels.
• Deliver quarterly updates at Council meetings.
• Provide opportunities for community input and engagement on specific projects.

ACTION AREAS & GOALS

PERMANENT AFFORDABLE
& SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Santa Cruz is a leader in proactive and innovative approaches to expanding permanent affordable and supportive housing.

Affordability and availability are two of the most significant contributors to our region’s homelessness crisis. These actions will advance the City’s longstanding commitment to expand housing opportunities in our community.
• Meet or exceed regional housing needs requirements of low- and very low-income categories over the next three years by issuing the target number of housing permits.
• Champion federal, state, and local policy updates to facilitate more housing opportunities in Santa Cruz.
• Work with partner agencies to deliver a plan for Coral Street campus and navigation center and acquire needed properties.
• Collaborate with the County on housing readiness support to aid those transitioning into permanent supportive and permanent housing. • Develop recommendations for ongoing tenant counseling, landlord support, and rental assistance.

17.1.18 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ • HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN | 5

ACTION AREAS & GOALS

BASIC SUPPORT SERVICES
The provision of effective care and support services, including basic hygiene, shelter and storage facilities, will play an integral role in breaking the cycle of homelessness and connecting unhoused residents to the support to work toward permanent housing.
• Collaborate with the County and other local cities to identify 20 new locations for sheltering within the County of Santa Cruz. • Develop a phased plan to address all levels of sheltering: emergency, transitional, and permanent.
• Eliminate unsanctioned camps within the City.
• Establish safe parking programs, including at least one location with direct services aimed at connection to permanent housing. • Create a proper waste disposal program for recreational vehicle owners. • Produce or partner to provide storage for unhoused persons, focusing on easy access, co-located in same space as sheltering.
• Develop standardized hygiene service models and plan for expansion.

CARE & STEWARDSHIP
Establishing effective care and support services for our community’s homeless residents will be essential to support their efforts in securing permanent housing. In addition, managing local habitat restoration will play a vital role in protecting the environment.

Providing Care
• Develop recommendations and work with the County to optimize Cityfunded mental health and substance use disorder response resources. • Expand City’s outreach and shelter team to connect unhoused individuals to County’s continuum of care and permanent supportive housing. • Collaborate with County to develop an easy-to-understand, consolidated guide individuals can use to connect to services.
• With the County partners, explore authorizing Laura’s Law to bring courtordered community treatment for individuals with a history of violence or repeated hospitalizations to the County.
• Partner with community-based organizations to create more transitional employment programs, including expansion of Downtown Streets Team.

17.1.19 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ • HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ACTION PLAN | 6

ACTION AREAS & GOALS

CARE & STEWARDSHIP
Organizational Stewardship
• Identify and scope top priorities for citywide contracts to support safe and clean community areas and natural resource restoration. • Adjust City job descriptions to include homelessness response duties, including the creation of a dedicated resource and land management team.
• Develop near-term organizational models for homelessness response by July 2022 and adapt as needed for successful long-term operations.

Environmental Stewardship
• Close San Lorenzo Park Benchlands to camping and restore impacted area. • Partner with community groups for restoration of affected habitats throughout the City.
• Enforce existing environmental protection regulations and address emergent issues through pursuing new regulations.

COMMUNITY SAFETY
Through key partnerships with the County and local agencies and the creation of new response models, we will work to keep Santa Cruz a safe environment for all.
• Equitably enforce criminal behavior by coordinating with County judiciary and other local agencies.
• Communicate requirements and operational plans for Oversized Vehicle and Camping Services and Standards Ordinances.
• Update deployment model for Santa Cruz Police and County staff for homelessness engagement and outreach.
• Partner with downtown businesses to develop a community safety strategy, including expansion of community service officer program. • Work with the County to assess, prioritize and develop collaborative court programs.

17.1.20 City of Santa Cruz
Homelessness Response 3 Year Action Plan
Additional Funding Requirements
Area Resource Internal or External Count
Approximate
Cost Per Extended Costs Year Needed
Year 1*****
Est 07/01/22 ‐ 06/30/23
Funding Source
Year 2
Est 07/01/23 ‐ 06/30/24
Year 3+
Est 07/01/24 =>
The below represents estimated additional operational capacity needed and targeted capital infrastructure for the City's homelessness response program.

OPERATIONS Basic Services + Care and Stewardship Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Mental Health Liaison II External/County 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Mental Health Liaison I External/County 1 $ 88,000 $ 88,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Outreach and Shelter Specialist (75%) Internal 2 $ 121,412 $ 242,824 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Outreach and Shelter Specialist (50%) Internal 1 $ 91,184 $ 91,184 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Resource and Land Management Internal 2 $ 80,000 $ 160,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Resource and Land Management External/Vendor 1 $ 520,000 $ 520,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Community Service Officer Internal 2 $ 98,458 $ 196,916 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Shelter, Care + Org Stewardship Building Maintenance Worker II Internal 0.5 $ 80,000 $ 40,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Basic Services Sheltering & Hygiene Armory External 1 $ 2,454,000 $ 2,454,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Sheltering & Hygiene Sheltering (Housing Matters) External 1 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million ARPA*** Unfunded* Sheltering & Hygiene Transitional Camps (2) Internal 2 $ 106,858 $ 213,716 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Sheltering & Hygiene Safe Parking External/Vendor + Internal 1 $ 1,049,000 $ 1,049,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Storage Storage External/Vendor 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Sheltering & Hygiene Vehicle Abatement Officer External/Vendor 0.75 $ 50,000 $ 37,500 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Expanded Capacity and Partnerships Program Administration Planning and Request for Proposal Specialist External/Vendor 1 $ 336,000 $ 336,000 1 ARPA*** N/A N/A Program Administration Mgt Analyst to Homelessness Services Coordinator Internal 1 $ 31,782 $ 31,782 1‐3+ General Fund General Fund General Fund Program Administration DCM I from A2CM and DCM II to Std Dept Head**** Internal 1 $ 44,593 $ 44,593 1‐3+ General Fund General Fund General Fund Legislative Action Legislative Advocacy External/Vendor 0.5 $ 432,000 $ 216,000 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Communications Community Relations Specialist Internal 0.5 $ 125,000 $ 62,500 1‐3+ CA $14 Million Unfunded* Unfunded* Operations Total $ 7,224,015 $ 5,588,015 $ 6,888,015 CAPITAL Permanent Housing Permanent Housing Master Plan Development External/Vendor 1 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Permanent Housing Predevelopment for Permanent Supportive Housing External/Vendor 1 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Permanent Housing 125 Coral St Asset Acquisition 1 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Permanent Housing Design & Predevelopment for Navigation Center External/Vendor 1 600,00 $ 0 $ 600,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Basic Services Sheltering & Hygiene Hygiene Bay Repairs External/Vendor 1 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Sheltering & Hygiene Shelter Infrastructure External/Vendor 1 1,076,00 $ 0 $ 1,076,000 1 CA $14 Million N/A N/A Sheltering & Hygiene Van for Transportation Asset Acquisition 2 75,000 $ 150,00 $ 0 1 ARPA*** Unfunded** Unfunded** Capital Total $ 7,336,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ Grand Total $ 5,588,015 14,560,015 $ 6,888,015 $ *Funding will need to come from General Fund new revenue sources or reductions to other services.**Vehicles will need to be replaced as they age. Funding will need to come from General Fund new revenue sources or reductions to other services.***American Rescue Plan Act****This returns the Deputy City Manager II to a Planning and Community Development Director Only, and Converts the Vacant Assistant to the City Manager to a DCM I*****Some items will begin immediately and others in FY 2023.

17.1.21 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Big Joe 77 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2022 5:41 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Public Correspondence to Item 7.1: “Homelessness Response Action Plan,” Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and councilI read with interest the Summary Report to Item 7.1, the 3 year action plan, and have some concerns, not on what was “In” the plan, but what “wasn’t.” Little things, such as:
>The list of successes re the 1220 River Street Transitional “Camp” appears suspicious when not accompanied by any mention of failures. It’s a difficult thing to achieve complete success, and I don’t for a minute believe that is the case here. I’d like to know why, and so should you. >In 2019-2020, the Santa Cruz County’s Civil Grand Jury (“Homelessness: Big Problem, Little Success”) found that the biggest hurdle facing transient services is the lack of steady funding to achieve any long term goals (or measurable success). That appears to be the case here.

Every single area that is described in the 3 year plan involves long term commitment… without any mention of where those resources are coming from. I read that using money from the general fund was an option, but I caution the use of any resources from this source until the city can show its constituents that the financial crisis at City Hall is over. It is not only unwise to expend 5% of your budget on less than .05% of the population, but it is untenable and doomed to fail.
>The Summary Report includes mention of adding additional Transitional “camps,” but doesn’t include where these sites will be located, nor is there any “plan” mentioned on outreach to neighborhoods that would be impacted by transient programs.

Through a recent PRA fulfillment, I learned 2 things from staff at City Hall:
1- that the city believes they don’t have to conduct any outreach to the community, 2- that if a transient encampment location chosen by City Hall is inappropriate, the strategy is to ignore complaints because “giving in” to them may embolden others.

I shouldn’t have to tell you how toxic this type of administrative ideology is. >At a recent meeting of the City’s Parks & Rec Commission, Director Elliot stated that his department faces challenges with unsheltered homelessness throughout the entire city parks system. The “jewel” in this crown is of course the Benchlands. For more than a year now (approaching 2 years), this urban park has been a lawless slum for drug users. The Summary Report includes continued use of this park as a dumping ground for criminals collected citywide, and not as a place to promote healthy living through playing and exercising. That is unacceptable.
>County participation has always been a problem when addressing issues relating to transients. This 3 Year Plan is correctly weighted on reliance of County Services, but offers no contingency plans should the County’s employees and contracted service providers fail to deliver. That should be a huge red-flag before approving any measure of this Action Plan.

Sincerely,
--
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real

17.1.22 2
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

17.1.23 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Franklin Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.24 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Spend funds on mental health and drug rehab.

Thank you,
Annie Manako
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lynn - <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.26 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Teresa Mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.27 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Teresa Mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.28 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Brooke Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item.

Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year.

Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.29 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: lorina fleming <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

17.1.30 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: CHRIS SOMPLE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”.

More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.31 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Elizabeth Crinnion <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Get Outlook for iOS

17.1.32 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Linette Quist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City's aspirations, make that clear.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android

17.1.33 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: ERNEST L COURTRIGHT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.34 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: TIM BARTLETT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:51 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.35 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: elizabeth plageman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Please do not spend tax payer dollars without a sufficient and clear plan.

Thanks, Elizabeth Plageman

17.1.36 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ritch Haselden <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.37 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Dion Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:53 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.38 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Nanette Poore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.39 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Carol Gaidos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:53 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
I think we could better spend money on more worthy projects. Like removing the homeless from the public streets, parks and neighborhoods. We pay a lot of money to live in Santa Cruz. It is a shame it is not safe to even visit these public area without fear of being harmed and harassed by drugged criminals. We need to reinstate bail so they are retained in jail to pay for their infractions and have consequences for their actions.

Dangerous criminals are returned to out streets to prey on their next victim.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

17.1.40 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: ERNEST L COURTRIGHT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.41 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council; Matt Huffaker
Subject: Confusing Homeless Plan, Inadequate
Dear City Council and City Manager,
I'm disappointed that the public has had so little time to review this $14M homeless plan.

The public gave a lot of input and city council spent significant time creating the new Camping Ordinance and Over Size Vehicle Ordinance. Please prioritize spending this $14M to implement these ordinances that the public did overwhelming support. For instance, your homeless plan has a line item for a paltry $37,000 for vehicle abatement, something that is clearly needed to implement the OVO.

You must prioritize spending this money to get homeless people in Santa Cruz now housed, and not spend the money on services that just attract more homeless people here.

Please spend the funds on assets and infrastructure that can serve our homeless community well beyond when the money is all spent. Spending the money on consultants and new positions that will not stay funded after the money is spent will only lead to failure of the plan.

Sincerely,

17.1.42 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jill Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:55 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.43 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: steve dettle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

DO NOT spend 14 Million on homeless !! 🛑 Stephen Dettle Sent from my iPad

17.1.44 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Rossana Bruni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”.

The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.45 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sam Muther Bavaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.46 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Whiting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear City Council..

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Signed:

Peter & Jackie Whiting
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.47 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: candace vandermeer <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Candace and Dennis van der Meer

17.1.48 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Yvonne Feistman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Yvonne Feistman

17.1.49 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: R Schuppek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

A very concerned resident,
Richard

17.1.50 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: nancy maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: The City Homelessness Action Response Plan is too Vague Time to stop funding consultants...

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Nancy Maynard

17.1.51 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Amory Langmo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Amory Langmo
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.52 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Anna Abend <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
I want to point out that we do not have to put up with providing for the homeless. There are towns that do not have homelessness, like Carmel, for example. That Santa Cruz will try and provide for homelessness is a choice, not a necessity. If we were to be far less welcoming, they might try choose living elsewhere.

We could "sort them out". Those that were addicted to substance abuse, and therefore breaking the law, they could be arrested and sent to jail, to rehab, or to their original birthplace. If they were just needing a job, they could be hired by the city to help clean streets or pick up trash. If they are pushing a shopping cart, they could be charged with theft of the cart and sent to jail.

I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

17.1.53 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tom <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you,
Tom Gordon
Sent from my iPad...excuse typos.

17.1.54 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Shawn McMurdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, I oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Thank you for your consideration.

Shawn

17.1.55 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: ELLEN KETT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Cheers Ellen Kett
Please forgive any errors as this is sent via my iPhone

17.1.56 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gene Manako <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gene Manako

17.1.57 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:20 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.58 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Brixner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.59 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Deb Hoyt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.60 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: El Solway <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan
Dear City Council Members.

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated and necessary.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance.

I would like to see a more detailed and specific three year Action Plan that includes metrics to track progress and demonstrate concrete goals.

Sincerely, Ellen Solway
Santa Cruz

17.1.61 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: tiachristianson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:20 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Feedback on existing homeless plan
To the city council:

I am sharing some thoughts below that come from Santa Cruz together, and that I agree with.

From my perspective, we've seen billions spent across California on vague and ungrounded plans to deal with the issue of people who are mentally ill/addicted and homeless. With no specific metrics for success or specific benchmarks, the money disappears into the ether and nothing changes.

As a homeowner/tax-payer in Santa Cruz, I strongly urge a more grounded, tactical and objective-based plan to spending this money.

Sincerely,
Tia christianson
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness.

The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.62 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. I also appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response.”
The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Please include funding for an expanded BEST (Benchlands Environmental Stewardship Training) program. This successful program provides income, skills, pride and much-needed environmental stewardship for the Benchlands and The San Lorenzo River.

Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year.

Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome-based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Thank you for helping to address this very important issue, Karsten Mueller MS, PhD

17.1.63 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Britton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Bonnie Britton
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.64 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: christy martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Request greater detail in Homelessness Action Response Plan Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

This is a substantial grant that could help create momentum toward long term solutions. But, like any successful project, it will require very specific, actionable and measurable goals and a process to evaluate and adjust through the course of the three year project.

Thank you for your consideration,
—Christy Martin

17.1.65 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely, Robert defreitas and Gigo Desilvas

17.1.66 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Laura LaForce <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

I have compassion for the issue as I’m sure everyone does, but we have been throwing money at this issue and it doesn’t seem to be making any marked progress. Seeing the debacle of the Ross Camp and the Levy now is so disheartening. People need help and services, they need a way to get back into a stable living situation if that is what they would like to do, the severe mental health issues need services to combat that and help them, the addicted need services and help, but to keep allowing certain groups flourish at the levy is what causes people to feel frustrated ‐ creating a community of homeless individuals who take care of their space helps them feel a part of something. There is a homeless camp in Berkeley on the corner of MLK and I drive past each week. The camp is clean, there are dumpsters that are utilized, there are washing stations, there is a central area with garden beds and a seating place for them to gather. It is limited to under 20 tents from what I have seen, and I would imagine they only let people in who are willing to be part of that community. We keep allowing camps with no oversight which is detrimental to our community as drug dealers and prostitution run rampant and the amount of trash is astronomical…I realize this is a massive problem but it is important to have very clear ways in which to spend these funds.

Regards,
Laura
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.67 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jerry Spodick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPad
Jerry Spodick
831‐345‐8851

17.1.68 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: am hurd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.69 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Christopher Yonge <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:26 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan
I was invited to send a form letter about this plan but on finding more about it feel impelled to say this in my own words so that it's not just a "click and send" response.

We're really considering spending $14 million without specifying how and on what it's going to be spent? This is crazy. We're spending far too much on these people, many of whom (no, not all) are anti-social, petty criminals, and have destroyed the commercial center of town around Pacific Avenue. Speaking personally, I avoid that area as do my friends - which is a shame, as when I first came to Santa Cruz we all spent a lot of time there. Swift Street, though a bit further, is far more pleasant.

The homelessness budget should include a written description of each item, a system of prioritizing them, and a timeline for each. As this is a three year plan the entire $14 million dollars should not be spent in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with an outcome based center. We have to get people off the streets and into job training, rehab, or some occupation where they can earn money honestly and in a socially useful way.

Sincerely /Christopher Yonge
227 Morrissey Boulevard

17.1.70 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: wildhogrider57 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab® S2

17.1.71 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: nancywm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Nancy Meyberg
214 Lighthouse Avenue
Santa Cruz 95060
I love the San Lorenzo River. It breaks my heart to see the litter, garbage, needles and refuse going into river as a result of the illegal camping.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

17.1.72 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Colleen Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Colleen Sullivan

17.1.73 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: DONALD E CAPONIGRO <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

17.1.74 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lori Stoll <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:34 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.75 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrea Struble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.76 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeff Moise <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

Can we utilize this funding to buy a large piece of property outside of the city limits to establish a camp to where the folks must sleep at night, and to establish needs such as mental illness help, drug addiction help and identify folks who need housing depending on what they need.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.77 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Paul Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homeless plan: Time to have a real plan with goals, timelines and responsibilities.

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. Over the past 18 months I've been watching a family live in the field off Shaffer Ave. Recently they have been kicked of the field and are now camping on the street. They have literally been "kicked to the curb". To help solve the overall problem we need housing like the small sheds used in other communities. Find county properties and put in 500 small sheds. No more unsanctioned camps. I have found that the homeless population consists of economically challenged individuals, mental & drug cases, bums and criminals.

The bums and criminals need to go. The criminals who hide within the homeless population must be rooted out. They steal, rape, sell drugs and terrorize. The city must also bust the drug dealers and kingpins who pump drugs into the community (maybe some undercover work). The drug addicts and mentally ill need professional help.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. The plans primary objective should be replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

This crisis can be turned around but we need a real plan like we use in major companies to get the right things done n a timely fashion.

Best
PG
"May you give and receive many blessings on your journey" gallagher.paul

17.1.78 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Kevin Vogel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 17.1 - Homelessness Response Programming Quarterly Update, Homelessness Response Action Plan, Homelessness Staffing, and Homelessness Response Funding Sources
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I would like to express my opposition to the City of Santa Cruz providing services that are more appropriately provided by the County of Santa Cruz.

The resolution to hire additional people to manage homeless camps is helpful in the short term, however what will happen when the $14m in state grant funding is expended? Will the funding for these 10 additional positions costing nearly $870K be absorbed into the City general fund? Presumably, these positions will be much more costly in subsequent years because of wage increases, cost of living allowances and benefit cost increases. If Council‘s vision includes city staff managing and providing homeless services, there needs to be a solid financial plan to fund these 10 positions into the future. The City’s general fund is in a constant state of flux and fiscal crisis and has been for the past several years, to the extent that Santa Cruz voters will be asked to approve another sales tax measure on June 7th. Can we really afford to fund 10 additional positions to manage and provide homeless services that are more appropriately provided by the County? As always, thank you for your work on these important and challenging community issues.

Respectfully,
Kevin Vogel
Santa Cruz

17.1.79 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Reggie Meisler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 17.1 for 3/8/22 city council meeting Dear council,
I am very concerned with the city manager's homeless response plan. Specifically, I am concerned with his use of the $14 million in funding.

Barely half of the funding is being spent on actual infrastructure investments, which is what this funding was originally allocated for.

In the 3 year action plan document, which provides us with these cost estimates and line items, the "Unfunded*" notation is said to suggest that "Funding will need to come from General Fund new revenue sources or reductions to other services". There is an enormous amount of spending on line items which are noted as "Unfunded*" after only the first year of operation. This is because these line items are not infrastructure investments but operating expenses, which are unacceptably large.

Taking a closer look at these operating expenses, I notice significant resources going toward staffing of positions that already have an existing city department with its own staffing budget. I want to specifically bring your attention to the spending on 2 "Community Service Officers", the "Vehicle Abatement Officer", and the two "Mental Health Liaisons".

These positions are likely to be put under the umbrella of the Santa Cruz Police Department, which already consumes a whopping 30+% of our General Fund. Helping fund a few new positions for the SCPD for just one year, which will then have to be funded via the SCPD's budget/General Fund in the years that follow anyways (because there are no grants to fund these positions), is a transparently inappropriate use of this homeless infrastructure funding. The Vehicle Abatement Officer and Community Service Officers, in particular, are members of law enforcement who are not only not contributing to homeless services in any way, but hired to perpetuate harm to the unhoused.

Based on the city's own estimates, the cost of these four positions alone could be reallocated to increase our Predevelopment budget for Permanent Supportive Housing by over 50%.

I would also like to note a concern with the rather expensive line item of "Legislative Advocacy" ($432,000). I find it extremely inappropriate that city council or city staff would use any public funds at all for staging legislative advocacy, much less one-time homeless infrastructure funding. Legislative advocacy being funded and executed by legislators and government officials is a gross misuse of power that appears to be illegal, according to the CA constitution.

Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 5, 8314 (a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

17.1.80 2
I am very supportive of the work being done with regard to Permanent Supportive Housing in this plan, and I am encouraged that the city is moving toward more support of Project Homekey, in spite of the City General Plan goal ED1.6 (which I hope they will amend with a clarification in relation to Project Homekey) ED1.6 Discourage the conversion of lodging to housing in Santa Cruz, and encourage upgrades to existing lodging facilities.

ED1.6.1 Assess the impacts of an oversupply of inferior hotel/ motel rooms, and develop incentives to encourage owners to upgrade existing hotel/motel facilities while ensuring the retention of moderately priced accommodations.

Please reject the City Manager's plan in its current state and request modifications which bring all spending in line with actual homeless infrastructure project spending.

Reggie Meisler
Santa Cruz Cares Organizing Committee

17.1.81 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: jennifer farley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. I The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated.

Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

It would be nice to not see broken old tents, excretion and needles and trash on the streets and along the tracks and beaches. if you can address this issue directly within this plan? Can funds go towards permanent physical infrastructure and laws that protect the shop keepers, neighbors and victims than services for the people who trash this county? I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”.

The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan.

If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report.

If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item.

Since this is a three year plan, I oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year.

Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center.

Can funds go towards permanent physical infrastructure and laws that protect the shop keepers, neighbors and victims than services for the people who trash this county? Jennifer Farley
108 Seaview Ave
Santa Cruz CA 95062

17.1.82 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Scott Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 10:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.
--
Scott B. Berlin
Golfing for Dollars as a Silver Slug!

17.1.83 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: cduppen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Charles Duppen

17.1.84 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Carlos Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.85 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: LrYAHOO <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Laurie Rivoir
Sent from my iPad

17.1.86 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Faraola <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you
Bonnie Faraola

17.1.87 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Christine Labagh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:38 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you,
Christine Mantua
Sent from my iPad

17.1.88 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joe De Meo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.89 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Anne Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

DRE # 00644055
Cell 831.247.0670
[email protected]
www.AnneMMurphy.com

17.1.90 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Comments on Homelessness Action Response Plan
Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
The "action plan" seems very much like business as usual wherein a large percentage of the dedicated money is spent on increasing existing and creating new staffing positions. It seems that every time large amounts of money are obtained they are spent very quickly with minimal real change, again, the usual way of spending money in the public sector. It makes no sense to me that all the money is spent in the first year of a three year plan and will even have to be supplemented by expenditures from the general fund in the first year. What about next year and the year after? I don't see any real benefits being obtained with all the money spent in the first year with a large part going to salaries. I do like the idea of pallet houses, but perhaps in the county area.

I believe acquiring additional property around Coral Street is a good use of the money with long term benefits to the homeless and the community. Perhaps a better way to look at this would be to obtain the property and infrastructure at Coral Street first, set some (most) of the remainder money aside to be used at Coral Street to provide the best use of the property and the most benefit to the clients at Coral Street.

Or, perhaps half the money could be spent in the county area on a similar property and facilities as Coral Street. Once again, it appears that the county has abandoned its duties and left Santa Cruz to deal with the homeless issue alone. In the actions and goals section, community safety is mentioned last, almost as an after thought.

Community safety should be prioritized. Total spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services. The CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinances should be implemented now.

Thank you.

David Plumlee

17.1.91 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Vicki Traylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

17.1.92 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: HOLLIE LOCATELLI <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.93 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bryn Fenton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear Sirs:

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. I’ve already noticed an improvement on the Westside with fewer vehicles parked for weeks in neighborhoods, littering and dumping waste anywhere. Thank you.

In reference to the Homelessness Action Response Plan, I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report with metrics. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

Thank you for considering these additional detail suggestions.

Bryn Fenton

17.1.94 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tracy Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.95 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Pamela Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.96 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Dell Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

17.1.97 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Polhamus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homeless Response Plan
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members:

I first want to acknowledge and express my gratitude for the tremendous amount of work the city staff has put into this plan with all the moving parts it contains. I also want to welcome and acknowledge Matt Huffaker, who has definitely hit the ground running to address some of the city's biggest issues, including this one. Thank you.

I want to express my support for the Homeless Response Plan. I especially applaud the city's efforts at locating safe spaces parking, which will begin to address the plight of people living in vehicles on city streets, and I support the OVO as a means to increase safe spaces parking and services while mitigating the neighborhood issues related to unregulated vehicle camping.

As I read the plan, I strongly support the following:
 We need accurate data, and I support gathering it, including coordinating with the county's data collection system and integrating both city/county data to come up with a more complete picture of who, how and where we are serving people, and what specific needs are. We need to understand and use the data in order to make targeted, effective and financially prudent decisions.
 Expanding the safe spaces parking capacity, sanitation and services to help people improve their living situations (with the county's efforts included).  Building in accountability both for those providing services and those receiving services.  No longer permitting unsanctioned encampments in the city, a giant waste of money helping no one.
 Doing all we can to approve affordable housing projects as quickly as possible, especially those already in the pipeline.
 Working toward a complete center on Coral Street, including a long-desired navigation center and more supportive housing.
 Using Pallet structures or other cost effective shelter options to address short term needs.  Collaborating with the county to identify 20 additional shelter sites within the county.  Spending the bulk of the $14 million dollars in one-time funding to invest in infrastructure and actual shelter options, so that we will have something tangible to show for the money after it's gone.

I have concerns about funding:
 The city duplicating services that the county is supposed to be providing. How can we expect to sustain this financially? Why aren't we putting more pressure on the county to provide what it is supposed to provide (by mission and funding)?
 The need for more detail about how funding for year 2 and year 3 will be obtained.  Hiring more staff with one-year funding. How will we sustain the staff, or will be just let them go after one year?

17.1.98 2
I completely support the efforts of council and staff to address the crisis of homelessness in our city. Thank you for listening and for all you are doing for our city.

Yours,
Carol Polhamus

17.1.99 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: phaney2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

17.1.100
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jenny Marini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jenny Marini

17.1.101
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: thomas demeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.102
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Laura Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 1:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Homelessness Response Action Plan
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge the Council to support and implement the Homeless Response Action Plan as proposed in Agenda items

17.1 and 17.2. The homelessness situation in Santa Cruz continues to be plagued with problems and this Plan is a step in the right direction. It will help the City in its development of a clear, well understood approach that can be uniformly implemented with the support of government agencies, NGOs and the broader community.

Thank you,
Laura Smith
118 Anthony St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

17.1.103
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Matt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homeless Situation
It seems logical and also compassionate that each city or region first take care of their homegrown homeless population. That is to say, those people whom are products of Santa Cruz defined as those who were born and raised here or whom spent most of their lives here. This likely is not part of the current screening process and as such nobody knows how many of the current homeless come from outside the area. I suspect that the number is meaningfully significant. As a productive tax paying citizen of Santa Cruz I have no issue with funding those who qualify as homegrown homeless but strongly oppose funding those who arrive here from out of town to take advantage of the abundant services, lax enforcement towards law breakers, tolerance toward open drug use, loitering and the general sleep anywhere allowance. When and where does the line get drawn to discourage daily new arrivals from out of the area and direct the few resources we have to the homegrown population? Has a survey ever been performed to determine the origin of the Santa Cruz homeless population?
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.104
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dennis DeMille <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Although an appreciable amount of resources have been expended to fix it, but homelessness remains a blight on this city.

This problem began 15 years ago when the City Council did very little to address it at that time, and we have seen the homeless population explode ever since. There are valiant and commendable efforts by non-profit organizations, but the problem is remains massive in size.

Now when getting a small but precious funding of $14 Million through Senator Laird, we learn a plan drafted for the dispersal of the money needs substantial rewrite to include sufficient detail to work effectively and within budget.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item.

This grant needs to be spent judiciously and effectively, with full and responsible accountability. If the Council and City does this right, it could enable securing additional funds to fix the homelessness problem, which will require much, much, more than $14 Million.

PLEASE DO YOUR JOBS!
FIX THE PLAN!
FIX HOMELESSNESS!
Dennis A. DeMille,
Santa Cruz

17.1.105
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Frank Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.106
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jennifer Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:14 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

This is the single largest problem facing Santa Cruz's long term well being. This pot of gold is only happening once. Get some CLEAR goals set and WHO is going to do it by WHEN and HOW MUCH. Then follow them & don't deviate. Don't let the public outcry (guaranteed in any situation in Santa Cruz derail you!) Don't let a lot of feel-good empty pablum sugar coat this. This is a business to take care of our town and also deal with the huge and swelling homeless population which threatens to swamp us all.

This $14M could be used to permanently develop a huge property with lots of tiny housing for instance and insist that the IV drug use & crime statistics locik step with this to REDUCE the impact on all of us. Thank you Jennifer Greene

17.1.107
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ernest Castillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:18 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.108
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeanine Eberhardt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.109
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Julie Kimball <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.110
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Heather Boesser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.111
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jon Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

I am tired of the endless spending on the homeless problem without really addressing drug addiction and mental illness. These two issues require serious money, but are necessary to solve the homelessness problem.

I also fail to see the logic in assuming that homeless people who are not originally local residents have the right to live, on the public purse in a high priced coastal community. By that logic, they should be in Malibu or on Rodeo drive in Beverly Hills!
Sincerely,
Jon Bowman
Sent from my iPad

17.1.112
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrew Crocker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.113
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Shelley Keneipp <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Shelley Keneipp

17.1.114
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mercer Rowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

This is a major issue in our fight to tie “intent” to “outcomes”. I know our community has great compassion for the issue of homelessness and those experiencing it; however, unstructured efforts are usually at best ineffective and at worst damaging to the recipient of aid and the community. Note the significant issues with pollution, squalor, drug use/distribution, needle waste, public intoxication, etc that frequently accompany programs with only compassion as a goal. I have hundreds of pictures of human waste, needles, and other trash discarded on my property as a result of un‐checked accommodation without clear outcomes.

To that end, the final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

Thanks for all you are doing for out community.

Regards,
Mercer Rowe
[email protected]
+1 831 419 0509

17.1.115
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jon Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Hi Robert,
I’m all for it, as I indicated in previous emails.

Cheers,
Jon
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 11:21 AM, Jon Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. >
> I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.
>
> However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.
>
> The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.
>
> I am tired of the endless spending on the homeless problem without really addressing drug addiction and mental illness. These two issues require serious money, but are necessary to solve the homelessness problem. >
> I also fail to see the logic in assuming that homeless people who are not originally local residents have the right to live, on the public purse in a high priced coastal community. By that logic, they should be in Malibu or on Rodeo drive in Beverly Hills!
>
> Sincerely,
> Jon Bowman
>
>

17.1.116
2 > Sent from my iPad

17.1.117
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Glenda Perrucci <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:29 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.118
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.119
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Colleen Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:31 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Colleen Bowman
Sent from my iPad

17.1.120
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Niland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness.

Thank you for approval of the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Let’s put these into practice before summer. My lower westside neighborhood is impacted by many RVs parking illegally on residential streets.

The $14 million homelessness budget should include a project plan with a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing, and a timeline for each item. We oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome-based navigation center.

17.1.121
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.122
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Alan Bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alan

17.1.123
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gabrielle Diane Laney-Andrews <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Dear City Council,
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, I oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services. thank you,
Gabrielle D. Laney-Andrews
316 Grant St
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

17.1.124
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michelle Overbeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Needs Work
As a nearly 40 year resident of Santa Cruz I’m concerned for our housed and homeless residents. What is going on is NOT sustainable nor is it safe and I fear for children and residents in our community.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thanks!
Michelle
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.125
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Barbara Palmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Plan Vague
Thanks to Senator Laird and Council Members for trying hard to help our homeless population. Several years ago I was involved in getting a tax passed on recordings in which 80% of the funds would go to help the homeless, and 20% to help workforce housing. After 3 years of collecting the fees the state dispersed to jurisdictions throughout the state. This was discouraging because there was no visible improvement for any.

Please take the time to clearly define how or where the funds should be spent. Please be as clear and concise as possible in order to provide clear direction to staff.

Thank you,
Barbara Palmer
However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear.

17.1.126
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Ueberrhein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.127
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Stephen Karon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 11:55 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

17.1.128
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Concerned downtown resident
Sent from my iPad

17.1.129
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Barbara Avona <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Barbara Avona

17.1.130
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: SAMANTHA OLDEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Samantha Olden

17.1.131
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Franklin Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you. However I am concerned that on page 17.1.9 the Agenda Report says “this newly developed Action Plan will help guide the City through the next three years of homelessness response”. The written Homelessness Response Action Plan is vague and more an expression of values than a plan. If in practice, the three year Homelessness Response Action Plan is going to be the operational plan, it should integrate the detailed plans in the Agenda Report. If the Action Plan is not intended to be the operational plan but merely an expression of the City’s aspirations, make that clear. The final $14 million homelessness budget should include a written description of each line item, a system of prioritizing these expenditures, and a timeline for each item. Since this is a three year plan, we oppose spending the entire $14 million dollars in the first year. Spending should be spread over the three years of the plan with the primary objective of replacing all unsanctioned camps with the fully managed and supported outcome based navigation center. More funds should go towards permanent physical infrastructure than services.

17.1.132
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ellen Sevy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 12:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you. The operative word is EXIT homelessness.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Santa Cruz has directed money toward this problem fora very long time, and I have lived here for 45 years.

Santa Cruz because services were offed.

Thank you
Ellen
Lower westside

17.1.133
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Patrick Mcdonald <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Please take down the welcome to Santa Cruz sign that attracts addicts and homeless from all over the country.

Stop the destruction of parks , the destruction of the river, the illegal camping on beach and get serious about representing the majority of the population.

Your policy’s enable and attract more addicts and more encampments. It’s obvious enabling and ignoring laws is not the answer.

Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you,
Patrick McDonald

17.1.134
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sarah Schwegler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

Best
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone

17.1.135
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gabriel Elkaim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated. Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. Thank you.

17.1.136
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: paul gratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 2:55 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Implement the Homelessness Response Action Plan I support City Council efforts to move towards an accountable and predictable system of providing support to those who do not have a clean and safe place to live in our city.

Paul Gratz
501 prospect hts.

Santa Cruz , CA 95065

17.1.137
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: David Giannini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2022 3:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homelessness Action Response Plan Vague
Thank you for prioritizing more resources to help people exit homelessness. The resolution to hire additional people to manage the crisis of unmanaged camps is much appreciated.

Thank you.

I appreciate the City taking steps to implement the CSSO Camping Standards and the OVO Oversized Vehicle Ordinance.

Thank you.

Santa Cruz City CouncilMarch 8, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
March 8, 2022