Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, April 26, 2022 (part 4 of 5)

The current slope regulations are based strictly on setbacks from a certain percentage of slope, which is not necessarily an indicator of whether development on or near a slope is feasible and safe. In addition, the Current Planning Division regularly receives Slope Variance applications for minor projects such as deck extensions, which often get placed on the Planning Commission’s consent calendar. Rarely is it necessary to modify these projects through the development review process to minimize hazardous situations. The need for the Slope Variance permit for these minor projects places an additional time and expense burden on property owners and uses City staff time processing these permits that could otherwise be better spent working on larger projects that may have greater impacts on the community. The goals of these amendments are to: (1) allow development where feasible and streamline the development process so that minor projects that would not have visual impacts or affect slope stability are not required to obtain a permit and projects proposed on slopes between 30 and 50 percent are processed administratively, and (2) gather site-specific information for larger projects that will help determine whether such projects are feasible and what engineering and architectural strategies are necessary to ensure safety and visual compatibility.

Ordinance Development Process. The intent of this update is to move from a development standard based strictly on setbacks from slopes of a certain percent to a process that examines the specifics of the site to determine whether development is feasible and what parameters should be included to ensure that the development is safe. Staff held a series of meetings with design professionals including architects, engineers, and geotechnical engineers to discuss options and determine the most feasible direction from a technical standpoint. Several suggestions from the design professionals were incorporated into the ordinance revisions including the type of report required and the types of projects that can safely be exempted from the requirement for a slope development permit.

In addition to the meetings with the design professionals, community meetings were held on December 9, 2020 and May 24, 2021 to gather feedback from the public on their concerns. In addition, the Planning Department has a webpage for the Slope Regulation Update that provides information about the proposed amendment and contact information for the project planner for questions or comments. In general, the comments received from the public were in support of allowing exceptions for smaller projects. Several members of the public also indicated that they felt it was important for larger projects to be required to have public hearings. Generally, larger projects would require another permit or request such as a Tentative Map, Use Permit, or Density Bonus that would require a public hearing. Some projects also may be exempt from a public hearing requirement by State law. In addition, the vast majority of properties with slopes greater than thirty percent are zoned for single-family residential uses and would not allow large projects.

Based on these circumstances, staff believes that it is unnecessary to create an additional tiered system based on the size of the project beyond the public hearing requirements contained in the ordinance.

Proposed Revisions. The proposed revisions to the Slope Regulations fall into two general categories. First, there are the revisions to how development on slopes is addressed, which are in Chapter 24.08, Part 9 – Slope Regulations Modifications and 24.14.030 – Slope Regulations.

These revisions include a more complete description of the types of projects that would be exempt from a permit and require geotechnical review for non-exempt projects. In addition, rather than “Slope Regulation Modifications” or “Slope Variances,” a permit for development on slopes would be called a “Slope Development Permit.”

26.74 Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 3 ends

In addition to the revisions in the Slope Regulations, there are a number of revisions to ensure that other parts of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Slope Regulation revisions including:
the Excavation and Grading Regulations (18.45.030) to correct the distance from slope and the name of the permit that would be required; the Administration Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (24.04), which lists which hearing bodies review what types of permits; Part 8 of Chapter 24.08, which lists the areas of district regulations for which a Planned Development Permit can provide variations, removing Slope Regulations from that list; and Chapter 24.22 - Definitions to make the definition of Net Lot Area consistent with the definition provided elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance.

The revisions to 24.14.030 – Slope Regulations expand the description of minor development on slopes that would be exempt from the requirement for a Slope Development Permit, remove the prohibition on development on a slope greater than fifty percent, and add a requirement for sitespecific geotechnical review for development on slopes that are thirty percent or greater as part of the required Slope Development Permit. Such permits for slopes greater than fifty percent would require a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator while permits for slopes of thirty to fifty percent would be administrative and would not require a public hearing. Any permit decision, either administrative or by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing, can be appealed, with the appeal being heard by the Planning Commission or, if decided by the Planning Commission, by City Council.

LCP Consistency. The current Local Coastal Program (LCP) was adopted in 1992 and is in the process of a major update, including both updating for consistency with the 2030 General Plan and adding a chapter addressing climate change and sea level rise. Until this update has been adopted, the 1992 LCP is the guiding document for development within the Coastal Zone.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. As directed in Policy 3.2, the amendment would limit development and control excavation and grading on and in the vicinity of unstable slopes or slopes over 30 percent by requiring a site-specific geological report that would determine the stability of such slopes prior to allowing development. The amendment would also be consistent with Policy 3.2.2 by requiring geological reports to establish the safety of construction and to mitigate any potential impacts to an insignificant level. The amendment would also retain and strengthen the findings that require structures to be designed to conform to the terrain, minimize alteration of natural landforms, reduce the mass and bulk of structures, and incorporate fire safety measures in projects on or near slopes.

As more fully described in the 2030 General Plan EIR Addendum, the proposed amendment would not increase development density on sloped property. The amendment would also not make any changes to development standards such as height and setbacks and the existing requirements to minimize view impacts have been strengthened by this amendment. Therefore, the amendment would have no impacts on access to the coast or views from or of the coastline.

Following approval of these revisions by the City Council, the LCP Amendment will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval. The revisions will not go into effect within the Coastal Zone until approved by the CCC.

26.75 Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 4 ends

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 revisions to the Slope Regulations support the City’s Health in All Policies strategy as the intent of the revisions is to remove existing burdens in the development process for single-family property owners and their tenants on slope properties and to support development of housing in all appropriate areas of the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The proposed revisions to the Slope Regulations are consistent with the City’s 2030 General Plan and, therefore, are covered by the 2030 General Plan EIR certified by the City Council on June 26, 2012. To ensure consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City retained Dudek, an environmental and planning firm, to review the ordinance for consistency with the 2030 General Plan and the EIR. Dudek prepared an Addendum to the EIR for the proposed amendments (Attachment 3). Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a certified EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would need to be prepared unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following:
 Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
 New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was prepared shows any of the following:
 The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
 Significant effects previously discussed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
 Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation or alternative.

Dudek determined that none of the conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur with the approval of the Slope Regulation Revisions.

FINDINGS. Prior to making a recommendation for approval of the attached amendment to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings:

26.76 Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 5 ends

1. The proposed amendment serves and furthers public necessity and general community welfare by providing a better basis for the permitting of development on sloped properties, including exemptions for projects that have no potential visual impacts or impacts on slope stability and by requiring site-specific geotechnical review for larger projects to ensure that any impacts are avoided or mitigated; and

2. The proposed amendment serves and furthers good zoning practice by requiring sitespecific geotechnical review of projects on sloped property, allowing development on sloped property where feasible; and

3. The proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan as it is consistent with Actions CD 1.3.2 and CD 1.3.3 of the General Plan and Policy 3.2, including Sub-policies

3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 of the Local Coastal Plan.

Submitted By:

Katherine Donovan
Senior Planner
Approved By:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Slope Regulation Amendment, clean copy

2. Slope Regulation Amendment, red line version

3. Slope Regulation General Plan 2030 EIR Addendum

26.77 1

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

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
January 20, 2022
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin were present.

Absent w/notification-None.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-No members of the public addressed the Commission.

Chairperson Schiffrin extended thanks to Commissioners Nielsen and Spellman for their service to the Planning Commission, this being their last meeting due to term limitations.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the minutes of December 16, 2021.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Spellman, seconded by Commissioner Nielsen, to approve the minutes of December 16, 2021.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin NOES: None
ABSENT: None

26.78 2
General Business

2. Nomination and election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.

Commissioner Spellman nominated Commissioner Conway to serve as Chairperson.

Commissioner Maxwell nominated Commissioner Dawson to serve as Chairperson.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Conway, seconded by Commissioner Dawson to close nominations for the position of Chairperson.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: The Commissioners voted as follows to elect the Chairperson:

To elect Commissioner Conway to serve as Chairperson: Conway, Nielsen, Spellman
To elect Commissioner Dawson to serve as Chairperson: Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Schiffrin
Commissioner Dawson elected to serve as Chairperson by a 4-3 vote.

Commissioner Conway nominated Commissioner Greenberg to serve as ViceChair.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Conway, seconded by Commissioner Nielsen, to close the nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Greenberg elected to serve as Vice-Chair by consensus of the Commission.

3. Consideration of Ordinance Revision Increasing Inclusionary Requirements for Density Bonus Developments.

Commissioner Schiffrin presented the item to the Commission.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Greenberg, to recommend that the City Council be requested to amend the inclusionary ordinance to increase the affordable housing requirement for

26.79 3
density bonus developments to result in net affordability requirements of either 15 or 20 percent.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Spellman, Schiffrin
NOES: Conway, Nielsen
ABSENT: None
Public Hearings

4. A20-0008: Slope Regulations Amendment Ordinance
Senior Planner Katherine Donovan presented the item to the Commission.

The public hearing was opened.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission on this item:

John Hall.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell to continue the slope regulation amendments for additional CEQA review to incorporate potential impacts of development in areas of steep slopes from increased development potential on parcels in single family districts that were not considered in the 2030 General Plan EIR, to provide additional analysis of potential wildfire impact and to evaluate the elimination of the prohibition of development on 50 percent slopes with the increased development potential in single family districts.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Schiffrin
NOES: Conway, Nielsen, Spellman
ABSENT: None
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Greenberg, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, to recommend approval to the City Council of an amendment of the slope regulations for minor projects as proposed in Section

24.14.030 (g) with the elimination of the last phrase having to do with the slope development permit.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin NOES: None
ABSENT: None

26.80 4
Information Items-Assistant Planning Director Eric Marlatt advised the Commission the 109 Seabright item was appealed to the Coastal Commission; upcoming items before the Commission will include: the small unit ordinance amendments item set for public hearing on February 3; an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance shall appear on the February 17, 2022 Planning Commission agenda, as well as a request for a use permit for a fitness facility on Mission Street.

Principal Planner Matt VanHua affirmed the Objective Standards item is scheduled to appear before the Commission the first meeting in April, and the Local Coastal Program amendments item on March 3, 2022.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Referred to Future Agendas-None.

Adjournment- The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

26.81 Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 2/11/2021
AGENDA OF: 2/17/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: A20-0008: Slope Regulations Amendment Ordinance (PL) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission make the included findings and recommend that the City Council: 1) Acknowledge the Addendum to the 2030 General Plan certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR); 2) Approve the proposed Slope Regulations Update Ordinance and amendments to the Local Coastal Program; and 3) Direct the City Manager to submit the Local Coastal Program amendments to the California Coastal Commission for approval.

BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment was brought to the Planning Commission on January 20, 2022. The Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval to City Council of one portion of Section 9 of the amendment (Section 24.14.030(g) regarding minor development) and continued the remainder of the amendment “for additional CEQA review to incorporate potential impacts of development in areas of steep slopes from increased development potential on projects on parcels in single family districts that were not considered in the 2030 General Plan EIR, to provide additional analysis of potential wildfire impact, and to evaluate the elimination of the prohibition of development on 50 percent slopes with the increased development potential in single family districts.”
Two of the Commissioners at the January 20th meeting have now been replaced by two new commissioners. The original report is attached and this report will briefly review the history of the amendment and concentrate on issues raised in communications from individual commissioners and at the Planning Commission hearing.

DESCRIPTION:

Reasons for Amendment
The Slope Regulations in the City’s Zoning Ordinance regulate development on thirty percent or greater slopes. Currently, the Slope Regulations require either a Slope Modification Permit or a Slope Variance for development on slopes between thirty and fifty percent and prohibit development on slopes greater than fifty percent. The slope regulations were last updated in 1995 and implement policies of the previous General Plan (General Plan 1990-2005), shown below:

26.82 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 2 ends

EQ 3.2 Limit development and control excavation and grading on and in the vicinity of unstable slopes or slopes over 30% to diminish erosion hazards and protect natural land forms and plant and animal habitats.

3.2.1 Prohibit development on slopes greater than 50%.

3.2.2 Prohibit development on slopes between 30% and 50% unless a project meets the following criteria: a physical hardship exists; impacts are mitigated to an insignificant level; structures are designed to conform to the terrain; mass and bulk of structures are minimized; fire safety measures are incorporated; geological and structural reports establish safety of construction; and alteration of the natural landform is minimized.

3.2.3 Generally require at least a 20-foot setback from slopes over 30%, unless the criteria in EQ 3.2.2 are met; in no case shall the setback be less than 10 feet from the top edge of the slope.

3.2.4 Prohibit land divisions that could degrade distinctive natural features or result in development on lands within slopes over 30%.

In 2012, City Council adopted a new General Plan. The 2030 General Plan language regarding development on slopes changed significantly from the language in the previous General Plan. It endorses a more general direction to discourage development on unstable slopes. The 2030 General Plan also supports requiring geotechnical reports for properties with the potential of slope instability and directs that the Zoning Ordinance be updated to include new construction techniques and best management practices, as shown below:

Goal CD1 A built environment in harmony with its natural setting CD1.3 Ensure that development is designed to be in harmony with natural topography and vegetation.

CD1.3.1 Encourage UCSC development to blend with the natural landscape and maintain natural ridgelines as seen from the city.

CD1.3.2 Update the Zoning Ordinance to address new construction techniques and “best management practices” related to construction on slopes.

CD1.3.3 Review the slope development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and update them as deemed necessary.

Goal HZ6 Protection from natural hazards
HZ6.2 Discourage development on unstable slopes.

HZ6.2.1 Require engineering geology reports when, in the opinion of the City’s planning director, excavation and grading have the potential for exposure to slope instability or the potential to create unstable slope or soil conditions.

26.83 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 3 ends

The proposed amendment removes the arbitrary requirements controlling development on or within twenty feet of thirty to fifty percent slopes and the prohibition against development on or within twenty feet of slopes of fifty percent or greater and replaces them with the science-based requirement for a geotechnical review of the property, as directed by the 2030 General Plan. A comment was made by a Commissioner at the Planning Commission hearing that the direction to “Review the slope development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and update them as deemed necessary” did not necessarily mean that the Zoning Ordinance needed to be revised, but taken together with the General Plan direction cited above to “Update the Zoning Ordinance to address new construction techniques and “best management practices” related to construction on slopes” and to “Require engineering geology reports when, in the opinion of the City’s planning director, excavation and grading have the potential for exposure to slope instability or the potential to create unstable slope or soil conditions,” it is clear that the intent was to revise the prescriptive direction in the Zoning Ordinance to reflect a more nuanced and science-based approach that takes into account the soil conditions of the individual properties.

It should also be noted that except in the case of development within one hundred feet of a coastal bluff, the existing slope ordinance does not explicitly require site-specific geologic investigations for development on or near slopes exceeding 30 percent. It has been staff’s practice to require these reports in order to make the required Slope Modification or Slope Variance findings. In this postSB330 era where it is critically important to have objective development standards in place, these amendments not only memorialize staff’s past practice, but they also implement General Plan policy HZ6.2.1 by clearly defining when an engineering geology report is required.

Goals of Amendment
In addition to the direction in the 2030 General Plan, there are other reasons to revise the slope regulations. The Current Planning Division gets regular inquiries about projects on slopes. These potential projects are often relatively minor (such as walkways or fences) but, under the current ordinance, may be prohibited or require the property owner to obtain either a Slope Modification Permit or a Slope Variance. Slope Variances currently require a public hearing before the Planning Commission if they are within ten feet of a thirty percent or greater slope, and they are often approved on the Planning Commission consent calendar. This process consumes a lot of applicant time and money and also involves staff and Commission time and energy that could be better used on larger, more complex projects of greater community interest.

Density
The motion approved by the Planning Commission on January 20th requested “additional CEQA review to incorporate potential impacts of development in areas of steep slopes from increased development potential on projects on parcels in single family districts that were not considered in the 2030 General Plan EIR.” The issue of whether review is needed to assess the impacts of SB 9, which required that local jurisdictions allow up to two housing units per parcel and allow each parcel to be split into two parcels in single family districts is addressed in the Environmental Review section of this report. The following section addresses the assumption that the proposed amendment increases development potential on parcels with steep slopes.

26.84 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 4 ends

The General Plan sets the residential density (units per acre) for the various General Plan residential land use designations, which are then implemented through the Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Accountability Act allows for these maximum General Plan densities to be achieved.

These densities are determined by the gross lot area “unless constraints associated with the natural environment require a lower density” (2030 General Plan, page 40). While the limitations on development on or within twenty feet of a thirty to fifty percent slope and the prohibition against development on or within twenty feet of a slope of fifty percent or greater were likely intended to reflect a constraint due to slope instability, the fact that land is sloped does not, in and of itself, mean that the slope is unstable. Therefore, the percent of slope is not actually a constraint and cannot, per the 2030 General Plan, lower the density required on a parcel unless it can be shown by a geotechnical review of the property that there is an underlying instability that would constrain development.

Because the gross lot area is not dependent on whether there is a portion of the property that is sloped, the same number of units can be built on a sloped property with or without the proposed amendment unless it can be shown that there is an underlying soil instability that would constrain development on a portion of the property. As the proposed amendment would require geotechnical reports that would identify any underlying soil instability, the allowed number of units could decrease based on the extent of the instability. The proposed amendment would never increase the number of units that could be built. At most, it would expand the locations in which those units could be built to include portions of a property with sloped but stable conditions. While current Planning Department practice also includes geological investigations that would identify slope instability or erosion constraints, they are not currently required by the Zoning Ordinance.

The motion approved on January 20th included a desire to “evaluate the elimination of the prohibition of development on fifty percent slopes with the increased development potential in single family districts.” The existing slope regulations prohibit development on slopes greater than fifty percent. However, as the 2030 General Plan sets density based on gross lot area, the current regulation does not affect the number of units that could be developed on a particular property.

The amendment would allow development on slopes greater than fifty percent if a geotechnical review found the development to be feasible. This would make two changes to the current situation: it would change the location that any additional units could be built (not the number of units) and, if the geotechnical review found that certain portions of the property could not feasibly be developed, it would establish that “a constraint associated with the natural environment” existed and would therefore lower the density for the property, potentially decreasing the number of housing units that could be developed. This would be consistent with the density calculations that would occur under the existing regulations as well if a constraint associated with the natural environment was documented through the Planning Department’s current practice. As there is no exemption to SB 9 based on slopes, the amendment would not change the development potential allowed under SB 9.

Staff analyzed properties within the City that have slopes greater than fifty percent with a General Plan land use designation that would allow residential development (most of the land area with steep slopes has a designation as parks or open space of some type). There were a total of thirty vacant properties that had land area in slopes greater than fifty percent that was sufficient to build a housing unit. Of those thirty parcels, the vast majority also had other environmental constraints, mostly related to creeks and creek setbacks, monarch butterflies, and other protected habitat types.

Of the thirty vacant properties, seven had sufficient land area with fifty percent or greater slopes

26.85 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 5 ends

without other constraints to support a housing unit. While a total of fifteen housing units could be built on the sloped portions of these properties, two properties that could support a total of nine housing units are City-owned properties adjacent to parks and open space that are unlikely to be developed, leaving a potential of six housing units that could be developed on slopes greater than fifty percent on vacant land.

Staff also reviewed properties with slopes greater than fifty percent that have existing development that could potentially have additional development due to the size of the properties. There are sixty-five properties with existing development that have areas with slopes greater than fifty percent that are large enough to support a dwelling unit. Of these properties, twelve have sufficient sloped area that does not have environmental constraints that would prevent additional development. Each of those properties could potentially support one additional unit.

The analysis of the properties was based on the City’s GIS mapping system, so other constraints to development that might not be apparent from the maps were not considered.

Wildfire Impacts
The motion approved by the Planning Commission on January 20th also expressed a desire for “additional analysis of potential wildfire impact.” The Addendum to the 2030 General Plan EIR prepared for this project has been expanded to provide additional discussion related to wildfire impacts. This section of the report summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed amendment related to wildfire.

Generally, wildfire impacts are viewed as impacts to property and loss of human life. As described above, the proposed ordinance would not increase the number of housing units that could be developed on sloped properties and, therefore, would not increase any potential impacts to property or loss of human life. In 2019, the City of Santa Cruz adopted a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Ordinance (Title 19.05.270 of the Municipal Code) that identifies properties considered to be at risk from wildfire. (Attachment 9 is a map of the WUI areas.) Under the WUI ordinance, areas determined to be at a high risk of wildfire are identified and in these areas, specific building code standards related to the types of materials and construction methods used are required for all new construction, including remodels and repairs. These standards include materials and construction methods that are more resistant to fire, making structures less likely to burn in the event of a wildfire. As the WUI designation applies to the entire property, it includes both the sloped and flat portions of properties that are in proximity to potential wildfire areas.

While SB 9 contains an exemption for properties in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as determined by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, according to the Fire Hazard Zone Maps provided by the State, Santa Cruz County has no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas, which includes all of the City of Santa Cruz. As explained above in the “Density” section, the proposed amendment would not increase the number of units that could be allowed on sloped properties, many of which are designated as being in the WUI.

In fact, as stated above, the requirement for a geotechnical report would establish whether there was an actual constraint and, if so, would reduce the allowed density, thereby decreasing the potential number of units that could be developed and decreasing the risk associated with wildfire. A documentation of unstable slopes would also decrease the allowed density under the current regulations.

26.86 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 6 ends

Dudek determined that none of the conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur with the approval of the Slope Regulation Revisions.

In his email dated January 18, 2022, Commissioner Schiffrin made a number of statements regarding his belief that the Addendum was inadequate. Commissioner Schiffrin pointed out one factual error regarding what is allowed under the current slope ordinance, which has been corrected. Commissioner Schiffrin also stated several times that the additional development allowed by SB 9 consisted of a “substantial change in circumstances” since the EIR was adopted and that because of this, an addendum was not the appropriate CEQA review.

26.87 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 7 ends

Staff consulted with land use and CEQA law specialists at Remy, Moose, Manley, LLP (RMM).

RMM provided the City with a legal opinion regarding whether an addendum to the 2030 General Plan EIR was the appropriate review method under CEQA and whether the passage of SB 9 created new or changed circumstances that required additional CEQA analysis (Attachment 8). RMM noted that new legal enactments do not trigger the need for subsequent environmental review in general and are not considered to be a change in the circumstances under which the General Plan EIR was undertaken. In addition, CEQA does not require review of speculative development and case law has determined that development that is possible but not a part of the proposed project is speculative and, therefore, does not require review. While SB 9 has created the possibility that property owners could build second units or split their lots and build two units on each lot, there is no evidence as to whether property owners in the vicinity of slopes in the City of Santa Cruz would develop second units or split their lots. In addition, any such development is, by law, ministerial and therefore exempt from CEQA. Finally, the proposed amendment would not change the impacts of SB 9 and CEQA analysis is required only on changes that a project makes to the environment.

FINDINGS. Prior to making a recommendation for approval of the attached amendment to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings:

3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 of the Local Coastal Plan.

Submitted By:

Katherine Donovan
Senior Planner
Approved By:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Slope Regulation Amendment, clean copy

26.88 Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2022
Slope Regulation Amendment A20-0008

Page 8 ends

2. Slope Regulation Amendment, red line version

3. Slope Regulation General Plan 2030 EIR Addendum, revised February 2022

4. Staff Report for the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting

5. Minutes of the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission meeting

6. Email from Commissioner Schiffrin, 1/18/2022, with responses from staff

7. Email from Commissioner Schiffrin, 1/20/2022 responding to staff’s response

8. Legal opinion memo from Remy, Moose, Manley, 2/11/2022

9. Map of Wildland Urban Interface Areas

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

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
February 17, 2022
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:02 a.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Greenberg, Kennedy, Maxwell, MesitiMiller, Schiffrin and Dawson were present.

Absent w/notification-None.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the Minutes of February 3, 2022.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell to approve the minutes of February 3, 2022.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Greenberg, Kennedy, Maxwell, MesitiMiller, Schiffrin and Dawson NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Consent Public Hearing Agenda
Principal Planner Samantha Haschert presented the Consent Public Hearing Agenda to the Commission.

26.90 2. 1640 Mission Street Project Number: CP-21-0173 Special Use Permit to establish a 24-hour fitness gym (Anytime Fitness) in an existing building located in the C-C zone district.

The public hearing was opened.

Associate Planner Lane Zorich responded to Commissioner requests for clarification.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission on this item:
none.

The public hearing was closed.

ACTION: The Planning Commission acknowledged the environmental determination and approved the Special Use Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit A in the staff report dated January 21, 2022 (see action on the Consent Public Hearing Agenda below).

3. Oversized Vehicle Ordinance Implementation Appeal Project Number: CP21- 0174
ACTION: The Planning Commission continued this item to the March 3, 2022 agenda (see action on the Consent Public Hearing Agenda below).

ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT AGENDA:

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Greenberg, to approve the Consent Public Hearing agenda, agenda items 2 and 3.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Greenberg, Kennedy, Maxwell, MesitiMiller, Schiffrin and Dawson NOES: None
ABSENT: None

26.91 Public Hearings

4. Slope Regulations Amendment Ordinance Project Number A20-0008 Senior Planner Katherine Donovan presented the item to the Commission.

The public hearing was opened.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Mark Primack.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Conway, to make the included findings and recommend that the City Council:
1) Acknowledge the Addendum to the 2030 General Plan certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR); 2) Approve the proposed Slope Regulations Update Ordinance and amendments to the Local Coastal Program; and 3) Direct the City Manager to submit the Local Coastal Program amendments to the California Coastal Commission for approval.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Greenberg, Kennedy, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller NOES: Schiffrin, Dawson
ABSENT: None
Information Items-Assistant Planning Director Eric Marlatt advised the Commission the Appeal of the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance will be presented at the March 3, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. An update on the Downtown Plan Expansion process and a project on 415 Natural Bridges will be presented at the March 17, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Referred to Future Agendas-None.

Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.

Volume 0%
00:00

26.92 Email from Andy Schiffrin received January 18, 2022 I've now had a chance to review the agenda material on the proposed Slope Regulations amendment coming before the Planning Commission on Thursday. I have very serious concerns with the CEQA review and the proposed Addendum. In my view, the Addendum has significant inaccuracies and is not legally adequate. In the end, I think my comments provide substantial evidence that an Addendum is not the appropriate environmental document for reviewing the proposed ordinance revisions.

Below are my specific comments on the staff report and the Addendum. Because they are detailed, I wanted to give you time before the meeting to review them.

Given our prior discussions of Brown Act requirements, it seems that I am unable to have these comments put on the public correspondence agenda before the meeting. Therefore, please add them to public correspondence and circulate them to commissioners at the start of the meeting. My intention is to go through the comments at the meeting so please let me know if there is any problem distributing them when the meeting starts.

Finally, I'm happy to discuss my concerns with you before the meeting.

Thank you.

Andy
RESPONSE:

City will respond to second round of comments (in bold black letters) orally at the public hearing.

There are a few overarching issues that can be address up front.

The General Plan is the guiding land use document for the City, with the zoning ordinance implementing the General Plan. If there is a conflict between the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, the General Plan takes precedence, particularly as related to State regulations such as SB 9 and the Housing Accountability Act. Overall impacts from development are based on the number of units, or density, of a project. The General Plan sets the density ranges for development in each General Plan land use district. As stated on page 40 of the General Plan, “A site’s density must be at or above the minimum unless constraints associated with the natural environment require a lower density1.”
While the existing Slope Regulations’ determination that density is based on net lot area, which does not include areas with slopes greater than 30 percent, may be intended to address the presumed constraints of unstable slopes, a slope of 30 percent or greater is not, in and of itself, a constraint. Thus, under the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act, the lot area with slopes

1 Emphasis added.

26.93 2
greater than 30% must be considered in density calculations unless it is determined that the slope requires a lower density. Under the proposed amendment, the requirement for a geotechnical report would establish whether there was, in fact, an actual constraint to development and any decrease in developable lot area based on actual geological constraints as determined by the report would be consistent with the General Plan. (But so are the existing regulations) In addition to slope stability, fire hazards can be associated with steeply sloped properties. The commenter states that the proposed amendment, combined with the passage of SB 9, would increase the dangers of wildfire hazards. While SB 9 allows increased densities on single-family parcels, it does not apply to parcels with specific environmental constraints identified in Government Code 65913.4(a)(6) B through K, attached. In particular, §D addresses properties in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as determined by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. According to the Fire Hazard Zone Maps provided by the State, Santa Cruz County has no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, which includes all of the City of Santa Cruz. This determination was made in 2008, prior to the General Plan EIR maps, and has not changed since the General Plan EIR was approved. (So SB 9 provisions would apply to all steeper slopes in the City even if there is increased fire danger, which the Addendum doesn’t recognize.)
Section D also states that the exemption to SB 9 does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. The City of Santa Cruz adopted a Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance in 2019 (Title 19.05.270 of the Municipal Code) that identifies properties considered to be at risk, and the Building Division has utilized this information to enforce the provisions of 2019 CRC R337, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, and 2019 CBC Chapter 7A (SFM), Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, for properties these properties. The Fire Department also reviews any projects in the Wildland Urban Interface. (The CEQA review needs to discuss all of this. The concern isn’t whether SB 9 applies but whether the CEQA analysis is adequate.) While wildfire is of increasing concern, since the allowed density of development is based on the General Plan density, which requires an actual constraint associated with the natural environment rather than the assumed constraint of 30 percent or greater slope, the approval of the amendment would not increase the allowable density of development. (I agree that the amendment doesn’t increase density on slopes steep slopes but SB 9 does and this needs to be considered in the environmental review.) In fact, as stated above, the requirement for a geotechnical report would establish whether there was an actual constraint and, if so, would reduce the allowed density, thereby decreasing the risk associated with wildfire.

The Addendum examined whether the proposed amendment would increase density and determined it would not. It also reviewed impacts in all other CEQA review areas and no new impacts beyond those already reviewed in the EIR would occur due to the approval of the amendment. Although SB 9 has the potential to increase development on single-family parcels throughout the City, the proposed amendment does not change what development would be allowed under SB 9 and the Addendum is not an analysis of the impacts of SB 9. Because SB 9 projects are by definition ministerial, they are exempt from CEQA review. (CEQA requires

26.94 3
analysis of the potential impacts of a project (the amendment) based on the existing environmental setting. It’s the environmental setting that has changed and must be considered in determining whether there will be increased development due to the amendment. This is particularly important since SB 9 projects will be ministerial and not subject to CEQA review.)
STAFF REPORT:
- Page 1 – Despite the General Plan policies, there is no requirement to weaken or revise the current regulations.

The current Slope Regulations are based on 2005 General Plan policies, which included specific requirements for development on 30 to 50% slopes and prohibited development on slopes greater than 50%. Those policies were substantially revised in the 2030 General Plan. As stated in the staff report, General Plan Action CD 1.3.2 recommends that the City “Update the Zoning Ordinance to address new construction techniques and “best management practices” related to construction on slopes.” In addition, Action CD 1.3.3 recommends that the City “Review the slope development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and update them as deemed necessary.” The proposed Amendment recognizes the intent of the policy changes in the 2030 General Plan to move to a more science-based and site-specific approach. Requiring a site-specific geotechnical review rather than relying strictly on the percent of slope does not “weaken” the regulations but rather strengthens them by ensuring that property development is appropriate to what that property can support rather than a blanket allowance or prohibition based solely on the percent of slope. (I disagree)
- Page 2 – I can support the first goal of streamlining the process for minor projects without visual or slope stability impacts as proposed. I don’t support the second goal of substituting engineering studies for the existing objective standards. This approach seems consistent with comments from the public.

Comments from the public did not relate to whether or not engineering studies should replace percent of slope but whether there should be a public hearing requirement for “larger” projects. - The staff report indicates that “the vast majority of properties” subject to the regulations are in single family districts. This has important environmental impact implications given the provisions of SB 9 which, essentially, allows up to 4 units on single family parcels.

SB 9 applies to all single family sites other than historic properties or those with environmental constraints listed in Government Code 65913.4(a)(6) B through K, which does not include the slope of the land. The proposed ordinance makes no difference in whether property could be developed with additional units under SB 9 and would not change the number of SB 9 units that could be developed. (But in terms of potential environmental impacts, these would be greater to the increased densities allowed by SB 9.)
- Page 3 – I totally support removing Slope Regulations from the PD Permit exceptions list.

Agreed. When coupled with the other changes proposed with this package, it is no longer necessary.

26.95 4
- The staff report says that the amendments would “limit development” on slopes over 30% but this isn’t necessarily so given that all that is required is a geological report justifying the development.

The staff report states the amendments will "limit development and control excavation and grading on and in the vicinity of unstable slopes or slopes over 30 percent by requiring a site-specific geological report that would determine the stability of such slopes prior to allowing development." The geotechnical report would ascertain whether development would be feasible on slopes over 30% and, if it determined that the site was unstable and could not be stabilized, would prevent development on any unstable portion of a parcel. The density would not be affected, as that calculation would rely on a geotechnical report under the current General Plan and Zoning Code provisions given that the Housing Accountability Act requirements. - The staff report also states that the proposed development would not increase development on sloped property. However, given SB 9 the amendments would potentially increase environmental impacts resulting from increased density on properties subject to the regulations.

The proposed amendment would not change what could be done under SB 9, which does not include an exemption from development on slopes. Under both SB 9 and the Housing Accountability Act, if the City’s development standards preclude a project from achieving the maximum density allowed by the General Plan, then that development standard cannot be applied. Therefore, the proposed changes have no material effect on the density, and in most cases, would also have no material effect on where development could occur, since a developer could seek to override the City’s current limitations pursuant to SB 9 or the Housing Accountability Act. (But SB 9 significant changes the circumstances under which the amendment would be applied.)
- Page 4 – The staff report includes those CEQA provisions for when a subsequent EIR is required. I think it can be reasonably argued that:

1. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken that involve new and increased environmental effects. The passage of SB 9 and the potential new development in single family zone districts on parcels subject to the regulations is the evidence of this.

As stated previously, SB 9 development potential would not change due to the proposed amendments. Development under SB 9 is exempt from CEQA. CEQA review is not required for a different, unrelated project, and projects using SB 9 are, themselves, exempt from CEQA under State law. (But CEQA review is required for this project and the reality of SB 9’s potential impacts must be recognized.)

2. The potential impacts of SB 9 and its potential environmental effects were not discussed in the General Plan EIR, particularly in regards to increased wildfire danger. And the potential effect of fire danger from increased development near and on steep slopes is more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR.

SB 9 does not apply to properties in extreme fire hazard zones; however, CAL FIRE has determined that Santa Cruz County has no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local

26.96 5
Responsibility Area, which includes all of the City of Santa Cruz. This determination was made in 2008, prior to the adoption of General Plan EIR, and has not changed since the General Plan EIR was approved. See additional response in the general comments at the beginning of this response. (True – but that doesn’t mean there isn’t fire danger outside of Very High Severity Zones. And most of the steep slopes are in heavily wooded areas. So, possible increased fire danger needs to be considered.)
GENERAL PLAN EIR ADDENDUM:
- Page 4 – Retaining the ordinance provision where portions of properties with slopes 30% or greater are not considered developable is recognition that there are environmental benefits of not having development on slopes over 30%.

It is unclear exactly what provision this references as there is no provision that considers portions of properties with slopes 30% or greater to be undevelopable; however, staff assumes it relates to the Section 24.14.030(1)(b), which directs that only property with less than 30% slope be included in the density calculation for a property. Staff considered whether to revise this definition; however, as there are other difficulties in developing on sloped terrain including driveway development and pedestrian access to the property, it was decided to retain the existing definition. In addition, while SB 330 currently would not allow this decrease in the allowed density, it is currently set to expire in 2030. Since State regulations supersede local regulations, this section is currently not applied in the event of an SB 330 project to which this provision would apply. And, as discussed above, under the Housing Accountability Act and under SB 9, development above the 30% or 50% slope lines can both currently occur, regardless of the current Zoning Code regulations that would otherwise be applicable. (Isn’t the 50% provision an objective standard that can be applied under both laws?) - Page 5 – Environmental Setting – The Addendum states that areas of steep slopes are “primarily located along the sea cliffs.” In fact, as shown in Figure 2 significant areas of the City that are subject to the slope regulations are single family zoned districts on the westside, Highland Avenue area, Carbonera, and Prospect Heights.

In fact, the Addendum goes on to say “Other areas containing steep slopes are within managed open space areas, as well as portions of the west side of Santa Cruz in the Western Drive area and in the northeastern portion of the City in the Prospect Heights and Carbonera Drive areas.” The word “primarily” can be stricken from the text of the Addendum before it is presented to the Council.
- As stated in the report, an addendum “may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions” are proposed. This may be the case for the proposed amendments for minor projects, but it is not the case for larger projects. Substituting a geologic report for a total prohibition of development on slopes over 50% is not minor.

As stated above, the General Plan requires a constraint associated with the natural environment to allow development densities of less than the General Plan minimum for the land use district.

By requiring a site-specific geotechnical report, the density of development on properties that have actual constraints due to unstable slopes can be decreased. This lessening of the

26.97 6
development density allowed on such slopes is consistent with how the current regulations would be applied under the Housing Accountability Act and SB 9. Similarly, as noted above, under the aforementioned State laws, the City would have to allow for development on slopes greater than 50% if prohibition of such development would preclude achievement of the development density called for by the General Plan. (But the 50% prohibition could apply if the parcel was large enough to allow development on slopes less than 50%/ That’s why additional CEQA review is needed.) Therefore, for both density and locations of development, the proposed amendments have minimal material effects on how the current regulations are applied, thus, the amendments are considered minor technical changes.
- Page 6 – The Addendum erroneously describes existing regulations by stating that they:
“prohibit structures on slopes greater than 50 percent unless an exception to the regulations is approved has been replaced with a new requirement for a slope development permit for any development on or within 20 feet of a 50 percent or greater slope.” In fact, though, Section 24.14.030.1.e of the Zoning Ordinance states: “No structure shall be located on a slope greater than fifty percent.” Section d. provides for a variance as follows: “No building shall be located on a slope of thirty to fifty percent, or within twenty feet of a thirty to fifty percent slope, unless an exception is granted pursuant to Section 24.14.040 or a variance is granted pursuant to Section 24.08.810.”
The Addendum mistaking says: “While this revision could lead to development on or within 20 feet of 50 percent or greater slopes, the existing regulations also could allow this.” By misstating the existing code requirements, the Addendum substantially understates the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendment.

The Addendum misstates that the existing ordinance would allow development on 50% slopes with an exception. However, as noted above, under the Housing Accountability Act and SB 9, the City could be compelled to allow development on slopes greater than 50%, even if the current ordinance would not allow for development in those areas. (This may be true but in terms of CEQA review, the Addendum is inaccurate and misleading.) These statements will be clarified prior to submitting the Addendum to City Council for acceptance. However, as stated previously, since property densities are set by the General Plan and the only instance that would allow a decrease in the required minimum density is a constraint associated with the natural environment, the change from development based on unmodified General Plan densities to development based on geotechnical reports that would identify any underlying geological constraints to the General Plan densities could, in fact, decrease rather than increase allowed development density. In addition, there is very limited developable land with 50% or greater slopes, as shown on the attached map. (But that’s not the point. Deleting the 50% prohibition makes all that land potentially developable.)
- Page 8 – The Addendum again states “the proposed changes would not alter density and indirectly the number of new units that could be constructed.” This may have been the case in the past but SB 9 now allows significantly increased densities on properties in single family districts which would potentially increase the environmental impacts of the amendment beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. CEQA requires that the existing environmental

26.98 7
setting be used in analyzing the potential impacts of a project and SB 9 substantially alters this setting in areas subject to the Slope Regulations.

Since SB 9 projects are ministerial and, therefore, exempt from CEQA, no environmental analysis is required for SB 9 projects. (That’s precisely my point. Because there will be no CEQA review for SB 9 projects, their potential impact needs to be analyzed here.) The Addendum correctly states that the proposed amendment would not change development densities, including those allowed under SB 9. The proposed amendment does not make any changes to how or where SB 9 would apply and SB 9 is not a part of this amendment. - Page 9 – The Addendum states “According to City staff, there are currently approximately 40 vacant parcels that have slopes greater than 30 percent that are zoned to allow development.” SB 9 could potentially quadruple this number and it does not include properties within 20 feet of 30% slopes. In addition, the number of developed parcels subject to the new law are not identified, nor is there an analysis of the potential impacts of their development. Under CEQA environmental review must consider the potential impacts of this greater level of development, especially since it would often occur in environmentally sensitive areas and areas with high wildfire risks.

See discussion at the beginning of this response and other related responses throughout. The Addendum is not a review of the impacts of SB 9, and the proposed amendment would not increase the existing General Plan densities for sloped properties. (True, but CEQA requires consideration of the existing environmental setting and SB 9 is part of that setting.) - The findings in the Conclusion regarding the potential development and the changes with respect to circumstances are not supported by substantial evidence and are, in fact, contradicted by it.

As described above, the amendment would not increase development densities or lead to development on unstable slopes or in wildfire zones without appropriate mitigation as required by CEQA and/or the applicable building and fire codes.
- In addition, the final conclusions that “the project changes are minor and no substantial changes in the project or environmental conditions have occurred since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR on June 26, 2012” does not recognize the fact that the results from passage SB 9 will not be minor and may significantly increase the development potential in single family neighborhoods which is a substantial change to the General Plan (the project). In addition, the implementation of SB 9 is likely to alter environmental conditions in the areas subject to the amendment. The environmental analysis must consider these potentially significant impacts.

The Addendum is not a CEQA analysis of SB 9. The proposed amendment would not change any impacts of SB 9. SB 9 projects could be built on slopes greater than 50% with or without the proposed amendments.
- Page 12 – Aesthetics – The Addendum ignores the potential impacts of increased development resulting from SB 9. In addition, by stating that “findings for issuance of a slope development permit are similar to existing regulations, which require mitigation of any adverse impacts,” the

26.99 8
Addendum incorrectly described current regulations which prohibit development on slopes 50% and over.

The Addendum is not a CEQA analysis of SB 9. See also related responses throughout. - Page 17 – Biological Resources –
- Subsection e) asks if the proposed project conflicts “with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.” By prohibiting development on slopes 50% and over, the current Slope Regulations protect sensitive open space areas which, as the Commission has seen with a project in the Carbonera area, contains protected species. By allowing development, even with mitigation, in these areas without more detailed analysis of possible impacts the Addendum is inadequate, especially in light of the likely increase in development applications resulting from SB 9.

The Addendum examines changes to impacts analyzed in the original EIR. As described previously, the amendment could potentially decrease rather than increase development densities allowed on slopes by requiring site-specific geotechnical review to identify constraints to the General Plan density requirements, and development on slopes can currently occur on slopes even greater than 50% under the Housing Accountability Act and SB 9. Impacts to biological resources are not dependent on the percent of slope and are generally reviewed at the site level prior to approval of development. In addition, the proposed amendment would make no changes that would allow development in sensitive open space areas that is not currently allowed by the General Plan.

The Addendum states: “The proposed revisions to the City’s slope regulations are recommended in the General Plan,” and cites the two General Plan related policies. However, neither of these policies recommends the proposed revisions to the Slope Regulations. They simply call for the re-evaluation of the slope regulations.

The General Plan calls for a re-evaluation of the slope regulations, which was conducted. The evaluation determined that this recommended action to revise the slope policies directly relates to the substantial changes in the General Plan policy from the prior general plan (which referenced the 30% and 50% slopes) and the current General Plan (which does not). The analysis concluded that an amendment was in order for evaluation of projects to be more science-based and to streamline the process. It was not the intent of the General Plan policy to direct a re-evaluation of the slope regulations and then not to follow through with the findings from the re-evaluation. See also the response above to comments about page 1 of the Staff Report. (True, but the follow through re-evaluation findings could determine that the current regulations are appropriate.)
- Page 22 – Geology and Soil – The Addendum contains the following: “The General Plan 2030 EIR identified less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils. The EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would be subjected to seismic and/or geologic hazards, including seismic shaking and liquefaction. However, with implementation of the General Plan 2030 policies and actions (including requirements for preparation of geotechnical reports) and adherence to local regulations, the EIR concluded that future

26.100
9 buildings would be designed to minimize damages and reduce exposure of people or structures to significant risks associated with seismic hazards, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. (Emphasis added.)
The General Plan EIR, then, relied in part on the City’s adherence to local regulations (like the Slope Regulations) in determining that a less-than-significant geologic impact. Eliminating the prohibition of development on slopes over 50% potentially increases the risk of geologic and soil impacts in this area and needs to be analyzed. Without specific consideration of the potential impacts of this revision, the Addendum provides no evidence to support its conclusion that “The proposed revisions to the City’s Slope Regulations would not directly or indirectly result in development that would result in impacts related to geology and soils.” Moreover, SB 9 projects are required to be approved ministerially, which could limit the City’s ability to mitigate their impacts.

As previously described, the proposed amendment would not increase the risk of geologic and soil impacts on slopes over 50% as any development on such slopes would be required to have a geological report to determine whether there was the potential of geologic or soils impacts and, if so, to mitigate the impacts by either removing the project from the area of impact or by providing an engineering solution to the potential impact. As is the case with any project, strict California Building Code requirements mandate that any new construction meets all applicable earthquake safety standards.

The City does not have the authority to deny SB 9 projects based on the percent of slope. In addition, plans for buildings on or within 20 feet of slopes greater than 30% are required to include a soils report and, if indicated by the soils report, a geotechnical engineer must sign off on the plans, providing any engineering solutions that may be necessary. (This may be true but is all the more reason to analyze their potential impacts should this amendment be adopted.)
- Page 26 – Hazards – Section g) asks whether the project may “Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?” While the Addendum does not recognize this, recent evidence has shown that housing development in areas subject to wildfires increases their likelihood. By allowing increased development in fire hazard areas, the risk of wildfires increases exposing people and structures to significant risk.

The Addendum states: “The proposed revisions would not change allowed density on parcels with 30 percent or greater slopes and would not indirectly lead to new development not otherwise considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR analyses, some of which may be within wildland fire hazard areas. This statement is incorrect. The proposed revisions do potentially change the density on parcels 30% or greater by allowing development on slopes 50% and greater, which is now prohibited.

As explained previously, the General Plan determines the density of development and only allows less than the minimum densities when there are constraints required by the natural environment. Percent of slope per se is not a constraint; there must be an underlying instability related to that slope that would cause a constraint to exist, which would be determined by a

26.101
10 geological review of the property. While the proposed amendment may allow development in a location that the current Zoning Ordinance regulations would not allow, as detailed above, the Housing Accountability Act and SB 9 can both currently require that development be allowed on slopes greater than 50%. And the changes would not increase the number of units per acre (density) that could be developed on the property under those aforementioned laws. In addition, as described in the general comments at the beginning of this response, development within the Wildland Urban Interface is reviewed by both the Building Division and the Fire Department and specific standards for construction in fire-prone areas apply to this development. (Again, these points do not negate the need under CEQA to evaluate the potential impacts.) In addition, the statement, while recognizing that some of the properties subject to the amendment may be located within wildland fire hazard areas, does not identify these areas or analyze the potential risk. In light of the City’s experience with the CZU Wildfire and the perceived future risk of wildland fires this may be a potentially significant hazard impact and needs to be analyzed.

As noted in general comments at the start of this response, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection determines statewide the locations of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and there are no such zones within the City. The City of Santa Cruz adopted a Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance in 2019 (Title 19.05.270 of the Municipal Code) that identifies properties considered to be at risk of wildfires and the Building Division has utilized this information to enforce the provisions of 2019 CRC R337 Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure and 2019 CBC Chapter 7A (SFM), Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, for properties identified to be at risk.

While wildfire is of increasing concern, since the density of development allowed is based on the General Plan density, which requires an actual constraint associated with the natural environment rather than the assumed constraint of 30 percent or greater slope, the approval of the amendment would not increase the allowable density of development, and development on property with greater than 50% slope could currently occur pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act and SB

9. In fact, as described previously, the requirement for a geotechnical report would establish whether there was an actual constraint and, if so, would reduce the allowed density, thereby decreasing the number of households with risk associated with wildfire. - Page 40 – Wildfire – The Addendum contains the following: “Some of the steep-sloped areas in the City also are within wildland fire hazard areas. However, as discussed in subsections 7(c) and 9(g) above, the proposed project would not result in new development not otherwise considered in the General Plan EIR or more severe impacts related to slope stability that could lead to erosion or exacerbate potential wildland fire risks. Therefore, the project would not result in a new significant impact.”
- Unlike the discussion in 9(g), the Addendum clearly recognizes that areas subject to the amendment are located in wildland fire hazard areas. The environmental document must provide additional information on the location of any areas subject to the amendment in fire hazard areas.

26.102
11 As described above and elsewhere in this response, the approval of the proposed amendment would not increase the number of households at risk from wildfire and actions taken by the City since the adoption of the General Plan EIR would further decrease such risk. The Addendum need not examine impacts already reviewed in the General Plan EIR but only new impacts due to the revisions. Adopted building code and fire code standards will be required for new development within wildland urban interface areas.
- In addition, as noted above, it is incorrect for the Addendum to state that the proposed revisions would not result in development or slope stability risks that were not studied in the General Plan EIR since that document was based on the assumption that development was prohibited in slopes of 50% or greater.

See responses above and at the beginning of this response document.

26.103
From Commissioner Schiffrin 2-14-2022 with Responses from Staff RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY’S OPINION ON SLOPE REGULATIONS
2/17/22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – ITEM #4
- Page 1 – “You asked us to determine whether the enactment of Senate Bill (SB 9) in 2021, which created a ministerial duty for local agencies to approve qualifying housing projects, presents a condition triggering supplemental environmental review of the proposed amendments under Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” Commissioner Schiffrin: That's not the question. It isn't whether SB 9 triggered environmental review of the amendments but whether there are potentially significant impacts resulting from the amendments due to the increased density allowed in single family districts that wasn't considered in the General Plan EIR.

Staff Response: The potential increase in density allowed in single family districts is a direct result of SB 9 and is not related to the slope amendment. As the lawyers at Remy, Moose, Manley (RMM) clearly stated, new legislation that creates a ministerial duty for local agencies to approve qualifying housing projects does not create a condition triggering supplemental environmental review. - “Generally, the enactment of new law does not constitute new information or changed circumstances triggering CEQA’s subsequent review provisions.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: It's not the new law but the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance that trigger subsequent review.

Staff Response: The amendment triggers review of the impacts from the amendment, and those impacts have been thoroughly evaluated in the Addendum. The potential increase in the number of units that can be built in single-family districts is due to the passage of SB 9, not of the proposed amendment. The passage of SB 9 and its subsequent enactment are not considered a change in circumstances that requires additional environmental review.

26.104
- “analysis of the potential impacts of SB 9 qualifying projects is not required because:” “(2) in light of the uncertainty and unpredictability that property owners would decide to seek SB 9 entitlements, undertaking any analysis would likely be too speculative to meaningfully inform decisionmakers about the potential impacts (or lack thereof) of the slope regulation amendments. As such, it is our opinion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR to support the approval of the instant amendments is not required.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: Isn't this also true with all General Plan density provisions, which do require CEQA review? Isn’t it also speculative that development along the corridors will reach the densities allowed in the General Plan yet the GP EIR analyzes their potential impacts?
Staff Response: The General Plan EIR is a program-level EIR for a planning-level approval. The General Plan EIR does not analyze specific development projects because the impacts of specific projects are speculative, if nothing has been proposed. Analysis of the specific impacts of a particular development project occur when there is a project-level approval, i.e., when an applicant submits an application for a project, and the project-level detail is available to discern what the specific impacts would be. CEQA specifically allows for this. (Guidelines, § 15168.)
Even if impacts from future SB 9 projects were readily identifiable at this stage, those impacts are not subject to CEQA review because the Legislature has declared such projects ministerial, i.e., exempt from CEQA. And as stated above, the project at hand is the slope regulation amendment, not SB 9.
- “General Plan Policy-Action CD1.3.2 and CD1.3.3 recommend revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance regarding slope regulations.

Commissioner Schiffrin: This is untrue. Here are the two policies cited:
“CD1.3.2 Update the Zoning Ordinance to address new construction techniques and “best management practices” related to construction on slopes.

26.105
CD1.3.3 Review the slope development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and update them as deemed necessary.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: - Best management practices may include geologic studies but don’t require elimination of the current development restrictions. And a policy to review of the slope regulations doesn’t necessarily mean that revisions are recommended.

Staff Response: As noted in the staff report, except for development within 100’ of a coastal bluff, a geotechnical review is currently not explicitly required by the Zoning Ordinance. The recommended language requiring preparation of a geotechnical report will not only reveal best management practices on a site-specific basis, but will also replace arbitrary slope setback and prohibition standards contained in the current ordinance.

In each of these policies, the General Plan says to update the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in the staff report, the Zoning Ordinance currently includes the prescriptive language from the 2005 General Plan, which was removed with the 2030 General Plan. Combined with the removal of the prescriptive language, these policies directing an update of the Zoning Ordinance indicate that the intent was to similarly revise the Zoning Ordinance slope regulations. The Planning Commission may vote to recommend that the City Council not approve this particular amendment if the Commission does not agree with the staff recommended changes.
- Page 2 – “Because the proposed revisions to the slope regulations would allow units to be built on 50 percent or greater slopes, 16 to 44 residential units of those residential units included in the General Plan’s buildout estimate could be constructed on slopes greater than 50 percent.

Nevertheless, because these units are already included in the remaining residential buildout estimates considered in the 2012 EIR, the proposed revisions would not result in additional development not otherwise potentially allowed under existing regulations.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: But this really supports my argument. At the time the GP EIR was prepared only 16 to 44 additional units were possible on slopes over 50% and these were included in the EIR’s analysis of the GP’s buildout estimates. The circumstances have now

26.106
changed significantly, and many more residential units are now allowable on slopes over 50%, which were not counted in the General Plan’s buildout estimates. The proposed revisions wouldn’t result in additional development directly but could result indirectly in a significant increase in development because additional density on single family parcels in now allowed. CEQA requires consideration of indirect impacts.

Staff Response: This is the same argument as previously. Any increase in development due to SB 9 is exempt from CEQA review.

The CEQA review for the proposed amendment analyzes any impacts due to the proposed amendment, both direct and indirect. The environmental review for the proposed amendment is not required to review the impacts of SB 9. There would be no change in the number of units that could be built with the approval of the proposed amendment and that number of units is included in the buildout estimate in the General Plan EIR.

It should also be noted that according to the Housing Accountability Act, “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” So in other words, if slope ordinance standards preclude a housing development from attaining density allowed by the General Plan land use designation, they cannot be used to deny a project proposing that density. This means that new units, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, can also potentially be located on slopes greater than 50 percent. The same can be said for SB 9 requirements, which could also mandate that housing units are allowed on slopes greater than 50 percent.
- Page 3 - “[S]ubsequent changes ‘are meaningful only to the extent they affect the environmental impacts of a project.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: But isn't increased development in an WUI area a change that potentially affects the environmental impacts of the amendment?

26.107
Staff Response: No. Please see the Addendum to the General Plan EIR Section 19 (starting on page 40 of the revised redline version) for an analysis of the impacts of wildfire risk due to the project. The key point here remains that it is the environmental impacts of the project that must be affected. Since the proposed amendment (the project) would not increase development in a WUI area - the same number of units could be built with or without the amendment - there would be no environmental impacts of the project related to wildfire. - Page 5 – “Case law supports the position that new legal enactments such as the adoption of regulations or guidelines do not constitute new information or changed circumstances if the information about the underlying issue was known or should have been known at the time the original EIR was certified.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: But information about the potential fourfold increase in density was not known when the General Plan EIR was adopted.

Staff Response: The “fourfold increase in density” is the passage of SB 9, which does not constitute new information or changed circumstances requiring additional review, as established in the case law cited.
- “The proposed amendments to the slope regulations would not increase density or development potential or indirectly lead to new development that could not otherwise occur under existing regulations.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: The amendments could lead indirectly to increased development because the existing regulations would eliminate existing development constraints.

Staff Response: The existing regulations prohibit development on slopes of 50% or greater. The proposed amendment would allow development on such slopes if the geological report supports such development, but it would not affect the density of individual parcels.

The same number of units could be built before and after the approval of the proposed amendment, it is simply the location of the units that could potentially change.

26.108
However, it should also be noted that according to the Housing Accountability Act, “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” So in other words, if slope ordinance standards preclude a housing development from attaining density allowed by the General Plan land use designation, they cannot be used to deny a project proposing that density. This means that new units, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, can also potentially be located on slopes greater than 50 percent. The same can be said for SB 9 requirements, which could also mandate that housing units are allowed on slopes greater than 50 percent.
- “We have not reviewed anything that would suggest that the proposed amendments would result in new or more severe significant impacts due to the enactment of SB 9.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: Isn't a potential fourfold increase in development in WUI areas evidence of potentially new significant impacts?
Staff Response: SB 9 is not part of the project, so the impacts of SB 9 and the potential for additional development allowed under SB 9 are not impacts of the project. The project does not increase the number of units that could be built. The same number of units could be built with or without the amendment.
- “One could argue that SB 9 puts the 2012 EIR assumptions about the estimated buildout of residential units in question—but without substantial evidence of new or more severe significant effects that were not previously analyzed—supplemental review is not mandated.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: This is the key legal argument. What is the substantial evidence justifying the argument that there are changed circumstances that could potentially cause more severe significant impacts?

26.109
• The WUI areas (shown on Attachment 9) contain all the properties subject to the current slope regulations prohibiting development on slopes over 50%.

Staff Response: This is not correct. There are a number of properties that have slopes over 50% that are not in the WUI areas, which are shown on Attachment 9. And as noted
previously, the Housing Accountability Act can mandate that development occur on slopes greater than 50%, regardless of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions. The same can be said for SB 9 requirements.
• Commissioner Schiffrin: The General Plan EIR considered the buildout potential only on the 16 to 44 vacant parcels subject to the slope regulations.

Staff Response: There would be no increase in the number of units that could be built on individual parcels with the approval of the proposed amendment.
• Commissioner Schiffrin: While the specific number of parcels subject to the current slope regulations containing slopes over 50% wasn’t identified in the proposed addendum, it is clear from Attachment 9 that most of these are currently developed, and the vast majority are located in the single-family dwelling zone district.

Staff Response: The Addendum identified the specific number of parcels with slopes over 50% that could have additional residential development in numerous places, with a description of how that number was identified starting on page 8. The vast majority of parcels containing slopes over 50% are, in fact, not developable as they are parks and open space parcels. Of the limited number of residentially zoned properties with 50% or greater slopes, most are zoned for single-family uses.
• Commissioner Schiffrin: Every single-family zoned parcel can now be subdivided and developed with two units with no CEQA review, which was not the case when the General Plan EIR was adopted.

26.110
Staff Response: While this is not entirely correct as there are exemptions to SB 9 related to historic properties, wetlands, endangered species habitat, and several other issues, the gist of the statement is correct. However, that is a result of the enactment of new law, which does not constitute new
information or changed circumstances triggering CEQA’s
subsequent review provisions, as previously discussed and with the applicable case law noted in the attorney’s response. • Commissioner Schiffrin: Recent Attorney General actions challenging a development proposal in Lake County provide evidence that increasing development in wildfire prone areas increases the danger of wildfires.

Staff Response: In the case referenced, a development of a significant number of new homes with one ingress and egress road in a very fire-prone area that had burned twice or three times in the past ten years was challenged. The proposed amendment would not increase the number of units that could already be built on properties with 50% or greater slopes. In addition, the total number of units is actually quite small, with a maximum of 18 units being possible on slopes greater than 50% unless City-owned land adjacent to open space and parks was to be developed, which would allow an additional nine units. The likelihood of the nine units developing on what amounts to City parkland between the Pogonip Open Space and Harvey West Park is extremely unlikely. The remaining 18 units could be developed on slopes greater than 50%, in the same or very similar locations as would be allowed under the proposed amendments, through requisite compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and/or SB 9.
• Commissioner Schiffrin: The potential increased development that would be allowed on slopes over 50% in WUI under current law represents a changed circumstance that would potentially cause severe significant effects by increasing the danger of wildfires.

26.111
There is no increase in the number of units that could be developed within the WUI due to the approval of the proposed amendment. There is no way to know how many SB 9 units
might be built on slopes over 50% in the WUI, but given the other constraints in these areas (wetlands, endangered species habitat), the number would be quite small. In addition, the Fire and Building Code requirements for development in WUI would decrease any potential impacts to such development. Further, as noted above, even with the current regulations, SB 9 and the Housing Accountability Act could require that units be built in areas with greater than 50% slopes.
- Page 6 – Speculation – “CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).) The mere enactment of SB 9 does not cause new residential development to be built nor does it directly create impacts. More importantly, however, any indirect impacts, i.e., impacts resulting from construction of additional housing units, will be at the sole, voluntary option of the property owner who decides to take advantage of SB 9. Thus, any impacts associated with future SB 9 projects are too speculative to be “reasonably foreseeable.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d (3) [“a change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable”].”
Commissioner Schiffrin: While it is true that future development will be “at the sole, voluntary option of” a property owner, this is true for all private development activities, such as those analyzed in the buildout estimates in the General Plan EIR. The question is whether potentially significant impacts from the amendment are “reasonably foreseeable.”
Staff Response: The impacts of SB 9 are not the impacts of the amendment. The Addendum has reviewed the impacts of the amendment and found that those impacts would not be significant.

Commissioner Schiffrin: - SB 9 just went into effect and there are already numerous media articles regarding property owners beginning to propose developments under the law. Moreover, the clear legislative intention of the law was to stimulate increased

26.112
development in single-family neighborhoods. The media coverage and legislative cheerleading provide substantial evidence that the potential increased development allowed by SB 9 is reasonably foreseeable.

Staff Response: This is speculation. There have been no development proposals for SB 9 units in the City. There has also been media coverage that speculates SB 9 will not have much impact on housing production. Because sloped lots are more difficult and expensive to develop, and the developed lots with steep slopes generally have been designed to situate a single residence, reasonable speculation could also conclude that it is unlikely that many SB 9 units would be built on steeply sloped lots. Again, this would just be speculation. - Page 7 – “There is an absence of information about, e.g., the availability of property zoned single-family residential that would meet the requirements of SB 9 and the preferences of property owners to construct additional units, to allow for meaningful analysis.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: This isn’t true. SB 9 is extremely broad and applies to every single-family residentially zoned parcel with a very limited number of exceptions. As is made clear, the major exception that would apply here – the wildfire exception – is shown to not be applicable even though most of the area covered by the amendment is in the WUI. As stated above, knowledge of preferences of property owners does not exempt projects from analysis of potential impacts.

Staff Response: The wildfire exception is not the main exception that would apply here, as there are also wetlands and endangered species habitat that would greatly limit SB 9 units on steeply sloped lots, most of which have creeks and/or habitat. But the question is moot since the impact of a new law or regulation does not constitute new information or changed circumstances triggering CEQA’s subsequent review provisions. Again, the review must focus on the proposed slope amendments, not on the SB 9 changes, and the proposed amendments have minimal implications considering that no new units would result and considering that locations of development on a lot will have few to no changes given SB 9 and Housing Accountability

26.113
Act mandates and the small number of properties where locational implications for development could even potentially occur. - “Even assuming there was evidence to support that the proposed amendments would result in new or more severe significant impacts due to SB 9, of which we are not aware, impacts associated with the approval of SB 9 projects are not reviewable under CEQA.”
Commissioner Schiffrin: But the matter before the Commission does not involve SB 9 but an amendment to the slope regulations. The law is clear that SB 9 projects are not subject to CEQA review.

Staff Response: Exactly. This statement was provided in response to arguments that the proposed amendment should be required to review the impacts of SB 9. The CEQA review for the proposed amendment only needs to be of the impacts of the amendment itself, not of the impact of SB 9.

26.114

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
From: Sabrina Teller and Nina Berglund
Date: February 7, 2022
Re: A20-0008: Slope Regulations Amendment Ordinance
The City of Santa Cruz (City) is proposing amendments to its slope regulations consistent with General Plan 2030. You asked us to determine whether the enactment of Senate Bill (SB 9) in 2021, which created a ministerial duty for local agencies to approve qualifying housing projects, presents a condition triggering supplemental environmental review of the proposed amendments under Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).

As explained herein, a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) is not required where substantial evidence supports a finding that no new, or substantially more severe, significant adverse impacts would result from the slope regulations amendments when compared to the effects considered in the certified 2012 General Plan EIR.

Generally, the enactment of new law does not constitute new information or changed circumstances triggering CEQA’s subsequent review provisions. Even if the enactment of SB 9 could be considered a change in circumstances or new information, analysis of the potential impacts of SB 9 qualifying projects is not required because: (1) as a ministerial approval SB 9 projects are exempt from CEQA altogether; and (2) in light of the uncertainty and unpredictability that property owners would decide to seek SB 9 entitlements, undertaking any analysis would likely be too speculative to meaningfully inform decisionmakers about the potential impacts (or lack thereof) of the slope regulation amendments. As such, it is our opinion that preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR to support the approval of the instant amendments is not required.

I. BACKGROUND
In June 2012, the City Council adopted General Plan 2030 following certification of an EIR. The General Plan includes policies and actions related to development on or near steep slopes. In particular, General Plan Policy-Action CD1.3.2 and CD1.3.3 recommend revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance regarding slope regulations. Staff initially proposed amending the slope regulations to implement the General Plan

26.115
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

policies in 2020. At that time, the Planning Commission voted to continue the slope regulation amendments to a date uncertain.

Subsequently, City staff engaged in a series of meetings with design professionals, as well as the public, to facilitate the development of slope regulations consistent with the General Plan policies. The City’s environmental consultant prepared an Addendum to the 2012 General Plan EIR, which concluded that the proposed revisions to the slope regulations would not result in an increase in the number of dwelling units. Because the proposed revisions to the slope regulations would allow units to be built on 50 percent or greater slopes, 16 to 44 residential units of those residential units included in the General Plan’s buildout estimate could be constructed on slopes greater than 50 percent. Nevertheless, because these units are already included in the remaining residential buildout estimates considered in the 2012 EIR, the proposed revisions would not result in additional development not otherwise potentially allowed under existing regulations. (EIR Addendum, pp. 8-10.) While the City was engaged in this process, the Governor signed SB 9, which went into effect on January 1, 2022. SB 9 facilitates the process for homeowners to subdivide their current residential lot or to build a duplex by allowing for ministerial approval of duplex residential development on single-family zoned parcels and lot splits, if the project satisfies certain requirements. The City received a comment questioning whether the addendum was still the appropriate level of environmental review for the slope regulations given the enactment of SB 9.

II. RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY
Where a lead agency has certified an EIR, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required unless there are substantial changes in the project or the circumstances surrounding the project, or if new information becomes available. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162.)1 Even then, CEQA does not require 1 / Public Resources Code section 21166 provides, in full, that when an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances und which the project is being undertaken.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available.

26.116
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

preparation of a subsequent EIR when a change in the project or its circumstances does not cause any new or more severe significant impacts other than those already contemplated in the approved EIR. (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773 (ALARM).) “[S]ubsequent changes ‘are meaningful only to the extent they affect the environmental impacts of a project.’” (Moss v. County of Humboldt (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1056.)
Where none of the conditions triggering subsequent environmental review are met, preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR is appropriate (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164), but not mandated. In other words, if none of the conditions of Public Resources Code section 21166 are met, the agency is not required to prepare any documentation. (See ALARM, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1804-1806 [CEQA does not CEQA Guidelines section 15162 closely mirrors Public Resources Code section 21166, while offering additional clarifying details to help an agency determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 states that further environmental review is required if:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

26.117
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

set forth any particular procedure, e.g., initial study or public hearing, to support an agency’s decision that an EIR is not required].)
/ / /
/ / /

26.118
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

III. ANALYSIS
A. New legal enactments generally do not trigger subsequent environmental review.

Case law supports the position that new legal enactments such as the adoption of regulations or guidelines do not constitute new information or changed circumstances if the information about the underlying issue was known or should have been known at the time the original EIR was certified. (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 [adoption of new guidelines for evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions was not significant new information requiring further CEQA review because information about potential effects of GHG emissions was known at the time the original EIR was certified]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806-808 [same]; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605 [a new regulation designating critical habitat for an endangered species was not significant new information requiring further CEQA review because the issue of impacts to the species was addressed in the original EIR].)
Here, the 2012 EIR analyzed impacts related to an estimated buildout of 3,350 new residential units throughout the City. (General Plan 2030 EIR Addendum, p. 3.) The proposed amendments to the slope regulations would not increase density or development potential or indirectly lead to new development that could not otherwise occur under existing regulations. (Id. at p. 32.) We have not reviewed anything that would suggest that the proposed amendments would result in new or more severe significant impacts due to the enactment of SB 9. In any event, impacts related to increased density, e.g., traffic, noise, air quality, etc., were all addressed at the time the original EIR was certified.

Where, however, new information shows that prior assumptions are “now questionable” at least one court has found that supplemental review is required. (Security Environmental Systems, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 110, 122-125.) In Security Environmental Systems, the court upheld an agency’s decision to require an EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 finding that new information regarding toxic air contaminants and associated health risks demonstrated that emissions from a hazardous waste incineration facility would be much higher than previously assumed. (Ibid.)
One could argue that SB 9 puts the 2012 EIR assumptions about the estimated buildout of residential units in question—but without substantial evidence of new or more severe significant effects that were not previously analyzed—supplemental review is not mandated. At this time we are not aware of any such evidence, and as described

26.119
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 6 ends

below, the future impacts of SB 9 are uncertain and speculative, and therefore cannot be the basis for a changed significance determination. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (e)(1) [substantial evidence excludes “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative”].)
B. CEQA does not require analysis of physical changes that are not reasonably foreseeable.

CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).) The mere enactment of SB 9 does not cause new residential development to be built nor does it directly create impacts. More importantly, however, any indirect impacts, i.e., impacts resulting from construction of additional housing units, will be at the sole, voluntary option of the property owner who decides to take advantage of SB 9. Thus, any impacts associated with future SB 9 projects are too speculative to be “reasonably foreseeable.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(3) [“a change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable”].)
CEQA does not require a lead agency to engage in speculation. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15144 [foreseeing the unforeseeable is not required], 15145 [EIR need not engage in speculation]; Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v. Dept. of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188, 196 [“we do not see … what purpose would be served by an EIR that could only speculate on future environmental consequences. Evaluation of future environmental effects must await the future decisions that could cause the effects”]; Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 910 [CEQA does not demand what is not realistically possible … Crystal ball inquiry is not required].) Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437 provides relevant analysis. In that case, a local ordinance allowed lot owners in a 27-lot subdivision for single family residences to apply for a conditional use permit to construct a second unit. Petitioner argued that the EIR was required to analyze the impacts of 27 additional units (the maximum allowed under the ordinance). The court disagreed finding that in light of the uncertainty and unpredictability that future lot owners would decide to seek entitlements for a second unit the EIR was not required to consider an additional 27 units as part of the project. (Id. at p. 1450.) [T]he possibility that future lot owners will or will not build a second unit is extremely uncertain, and any impact of such second units is highly speculative. [] Whether a conditional use permit to build a second unit will ever be sought depends initially upon the desires of future lot owners, who are unknown. Although a conditional use permit can be sought for a

26.120
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 7 ends

second unit, there is no factual basis for believing that a future lot owner is likely to do so. Any conclusions about their intentions to build second units would therefore be pure speculation … [E]ven if the building of some second units might be foreseeable, it is impossible to predict how many units will be built, the size of such units, on which lots they might be built, their location within a lot, the visibility of a second unit from outside the subdivision, or how such units might impact the environment. (Ibid.) The same is true here. There is an absence of information about, e.g., the availability of property zoned single-family residential that would meet the requirements of SB 9 and the preferences of property owners to construct additional units, to allow for meaningful analysis. Any CEQA analysis of the proposed amendments that considers potential impacts related to additional units built under SB 9 would be speculative and not serve CEQA’s purpose to inform the public and decisionmakers of a project’s potential environmental effects as the Legislature intended. (See Pub. Resources, § 21000; Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603.) C. SB 9 projects are not reviewable under CEQA.

Even assuming there was evidence to support that the proposed amendments would result in new or more severe significant impacts due to SB 9, of which we are not aware, impacts associated with the approval of SB 9 projects are not reviewable under CEQA.

CEQA applies only to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) The statute correspondingly exempts “[m]inisterial projects.” (Id. at subd. (b)(1).) In regard to SB 9, the Legislature declared that qualifying house projects are to be “considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing,” i.e., not subject to CEQA. (Gov.

Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a), 66411.7, subd. (a).) “Because CEQA is statutory in origin, the Legislature has the power to create exemptions from its requirements.

Projects and activities can be made wholly or partially exempt, as the Legislature chooses, regardless of their potential for adverse consequences.” (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 966, fn. 8.) In enacting SB 9, the Legislature found that availability of housing is an interest important enough to justify foregoing the benefits of environmental review. (Stats. 2021, ch. 162, § 4; Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 376.) Even if an analysis found potentially significant environmental effects, the City lacks the ability and authority to condition approval of qualifying SB 9 projects in any environmentally significant ways to mitigate those effects. As such, to require a supplemental EIR to analyze the impacts of exempt projects would be contrary to

26.121
Matthew VanHua
Katherine Donovan
March 17, 2022

Page 8 ends

CEQA’s purpose, which is not to generate paper, but rather to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(g).)
IV. CONCLUSION
Given the evidence that we have reviewed to date, there is nothing to suggest that the proposed slope regulation amendments would result in new or more severe significant effects than previously analyzed in the 2012 EIR due to the enactment of SB

9. Without such evidence, the City’s reliance on the prepared addendum is appropriate.

Should additional evidence be submitted, we would be happy to review it and adjust our analysis, as necessary.

26.122
From: Mark Primack
To: City Plan
Cc: Lee Butler; Katherine Donovan; [email protected]; Matt Huffaker; Tony Condotti Subject: re. Slope Regulations Amendment Ordinance Project Number A20-0008 Date: Sunday, February 13, 2022 11:10:12 AM
Hello,
I was going to comment on Andrew Schiffin’s response to staff’s response to Andrew’s response to staff’s response to Andrew’s comments on the staff report for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on updating our medieval slope regulations, but I found absolutely nothing of substance in any of the obstructionist red herrings that Mr. Schiffrin raised.

Instead I want to voice some concerns about the abuse of power evidenced in this inexcusable violation of the Brown Act, and what can only be deemed a presumptuous display of political privilege and an irresponsible waste of City resources.

As a former planning commissioner, I know that there are very clear protocols for transparency in government. Commission business is meant to be carried out in public, with all ccommissioners present. Staff is there to answer any and all questions publicly, so that all can participate and decide together, without prejudice. There is no excuse for Mr. Schiffrin’s behind-the-scenes behavior, no way to rationalize his treating City employees as his personal staff, answerable to him alone. Apparently, Mr. Schiffrin believes that both staff and the commission itself serve at his pleasure. The last time such behavior came to light, a recall election ensued. Public trust is sacred. No one should put themselves above the law.

The City attorney and City manager should take note of Mr. Schiffrin’s behavior.

Mr. Schiffrin should recuse himself from this public hearing.

Mr. Schiffrin should consider resigning from the commission.

On a positive note, I will be distributing Mr. Schiffrin’s document to several groups working to reform CEQA. He may yet be recognized as the poster child of NIMBY exclusionism.

Thank you, and thank you to staff for applying common sense and science to slope regulations that have for too long served as arbitrary and vindictive weapons in the service of political patronage.

Regards,
Mark Primack

26.123
From: Ellen Aldridge
To: City Plan
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Sept 17, 2020 Agenda Item #4 "Zoning Ordinance Clean-Up" Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:25:11 PM
My name is Ellen Aldridge and I am submitting this comment related to Agenda Item #4 on the Sept 17, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting.

I wish the Commission to take the following actions with regard to certain portions of Agenda Item #4:

Not approve any of the suggested changes to the CIty’s Slope Ordinances 24.08.810 and

24.14.030 for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate Notice: Agenda Item 4 does not adequately notice these proposed changes as required under the BROWN Act under its description as a “Zoning Ordinance Cleanup”.

While the description lists the code sections - it leaves the term “Slope” out of the laundry list of zoning topics to be “cleaned up”. The Brown Act requires the agenda description to briefly describe the proposed changes. With no mention of “slope” in this description, this matter did not give adequate notice for interested parties be aware.

2. Inadequate Rationale for this Major Policy Change: These slope ordinance changes are not of the general type of other clean-up items contained in these proposed revisions. Rather these major revisions to the slope ordinance was slipped into a clean up ordinance under the staff report heading of “Improve Ordinance Sections”. There is no discussion of: why these amendments are being sought, what the legislative history of the existing slope ordinance is, what issues were being solved by the existing slope building requirements/prohibitions that are outside the scope of “technical feasibility” of building on the slope. The aesthetics, storm water runoff, landslide, and infrastructure requirements are not discussed at all in the staff report. Your Commission should request this background and review from the Planning Staff prior to taking action to approve these changes.

3. Major Changes are being proposed so more information is required before Commission vote :

The proposed changes to the slope regulations make the following major changes:(Page 29- 30):

1.b:Eliminates the requirement that the minimum development area be based on the portion of the site with slopes less than 30%

1.c: Creates a new section that eliminates need for a variance for building on slopes over 30% instead replacing that requirement with the submission of a geotechnical report. The California Division of Mines and Geology guidelines require that geotechnical reports be reviewed by a technical professional, but the City doesn’t have such a person on staff - thereby always deferring to the applicant’s engineer.

1.d and e.Creates a new section eliminating the prohibition of building on slopes over 50% and allowing it by design permit.

1.h. New lots are presently prohibited within 20 feet of a 50% slope. Now these are allowed

26.124
with a geotechnical report.

4. No Urgency to Make these Dramatic Changes: While many of the other zoning changes proposed are truly clean up, the slope ordinance exists in City Code for a reason, and there is inadequate rationale for why this change is being proposed, who is impacted, who benefits and how it impacts the City. I urge your Commission to inquire what the motivation was from bringing this substantive change to the Commission now and what was the motivation to make the change. Discussed in today’s Sentinel is the risk of landslides due to fires on slopes, which is another reason to closely examine any change.

Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Aldridge
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

26.125
City Council
April 26, 2022
Slope Regulation
Amendment

26.126
2 • Slope Regulation amendment in package of amendments to Planning Commission in September 2020.
• Planning Commission continued Slope Regulation
amendment, recommended approval of other
amendments.
• Amendment returned to Planning Commission January 20, 2022 where it was continued.
• Planning Commission recommended approval the
amendment 5-2 on February 17, 2022.

Amendment History

26.127
3 • General Plan is guiding land use document and
Zoning Ordinance implements General Plan
• 2030 General Plan updated policies related to
development on slopes
• Zoning Ordinance still reflects 1990-2005 General
Plan policies for slopes
Background

26.128
4  2005 General Plan slope policies set 30%, 50% limits  2030 General Plan directed update of Zoning
Ordinance slope regulations based on new
construction techniques, best management
practices
 Also directed that geotechnical reports be required
where there was a potential for slope instability.

General Plan Policy Changes

26.129
5 Slope Regulation Update Goals
• Comply with General Plan 2030
• Reduce and streamline applications for minor
projects
• Allow development where feasible
• Require site-specific geological reports with
science-based engineering solutions when needed

26.130
6 • Require geotechnical review on or near slopes of 30% or greater
• Require engineering solution or relocate if report
shows issues
• Additional exemptions, changed grading exemption
from 100 cubic yards to 50 cubic yards
• Updated findings to address visual, environmental
impacts
• Remove from list of regulations where Planned
Development projects may vary
Proposed updates

26.131
7 • Creates a Slope Development Permit
• Public Hearing Requirements:

Updated application process
Current Proposed
No Public
Hearing
If >10’ from 30-50%
slope
If on or within 20’ of
30-50% slope
Public Hearing PC if within 10’ of 30-
50% slope
ZA if within 20’ of 50%
or greater
Development
Prohibited
>50% slope If geotech report finds
issues with no
engineering solution

26.132
8 • Current LCP reflects 2005 policies.
• LCP update underway.
• Delay LCP amendment for Slope Regulation Update
in Coastal Zone until LCP updated.
• Most developable sloped properties outside
Coastal Zone.

Local Coastal Program consistency

26.133
9 • Density regulated by General Plan
• General Plan requires development of at least
minimum density “unless constraints associated with
the natural environment require a lower density.”
• Percent of slope alone is not a constraint
• Geological report establishes whether there is a
constraint
• Amendment would not increase number of units
allowed
Density on Slopes

26.134
10 • Wildfires are an increasing danger in the West
• City added Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance
(WUI) in 2019
• WUI ordinance allows Building Division to apply
additional standards for fire protection
• Amendments would not add units in WUI
Wildfire Hazard

26.135
11 • Retained Dudek to review compliance with General Plan 2030 EIR
• Dudek prepared Addendum as no substantial changes to
General Plan that would invalidate analyses of EIR
• Dudek revised Addendum based on Commissioner and
staff concerns
• Remy, Moose, Manley prepared legal opinion supporting Addendum
CEQA Review

26.136
12 Minor edit to remove unnecessary text from Amendment:

24.04.030 TYPES OF PERMITS AND OTHER ACTIONS
AUTHORIZED BY THIS TITLE.

The following permits and actions are established in order to carry out the purposes and requirements of this title:

17. Slope Development Permit (on or within 20 feet of
slope greater than or equal to 30% and less than 50%)
Revised Ordinance Text

26.137
13 Introduce for publication an ordinance
amending Chapters 18.45, 24.04, 24.08, 24.14,
and 24.22 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code
(SCMC), keeping in place the existing code for
areas within the Coastal Zone, and
acknowledging the Addendum to the 2030
General Plan certified Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).

Motion

26.138
14 Questions?

26.139
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Police
SUBJECT: AB 481 - Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy (PD) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
(1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 9.90; and
(2) Approve Santa Cruz Police Department (“Department”) Policy 705 and an inventory of military equipment as defined by AB 481; and
(3) Provide direction as necessary.

BACKGROUND: California State Assembly Bill 481, effective January 1, 2022, establishes requirements for the acquisition and use of items deemed to be “military equipment” in law enforcement and state agencies. Specifically, the bill requires that law enforcement agencies obtain approval of their governing body via ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy prior to purchasing, raising funds for, or acquiring military equipment.

The military equipment use policy must, at a minimum, address the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment. (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy. (6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy. (7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.

27.1 The approval process for the military equipment use policy for equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022 must commence no later than May 1, 2022.

Once the policy is established, the Department must post the policy on the Department website and submit an annual report regarding use of the equipment. The City Council shall review the annual report and vote whether to renew the adopted ordinance on an annual basis.

DISCUSSION: The Department draft Military Equipment Policy #705 includes: a definition of military equipment in alignment with AB 481; the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Department’s Military Equipment Coordinator; the Department’s current military equipment inventory, including a description of the items, quantity, capabilities, purchase cost, purpose, authorized use, expected lifespan, training and legal and procedural rules; when approval is needed for funding, acquiring or using military equipment; coordination with other jurisdictions, community engagement and annual report; and the public process to submit complaints, concerns and questions.

If this ordinance is not approved the Department will be required to redesign policies, procedures, and operations for critical incident response. This would include the Department’s ability to provide and receive mutual aid, address an immediate threat, or have more expansive less-lethal options. Public safety will be negatively impacted with diminished access to the resources currently in the Department’s inventory.

The Department posted the draft Military Equipment Policy #705 on its website on March 18, 2022, and received comments from the public on the draft policy at both the Public Safety Committee meeting on March 22, 2022 and the AB 481 Virtual Community meeting held on April 11, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Patricia Dodge
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Bernie Escalante
Interim Chief of Police
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 9.90 - AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT.DOCX

2. SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY #705 MILITARY EQUIPMENT.DOCX

3. SANTA CRUZ POLICE MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY.DOCX

27.2 Santa Cruz Municipal Code Ch. 9.90 Page 1/4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADDING CHAPTER 9.90 TO THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT” BE IT ORDAINED BY The City of Santa Cruz As Follows:

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, creating Government Code Section 7070, et seq., relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used;
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz Police Department is in possession of certain items of equipment that qualify as “military equipment” under AB 481; WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment prepare a publicly released, written, military equipment use policy document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the Department’s use of such equipment;
WHEREAS, the military equipment use policy and supporting information must be approved by the governing body by ordinance, and reviewed annually; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the Santa Cruz Police Department’s use of military

27.3 Santa Cruz Municipal Code Ch. 9.90 Page 2/4
equipment as defined in AB 481, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Policy as set forth herein.

SECTION 1. Chapter 9.90 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is added to read as follows:

Chapter 9.90
AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
“9.90.010 MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY.
(a) The City Council hereby adopts the Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy”) set forth in Santa Cruz Police Department Policy 705 after having made the following determinations:
(1) The military equipment inventoried and presented in the Policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
(2) The proposed Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;
(3) The equipment identified in the Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety, if any;
(4) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance The Police Department has submitted a proposed Policy to the City Council and has made those documents available on the Police Department’s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (b) The Policy was considered by the City Council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
(c) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Police Department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(d) The Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the

27.4 Santa Cruz Municipal Code Ch. 9.90 Page 3/4
City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in (a)(1)-(4) above. (e) The City Council shall review this ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(2).
(f) The City Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d).”
SECTION 2. If any section or portion of this chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter, which shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in force and take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this ___ day of ______, 20__ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: _____________________
______________, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

27.5 Santa Cruz Municipal Code Ch. 9.90 Page 4/4
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.
___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1
Policy
705
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Military Equipment
705.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
State
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
705.1.1 DEFINITIONS
State
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Military Equipment
705.2 POLICY
State
It is the policy of the Santa Cruz Police Department that, with respect to military equipment, members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071, Penal Code § 13652 (AB 48), City of Santa Cruz Resolution No. NS-29,862, and Council Policy No. 29-16. 705.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
Best Practice
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Santa Cruz Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
705.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
State
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
[Insert attachment here]
705.5 APPROVAL
State
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior

Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Military Equipment
to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 705.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
State
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 705.7 ANNUAL REPORT
State
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 705.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
State
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Military Equipment
705.9 PUBLIC SUBMITTAL OF COMPLAINTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS Any member of the public wishing to submit a complaint, concern, or question regarding the Department’s use of each specific type of military equipment, should contact the Department’s Professional Standards Unit, call (831) 420-5800, or visit the Department’s website at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/police and select the “Community Feed Back Form.” Complaints, concerns, or questions can be submitted in any form (i.e. in person, telephone, email, etc.). The Department will work diligently to timely respond to the public submittal of complaints, concerns, and/or questions regarding the Department’s use of each specific type of military equipment.

27.10 1
Santa Cruz Police Department Draft Military Use Equipment List Pursuant to AB481.

1. Robot (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

I. Recon Robotics “Throw bot.” Purchase cost: $9,000 in 2013. Quantity: 1.

This equipment is a battery powered, remote operated device. It is equipped with a color camera as well as infrared capabilities that allow for use in low or no light situations. It does not have audio capabilities, nor is it capable of creating audio or video recordings. The Throw Bot is designed to be carried and operated by one person and can be thrown a significant distance without damage. It cannot traverse stairs on its own and it does not have any arm, claw or other type of manipulation attachment. The Throw Bot has no ability to have a weapon or other device affixed to it, nor is the Throw Bot capable of delivering a weapon or other device. This equipment is for use during high-risk incidents or incidents where its use may enhance officer or civilian safety. These include but are not limited to: a high-risk search warrant, barricaded subject or hostage negotiation/rescue. This equipment can provide officers with the location of a subject inside of a structure or room. It can assist officers in locating suspects, determining whether the suspect armed, and can provide the locations of injured persons or hostages. This equipment can provide critical tactical information without placing officers at undue risk. This equipment has been used in numerous high risk and dangerous incidents.

II. AVITAR II by Robotex. SCPD has access to two AVITAR II robots maintained by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office. The AVITAR II is a heavyduty robot, controlled by remote operation with a camera attachment owned by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office.
b. Purpose:

To be used to remotely search areas and gain visual data. c. Authorized Use:

The SCPD Emergency Service Unit (ESU) Tactical team has primary control over the Throw Bot. It is available for use by any SCPD officer in any situation where it would enhance officer or civilian safety. The AVITAR II Robots are entirely owned and operated by Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office personnel. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

Any use of SCPD robots will be for official law enforcement purposes, pursuant to State and Federal law, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community..
e. Required Training:

I. The SCPD conducts department specified training for personnel to use the Throw Bot. This includes set up, deployment, safe and effective use of the Throw Bot.

II. Training required for the use of the AVITAR II robots is in accordance with the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s policy.

27.11 2
f. Expected Lifespan:

I. Throw Bot: The Throw Bot is designed to be in service 8-10 years. The Throw Bot will be used until repairs are no longer supported by the manufacturer, the Throw Bot has been in service since 2013. It has been repaired by the manufacturer once.

II. AVITAR II: Not a consideration for SCPD.
g. Fiscal Impact
I. Throw Bot: No known annual maintenance costs.

II. AVITAR II: No fiscal impact for SCPD.

2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost.

SCPD does not currently possess any unmanned Aerial Vehicles. SCPD does have access to several Unmanned Aerial Vehicles maintained by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. The Sherriff’s Office possess several different unmanned aerial vehicles that can provide higher altitude aerial views of locations or search areas. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can also provide interior search capabilities in areas that are impassable for SCPD’s Recon Robot and in situations where officers entering would be unsafe.
b. Purpose:

To be deployed when its capabilities would provide officer or incident commanders with an aerial view of a location or the interior of a specific location.

The unmanned aerial vehicles may be deployed in situations that include, but are not limited to, a search for a missing person, natural disaster management, tactical or other public safety and life preservation situations. c. Authorized Use:

Only operators assigned to the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s department may operate the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The Santa Cruz County Chief Deputy must authorize all requests for use by outside agencies. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

Use is established under the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office Policy 606 and FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107. During their use, all other SCPD policies remain in effect, including but not limited to, Search and Seizure -312, Missing Persons-316, Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize Unmanned Aerial Vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, pursuant to State and Federal law, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community..
e. Required Training:

No required training for SCPD officers as only operators assigned to the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s department may operate the equipment. f. Expected Lifespan:

Not a consideration for SCPD.
g. Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact for SCPD.

27.12 3

3. Armored Personnel Carrier, vehicle with entry apparatus attached (Category 2&3) a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

Lenco Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV). Purchase cost $230,378. Quantity: 1.

The ARV is designed to provide ballistic protection during tactical events, and is designed to withstand multiple bullet strikes from small arms fire and low level explosions. The ARV is equipped with remote operated spotlights, emergency lights, siren and a public address system. Common uses for the ARV include citizen and officer rescues, evacuations and the deployment of officers and chemical munitions. The ARV has been used in numerous high-risk and critical incidents including use by allied agencies in Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County and San Mateo County.
b. Purpose:

To be used in response to high-risk or critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, assist in scene containment and to assist in resolving critical incidents.
c. Authorized Use:

Only the Watch Commander or the ESU commander may authorize the use of the ARV. Deployment must be based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. The ARV was purchased through a BUASI grant. The terms of this grant require that SCPD make the ARV available to any allied agency with the BUASI area as long as the situation the ARV is requested for meets the criteria for deployment set forth in SCPD Policy 702. SCPD generally sends at least one member of the ESU tactical team with the ARV if one is available. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702, ESU Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the Department to utilize armored vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
e. Required Training:

Members of the ESU team train officers in the use of the ARV. This training includes capabilities of the ARV, safety considerations, conducting civilian and officer rescues as well as other deployment considerations. f. Expected Lifespan:
20 years.
g. Fiscal Impact
$4,312 per year (parts, labor, and fuel).

4. Ford F350 transport vehicle (ESU Truck, category 5)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost. 2008 Ford F350 transport vehicle. A standard Ford F350 truck chassis with a large box type compartment attached to the chassis from the cab back. Purchase cost: $65,000. Quantity: 1. The interior of the compartment is fitted with shelving and seats. The outsides of the compartment are fitted with multiple storage boxes. The vehicle contains various equipment, spare ballistic shields, breeching tools, small tools, medical supplies, pens, writing tablets, power inverters etc.

27.13 4
b. Purpose:

The Ford F350 is deployed during critical incidents or any other instance where it can be utilized to transport personnel and equipment.
c. Authorized Use:

Any member of the SCPD is authorized to drive the vehicle if directed to do so.

The vehicle is used primarily by the ESU team.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702 and Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to use the vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
e. Required Training:

All driver/operators shall receive training in the safe operation of the vehicle. f. Expected lifespan:
20 Years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$1,158 per year (parts, labor, and fuel).

5. Command and Control Vehicles (Category 5)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle. Purchase cost: $60,000 each.

Quantity: (1) 2017 Model (Lieutenant), (3) 2018 models (Sergeants). These vehicles can act as a Mobile Command Center. The vehicle is equipped with file cabinets, dry erase board, medical supplies and additional mapping equipment. b. Purpose:

The Mobile Command Center is commonly utilized during incidents which involve the use of the Incident Command System (ICS). The Mobile Command Center assists with creating a set of objectives and overall goals, developing appropriate tactics, ensuring the allocation of appropriate resources, reviewing plans, communicating goals, tactics, expectations, and establishing accountability. c. Authorized Use:

The Mobile Command Center is used when deemed appropriate by the field supervisor or Watch Commander.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702. It is the policy of the SCPD to use the vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
e. Required Training:

All driver/operators shall receive training in the safe operation of the vehicle. f. Expected Lifespan:

I. Chevy Patrol Vehicle: 10 years.

II. The Mobile Command Center does not have a minimum or maximum lifespan and can be transferred to other vehicles.
g. Fiscal Impact:

I. There is no annual maintenance cost for The Mobile Command Center.

27.14 5
II. Vehicle maintenance cost is approximately $1,575 per year, per vehicle (parts, labor, and fuel).

6. Firearms of Greater than .50 caliber (Category 8)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

Mossberg 590 12 gauge pump action shotguns. Purchase cost, approximately $1,400 each. Quantity: 2. These shotguns are built on a standard Mossberg 590 action. They have a 13.5 inch barrel with a breaching muzzle brake affixed to the end of the barrel.
b. Purpose:

These shotguns are specifically designed to be used as breaching tools in situations where rapid entry into a structure is required, such as a hostage situation. They are used to defeat the locking mechanism or the hinges of door by firing a breaching shotgun round into these areas.
c. Authorized Use:

Only members of the ESU Tactical team who have completed a breaching school and are trained in the use of these weapons are authorized to use them. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable department policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Firearms-306, Search and Siezure-312 and Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:

Only officers who have completed a department authorized breaching school may use these shotguns. The school must include specific training related to the breaching shotgun.
f. Expected Lifespan:

No expiration date. The shotguns may need replacement parts when serviced or replaced if they break.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$1,400 per year.

7. Firearms of Greater than .50 Caliber (Category 8)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

Remington 870 12 Gauge pump action chemical agent launching shotgun.

Purchase cost: $700. Quantity: 1.This shotgun was repurposed from an out of service shotgun that SCPD already had in inventory. This shotgun is specifically designed to launch a specific type of chemical munition. Though based on a standard 12 gauge shotgun, it is not designed or capable of firing lethal shotgun rounds. The buttstock and fore-end are bright orange and it is marked as a “Less Lethal” weapon. It has a purpose built launching cup permanently affixed to the muzzle.
b. Purpose:

This shotgun is designed to launch a specific type of launchable CS (2- chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) chemical agent canisters approximately 25 yards away. It allows officers to deploy chemical agents during critical incidents

27.15 6
from behind cover or in a situation where hand delivering the agents would be unsafe. It allows officers the ability to deploy chemical agents in second and third floors of structures where it would be impossible for officers to hand deliver the agents.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team are currently authorized to use this launching shotgun.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Firearms306, Control Devices and Techniqies-302, Search and Seizure- 312 and ESU Tactical team -404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, noise, flash, diversionary devices (NFDD) and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications.

The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department.
f. Expected Lifespan:

No expiration. The shotgun may need parts when serviced or replacement if it breaks.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$700 per year.

8. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater (Category 9).
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

12. Gauge launching Cartridges Defense Technologies part number 1210.

Purchase cost: $371.25. Quantity: 55. These are blank shotgun cartridges that utilize black powder as the propellant.
b. Purpose:

When used with launching shotgun, the pressure created in the barrel by the expanding gasses of the black powder propellant provide enough force to launch the chemical agent canister from the shotgun. Though this ammunition is designed and is advertised for other uses, the SCPD only uses it as a launching cartridge for the launching shotgun.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers assigned to the ESU team who are trained in the use of the launching shotgun are permitted to use these shotgun-launching rounds. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

27.16 7
only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$500 per year.

9. Specialized Firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber (Category 10) a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

The department maintains a Precision Rifle team within the ESU Tactical team.

These officers are trained in the use of precision rifles that are specifically designed to stop lethal threats at various distances and through barrier mediums that a carbine rifle would not. These rifles are chambered in .308 Winchester.

This is a .30 caliber round that is highly accurate and used during potentially lethal encounters. The .308 is capable of defeating soft body armor at greater distances.

I. Defiance bolt action precision rifles. Purchase cost: $15,609. Quantity: 3.

II. Accuracy International AT series bolt action rifle. Purchase cost: $4,462.

Quantity: 1.

III. Hornady .308 155 grain ELD Match TAP ammunition. Purchase cost:
$6,720. Quantity: 3,200.
b. Purpose:

To provide officers with the ability to address lethal threats with more precision, at greater distances than a Carbine rifle or handgun are capable. c. Authorized Use:

Only those officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team, and who have been selected as members of the Precision Rifle team may use these weapons. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable department policies, including but not limited to, Use of Force-300, Firearms-306 and ESU Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:

Officers assigned to the Precision Rifle Team are required to attend and pass a POST certified basic Precision Rifle course before they are permitted to use these weapons.
f. Expected Lifespan:

27.17 8
I. Defiance Precision Rifles, no expiration date. They will need parts and service as they become worn or break.

II. Accuracy International AT Series Rifle, no expiration date. It will need parts and service as they become worn or break.

III. Hornady 155 grain ELD Match TAP, no expiration date. g. Fiscal Impact:

I. Precision rifles, $0-$1,000 per fiscal year.

II. Hornady Ammunition, $0-$6,720 per fiscal year.

10. Flashbang, Teargas and Pepper balls (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

Noise, Flash, Diversionary Devices (NFDD) commonly referred to as “flashbangs” are single use devices that emits a loud bang and a very bright flash. They are designed to disorient and distract dangerous subjects by overwhelming their senses and provide a window of time, approximately 6-8 seconds, for officers to take control of dangerous or high-risk situations.

Additionally, the SCPD possess “Stinger Grenades.” This device is a rubber ball that contains a small NFDD in addition to 60 .32 caliber rubber balls. When used, the grenade separates along its hemisphere and expels the balls while simultaneously giving a loud bang and bright flash. These are useful in crowd control or riot situations as a means to disperse groups of violent individuals in addition to the disorienting effect of the NFDD component to mitigate dangerous behavior. These can be purchased in configurations that include OC/CS (2chlorobenzylidene malononitrile/Oleoresin Capsicum) agent dispersing capabilities, inert powders or simply the .32 caliber balls.

I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD. Purchase cost: $2,426. Quantity: 40.

II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads. Purchase cost $955. Quantity: 26.

III. 1090 Stinger Grenades. Purchase cost $523. Quantity: 10. b. Purpose:

To produce a loud noise, overpressure and a very bright flash, that can cause temporary psychological and physiological deprivation and give officers an advantage in high-risk tactical situations. Generally, NFDD (not including stinger grenades) are not a primary device used in riot situations, however there are narrow instances requiring authorization of the incident commander where they could be used.
c. Authorized Use:

Only those officers who are trained in the use of the devices are authorized to use them. Currently the only officers trained in the use of these devices are members of the ESU Tactical team. Use of NFDD is controlled by SCPD policy and best practice. Situations where an NFDD may be used include but are not limited to: hostage or barricaded subject situations, high-risk warrant service (arrest/search) where risk to officers is extremely high; during any other high risk situation where use of an NFDD may increase officer safety or training. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable department policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, ESU tactical Team-404, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of

27.18 9
the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD- 5 years.

II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads- 5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:

I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD-$0-$2000 per year.

II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads $0-$832 per year.

11. Chemical Agents “Teargas” (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

The SCPD uses chemical agents, commonly referred to as “teargas” as less lethal tools to disperse rioting subjects or on barricaded subjects. The two agents the SCPD uses are CS (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum). CS is an irritating agent and a lachrymator. It irritates the eyes and causes tearing while also irritating the respiratory system causing coughing.

These reactions are temporary and quickly subside especially if the subjects remove themselves from the area where the chemical agent has been deployed.

The U.S Army has tested CS extensively. There are no known allergic reactions to CS. OC is an, inflammatory agent. It causes a burning sensation, involuntary closure of the eyes and tightness in the chest. These symptoms generally subside within an hour or less of exposure. OC is legal for civilians to possess in certain quantities.

I. 1082 Riot Control CS Canister. Purchase cost: $352. Quantity: 12.

Pyrotechnic device used in outdoor situations to disperse rioting crowds, should not be used indoors due to risk of fire. Releases 75.6 grams of CS in 20-40 seconds.

II. 1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister. Purchase cost: $647.

Quantity: 14. Pyrotechnic device designed to be used indoors and presents a minimal risk of fire. Hand delivered only. Releases 20 grams of agent in 20-30 seconds.

III. 5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister. Purchase cost: $416. Quantity:

10. Pyrotechnic device, designed to be launched from the launching shotgun. For use indoors and presents minimal risk of fire. Releases 25 grams of agent in 20-40 seconds.

IV. 1026 Triple Chaser separating canister. Purchase cost: $1,047. Quantity:

20. Pyrotechnic device, designed to be used outdoors in riot control situations. It is a canister, that when deployed separates into three smaller canisters. It allows officers to deploy chemical agents over a

27.19 10
larger area with less munitions. Releases 92 grams of agent between three separate smaller canisters over 20-30 seconds.

V. 56854 Aerosol OC Fogger. Purchase cost: $89. Quantity: 4. Nonpyrotechnic canister. This canister sprays OC with the aid of compressed air. It is designed to be used indoors or in vehicles. It has no risk of fire. It will release a 1.3% OC spray over 15-25 seconds.

VI. 2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret projectile. Purchase cost: $1,238. Quantity:

44. Non-pyrotechnic launched projectile. This munition is fired from a 40mm less lethal launcher. It is a hardened projectile intended to be used to defeat barriers such as glass and thin wooden barriers. When it penetrates or impacts a hard surface, it disperses liquid CS agent into the area. These are not for use against people.

VII. 2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret projectile. Purchase cost: $289. Quantity:

10. Non-pyrotechnic launched projectile. This munition is fired from a 40mm less lethal launcher. It is a hardened projectile intended to be used to defeat barriers such as glass and thin wooden barriers. When it penetrates or impacts a hard surface, it disperses liquid OC agent into the area. These are not for use against people.
b. Purpose:

To limit escalating situations where lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

Situations where these munitions would be deployed include, but are not limited to: self-destructive, dangerous or combative individuals; riot or crowd control situations or other violent civil unrest; situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage; training or authorized demonstration. A “tactical advantage” could include but is not limited to: deployment into a structure or vehicle where an armed violent/self-destructive subject is barricaded; or a riot situation where, deployment can either create an environment that causes violent persons to disperse or leave the area or limit the advance of a violent group or deny a violent group access to specific areas or law enforcement.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers trained in the use of these munitions may use them. This includes officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team and officers assigned as “grenadiers” during a crowd control or violent civil unrest situation. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, ESU Tactical team-404 and Control Devices and techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

27.20 11
are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train the other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:

I. 1082 Riot Control CS Canister-5 years.

II. 1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister-5 years.

III. 5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister-5 years.

IV. 1026 Triple Chaser separating canister-5 years.

V. 56854 Aerosol OC Fogger-5 years.

VI. 2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret projectile-5 years.

VII. 2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret projectile-5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:

All chemical munitions $0-$5,000 per fiscal year based on fiscal budgeting.

12. Pepper Ball Guns and Pepper Balls (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost.

I. Pepper ball guns. Purchase cost. $1,399. Quantity: 4. Pepper ball guns are a compressed air powered launcher, almost identical in manufacture to a common paintball gun. It fires .68 caliber plastic balls that contain an irritant powder. The pepper ball gun can fire pepper balls up to 60 feet and can launch pepper balls farther to saturate an area.

II. Pepper Balls. Purchase cost: $967 (per container). Quantity: 4 (containers of 375 pepper balls). Pepper Balls are .68 caliber projectiles.

They are a plastic shell that contains an irritant powder that consists of PAVA, a pepper derivative. This powder causes a burning sensation and involuntary eye closure when coupled with the impact of the projectile. It is used for pain compliance and disorientation.
b. Purpose:

To limit escalating situations where lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.

Situations where these munitions would be deployed, include: Self destructive, dangerous or combative individuals; riot or crowd control situations or other violent civil unrest; situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage; training or authorized demonstration. A “tactical advantage” could include but is not limited to: deployment into a structure or vehicle where an armed violent/self-destructive subject is barricaded, or a riot situation where, deployment can either create an environment that causes violent persons to disperse or leave the area or limit the advance of a violent group or deny a violent group access to specific areas or law enforcement. c. Authorized Use:

Only officers who are certified to use the pepper ball system. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize pepper ball guns and pepper balls only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:

27.21 12
Officers must attend a manufacturer specific training course to be certified to use the pepper ball systems.
f. Expected Lifespan:

I. Pepper ball guns, no expiration. They will need parts and service as they wear out or break.

II. Pepper Balls, 2 years.
g. Fiscal Impact
Pepper ball guns, $0-$500 per year.

Pepper Balls $0-$500 per year.

13. Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) (Category 13)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

GENASYS Inc. LRAD-100X. Purchase cost: $8,179.77. Quantity: 1. This device is a self-contained, lightweight, battery operated hailer that communicates with great intelligibility up to 600 meters. It emits acoustic sound pressure levels up to 140db. It provides clear unmistakable, intelligible communications and stunning alert tones and can play pre-recorded audio messages, mp3 audio files and live broadcasting via a handheld microphone. It can broadcast tones at a volume that causes discomfort to those who hear the tones. The device provides directional sound capabilities allowing the user to direct the uncomfortable tones at a specific person or group of persons.
b. Purpose:

To serve as a notification/communication system during critical incidents, where the user is conveying a message to a person or persons. To be used during violent or riotous situations as a means to advise participants that they are involved in legally prohibited activities. To be used to broadcast alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior. This device provides the SCPD with the ability to address violent persons or groups of persons during a riot or other violent crowd control situation without the use of kinetic less lethal weapons such 40mm launchers or chemical agents, allowing SCPD to attempt de-escalation via less forceful means.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers who are trained in its use, with the authorization of an incident commander, may use this device.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize the LRAD only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
e. Required Training:

Officers must attend a department specified training to use this device. f. Expected Lifespan:
20-25 years. Repairs completed as needed.
g. Fiscal Impact:

No known fiscal impact, the device is new.

27.22 13

14. 40mm Projectile Launchers (Category 14)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

The 40mm projectile launcher is a Less Lethal platform. It is not a firearm and is not capable of firing any military grade explosive projectile. It is designed to fire a projectile designed to be used against persons in situations where lethal force is prohibited. It allows officers to use Less Lethal Direct Impact spins stabilized munitions at distances up to 120 feet. The munitions cause pain compliance via blunt force impact. They can incapacitate violent subjects armed with weapons that are not firearms, allowing officers to safely take a subject into custody. The standoff capabilities allow officers to apply force via the impact rounds and assess if further application of force is required. This mitigates the need for officers to approach a violent/armed subject, reducing the chances of a lethal force scenario.

I. Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-single barrel launchers. Purchase cost: $11,620. Quantity: 14. (No longer manufactured)
II. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1425 40mm single barrel launchers.

Purchase cost: $12,450. Quantity: 15.

III. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers.

Purchase cost: $3,798. Quantity: 2.

IV. Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher. Purchase cost:

Approximately $3,000. Quantity: 1.
b. Purpose:

To be used as a less lethal tool, to apply pain compliance to self-destructive, armed or combative/resistive persons, to prevent the person from causing harm to themselves or others. Also used during violent riots or large crowd control disturbances. They can be used to mark persons engaged in the above activity making the person(s) identifiable for arrest.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers who have completed a department training course may deploy these less lethal tools. Every patrol vehicle has a single launcher in it for use by patrol officers. Only officers specifically trained in the use and application during a crowd control or riotous situation may use them in those instances. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies, including but not limited to, Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302 and Emergency services Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

27.23 14
f. Expected Lifespan:

I. Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-single barrel launchers: No expiration. No longer manufactured. Will be serviced or repaired as long as viable.

II. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1425 40mm single barrel launchers: No expiration. Will need parts and service when they wear out or break.

III. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers: No expiration. Will need parts and service when they wear out or break.

IV. Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher: No expiration. Will need parts and service when it wears out or breaks.
g. Fiscal Impact:

For all of the listed launchers: $0-500 per year.

15. 40mm ammunition: (Category 14)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
40mm ammunition meant to be used in 40mm Projectile Launchers described above. All of the 40mm rounds in this section are approved for use against people if the force is justified. SCPD has three impact munitions, the Exact Impact is a less lethal projectile made of a foam rubber often called a “sponge round” with a consistency similar to a sponge. It is fired using smokeless powder and is designed to incapacitate people through pain compliance and impact. It is blue in color and can be fired from ranges between 5’ and 120’. The Direct Impact round is an impact munition that carries a powder payload within the projectile. The payload can be a chemical agent powder or it can contain an inert marking powder. These munitions provide the same less lethal pain compliance/de-escalation/violence mitigation functions as the Exact Impact munitions, with the added benefit of an irritant powder, or the ability to make a riotous subject identifiable for arrest. The SCPD also uses reusable training ammunition that allow true to real training at lower cost.

I. eXact Impact 40mm: Purchase cost: $4,011. Quantity: 140.

II. Direct Impact 40mm OC. Purchase cost: $732. Quantity: 24.

III. Direct Impact 40mm Marking. Purchase cost: $970. Quantity: 32.

IV. Training Sponge ammunition 24 round kit. Purchase cost: $2,537.

Quantity: 7.
b. Purpose:

To be used as a less lethal tool in situations where lethal force is prohibited. To assist officers in intervening in violent or potentially violent situations by use of pain compliance. To allow officers the ability to apply less lethal force from distance or behind cover, which provides time to assess the effect of the force used and re-apply or discontinue force as the situation allows. c. Authorized Use:

Only officers who are trained in the use of these projectiles are authorized to use them. Situations where use may be authorized include but are not limited to:
armed self-destructive individuals, violent resistive individuals, violent riotous

27.24 15
individuals, situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force, authorized training or demonstrations. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:

To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:

Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.

I. eXact Impact 40mm-5 years.

II. Direct Impact 40mm OC-5 years.

III. Direct Impact 40mm Marking-5 years.

IV. Training Sponge ammunition 24 round kit-5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0- 5,000 per year. Given the 5 year life span of these munitions, the SCPD may not need to purchase more every fiscal year.

27.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Brokaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 6:17 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder; Matt Huffaker; Bernie Escalante; Tony Condotti; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: SCPD has not met the letter of AB481, their submission must be denied Dear Council Members
Santa Cruz City Council

The State has given to People a rare opportunity in passing AB 481: Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use

By this law, codified at government codes sections 7070-7075, the State has given the power to the People to review and pass judgement on Law Enforcement’s use of military equipment during the course of their duties.

The days are passed where, law enforcement, like Kevin Vogle did, arrive breathless, at the eleventh hour, to urge the Council to buy military hardware, namely a BearCat.

From now on, law enforcement must
 provide public notice of their intent to purchase,
 “make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue.” (7071, [2], (b) Those documents ‘noticed to the public’ must be the same documents presented to the governing body: (d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following
 (A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety  (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties
 (C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety These items, must be demonstrated by the SCPD's submission, to enable the council to make these findings

You will hear that Law Enforcement ‘needs’ these weapons to ‘feel safe’; nowhere in this law is that a criteria for the use of Military Equipment. One of the required findings is: (C) "there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety" Items A-C have not been demonstrated by SCPD in their presentation to you today.

27.26 2
Additionally, the law provides:
 (2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d).  If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d),
 the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment
 or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
 If the governing body does not approve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body,
 the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section.

This is the path that must be traversed to comply with the law. The Council has 180 days to study the SC PD submission to ensure that it complies with the law.

I URGE Council to NOT rubber stamp this submission and thoroughly study the use of military equipment in our community.

This is not the Ukraine, where military equipment is on display 24/7/365. However, presently, we do have military equipment on display, AR 15s, or some variant, assault weapon.

You will notice that SCPD does not list their assault weapons in their published inventory:
7070: (c) “Military equipment” means the following-
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.

The SCPD has assault rifles that are defined in the referenced statutes.

SCPD argues, to the Community at large, and to me personally, that they DO NOT HAVE TO list their assault weapons because they are ‘standard issue service weapons’.

By standard issue, as defined, SCPD claims that every officer, not only has a side arm (pistol) which they carry while on duty, but also they carry an AR 15-type assault rifle.

27.27 3
In conversation with SCPD, interim Chief, I asked why I had never seen a ‘foot-patrol’ officer with an assault rifle over his or her shoulder, or a bicycle patrol person, with an assault rifle strapped to their bicycle (like I saw in Franco’s Fascist Spain in the ‘70’s) . The answer was that they do NOT carry such weapons. He even suggested that SCPD considered strapping them to patrol motorcycles and decided against it.

In my world of logic, derived from education as a scientific researcher, I DEDUCE THE FOLLOWING:
if the assault weapon is NOT carried by every officer during the course of their duties, then it is NOT a ‘standard issue service weapon’. It is a weapon used for specific times and incidents.

THEREFOR, SCPD has fallen short in with holding their inventory of assault weapons, and this submission MUST BE DENIED!!!

For too long the People have relied on Law Enforcement’s version of crime. There are many innocent people who have been jailed or killed by Law Enforcement and Law Enforcement has not been held accountable. Only, recently, has the accountability begun to be applied.

With no Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement, We, The People have had to rely on governing agencies to perform such duties.

Council Members, as you well know, being responsible for everything, as elected representatives of The People, is an impossible job, especially as you are ‘part time’ servants of the People.

This is one time that I urge you to take your responsibilities seriously, because the lives and possibly the death of a Santa Cruz Citizen, will weigh heavily on your soul if you do not.

There are Community Members composed of the ACLU Police Accountability and Transparency Committee and the American Friends Service Committee, who have been studying this law for months, are more than willing to present to Council the SCPD 481-document, as it should read. We are more than willing to work with SCPD and the City Attorney, to accomplish the very best compliance document in the state.

In closing, the following jurisdictions, picked at random, ARE INCLUDING their assault weapons in their AB 481 submissions:

Capitola
Scotts Valley,
Watsonville,
Santa Clara,
Santa Clara Sheriff,
San Rafael,
Napa,
Berkeley,
Folsom,

27.28 4
Ocean Side,
San Diego,
San Diego Sheriff, and yes EVEN
Palm Springs, under Chief Andy Mills.

I spoke with (former SCPD Chief) Chief Andy and asked why he published his assault weapons. He told me that there were ‘people’ who urged him to not do so, but his reply to them was :
“FOLLOW THE LAW. PUBLISH THEM.”

Respectfully submitted,

M. Lee Brokaw, not speaking on behalf of the ACLU, but factually Chair, Police Accountability & Transparency Committee

27.29 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Gelblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:16 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush; Tony Condotti; Bernie Escalante Subject: April 26 Council meeting, Agenda Item 27 - SCPD/AB 481 Attachments: City Council April 26 meeting Agenda Item 27, SCPD AB 481 Submission - Google Docs.pdf
Please see attached comments, repeated below for your convenience. Thank you for your careful consideration. --
Peter Gelblum
Chair, Santa Cruz County Chapter
ACLU of Northern California
City Council April 26, 2022 meeting, Agenda Item 27 - SCPD AB 481 Submission These are comments on Agenda Item 27, the military equipment policy, including the attached inventory, submitted for approval by the SCPD pursuant to Government Code Sections 7070-7075, aka AB 481. All references below to statutes are to the Government Code.

There are several issues with the SCPD’s submission that must be rectified before being approved by the City Council. Note that there is no need to approve this matter at this meeting - AB 481 expressly gives the Council six months to consider the SCPD’s submission.

A. General comments applicable to all items

1. The Council must carefully review each item on the list of military equipment and the proposed use policies, rather than simply accepting the Sheriff’s statements that the equipment is necessary. Section 7071 states: “The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. . . .

Although the law requires the Council to make the listed determinations, neither the SCPD's submission nor the staff’s report even addresses these issues, much less satisfies them. The proposed ordinance says that the Council made these findings, but how could the Council do that without any information from th eSCPD or staff? These findings can be made only with careful analysis. This is important because there are real dangers associated with the use of military equipment by law enforcement. For example:
 Much military equipment is a force multiplier, and so it multiplies racial disparities in uses of force. (The Center for Policing Equity found that, taking into account the influence of neighborhood crime rates, poverty, and share of Black residents, Black people were subjected to force 4 times as often as White people by San Diego County Sheriff’s Office. For San Diego Police Department the finding was 4.6 times as often. Source: https://justicenavigator.org/#home-assessments)  Several studies show that the acquisition and use of military-grade equipment by civilian law enforcement agencies does not reduce crime or attacks on officers, while it does contribute to substantial community fear.

27.30 2
 Some studies also have found that police departments that acquire military-grade equipment are more likely to use violence.

Jonathan Mummolo, “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 11, 2018 (37) 9181-9186.

Anna Gunderson, et. al., “Counterevidence of Crime-Reduction Effects from Federal Grants of Military Equipment to Local Police,” Nature Human Behavior, 2020.

Casey Delehanty, et.al, “Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program,” Research and Politics, April-June 2017, 1-7.

Edward Lawson Jr., “Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force,” Political Research Quarterly, 2018, 1-

13. 1. Neither the Policy in the Inventory nor the proposed Policy 705 includes one of the elements required by Section 7070(d)(6): " The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy."

2. The Inventory does not include the information required by Section 7070(d)(7): “the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.” The Sheriff’s Office Manual, Section 705.3(g), says that a “Military Equipment Coordinator” will be responsible for “Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner,” but does not include that procedure. Section 706 also says ”Any member of the public wishing to submit a complaint, concern, or question regarding the Sheriff's use of each specific type of military equipment, should contact the Sheriff's Professional Standards and Conduct Unit. Complaints, concerns, or questions can be submitted in any form (i.e. in person, telephone, email, etc).,” but fails to state how a person can contact that Unit, and it is not evident on the website.

3. Many of the items say under “Authorized Use” words similar to “All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302.” This appears to be an attempt to provide the "Legal and procedural rules" that govern their use, as required by Section 7070(d)(4). The vagueness of this statement and the use of the phrase “including but not limited to” will make it difficult if not impossible to determine whether a particular use of the equipment complies with the policies.

4. For the same reason, each policy should include a statement to the effect that “All uses that are not authorized by this policy are prohibited.”

5. Section 7070(d)(3) requires a statement of “The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.” (Emphasis added.) The Inventory includes only original cost and any maintenance costs. It fails to, but should, include all costs, including personnel costs, such as training, and storage, because those costs are clearly part of the “fiscal impact”of the equipment. Moreover, for Items 6-11 and 12-15, the fiscal impact is given as a range, sometimes as much as $5,000. More precision should be required, or at least an explanation of what factors will influence where in the range the actual cost will fall.

27.31 3

B. Additional comments regarding specific items on the Inventory (these are not the only insufficient or objectionable items on the Inventory; other people may be commenting on other items):

1. Iterm 3 (ARV aka BearCat)
 The expected lifespan is not provided. “As long as it is viable” is insufficient.

2. Items 11 and 12 (Chemical agents “teargas” and pepper balls)  The listed purposes for both items include “Situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage.” This is overly vague and permits SCPD to use teargas pretty much whenever it wants. This contravenes the purpose of AB 481.

3. Item 13 (Long Range Acoustic Device “LRAD”)
 The Purpose includes “To be used to broadcast alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior.” This extraordinarily dangerous and harmful use of this same equipment caused hearing damage and vomiting when used in New York City and Oakland during Occupy demonstrations, and led to a federal court decision against NYPD. See https://www.fastcompany.com/40585221/piercing-sound-can-be-excessivepolice-force-federal-court-rules; https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/occupyoaklands-tent-city-gone/336367/ This particular use should be stricken from the application..

4. Item 15 (40 mm ammunition)
 The Authorized use includes “ Situations where use may be authorized include but are not limited to: Armed self-destructive individuals, violent resistive individuals, violent riotous individuals, other situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force.” The phrase “include but are not limited to” means there are effectively no limitations on use, which contravenes the purpose of AB 481. The phrase “other situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force” has the same effect and, therefore, the same problem

27.32 City Council April 26, 2022 meeting, Agenda Item 27 - SCPD AB 481 Submission These are comments on Agenda Item 27, the military equipment policy, including the attached inventory, submitted for approval by the SCPD pursuant to Government Code Sections 7070-7075, aka AB 481. All references below to statutes are to the Government Code.

A. General comments applicable to all items

1. The Council must carefully review each item on the list of military equipment and the proposed use policies, rather than simply accepting the Sheriff’s statements that the equipment is necessary. Section 7071 states: “The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following :
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. . . .

For example:
● Much military equipment is a force multiplier, and so it multiplies racial disparities in uses of force. (The Center for Policing Equity found that, taking into account the influence of neighborhood crime rates, poverty, and share of Black residents, Black people were subjected to force 4 times as often as White people by San Diego County Sheriff’s Office. For San Diego Police Department the finding was 4.6 times as often. Source:
https://justicenavigator.org/#home-assessments)
● Several studies show that the acquisition and use of military-grade equipment by civilian law enforcement agencies does not reduce crime or attacks on officers, while it does contribute to substantial community fear.
● Some studies also have found that police departments that acquire military-grade equipment are more likely to use violence.

27.33 Jonathan Mummolo, “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 11, 2018 (37) 9181-9186.

Anna Gunderson, et. al., “Counterevidence of Crime-Reduction Effects from Federal Grants of Military Equipment to Local Police,” Nature Human Behavior, 2020.

Casey Delehanty, et.al, “Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program,” Research and Politics, April-June 2017, 1-7.

Edward Lawson Jr., “Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force,” Political Research Quarterly, 2018, 1-13.

1. Neither the Policy in the Inventory nor the proposed Policy 705 includes one of the elements required by Section 7070(d)(6): " The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy."

27.34 4. For the same reason, each policy should include a statement to the effect that “All uses that are not authorized by this policy are prohibited.”

B. Additional comments regarding specific items on the Inventory (these are not the only insufficient or objectionable items on the Inventory; other people may be commenting on other items):

1. Iterm 3 (ARV aka BearCat)
● The expected lifespan is not provided. “As long as it is viable” is insufficient.

2. Items 11 and 12 (Chemical agents “teargas” and pepper balls) ● The listed purposes for both items include “Situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage.” This is overly vague and permits SCPD to use teargas pretty much whenever it wants. This contravenes the purpose of AB 481.

3. Item 13 (Long Range Acoustic Device “LRAD”)
● The Purpose includes “To be used to broadcast alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior.” This extraordinarily dangerous and harmful use of this same equipment caused hearing damage and vomiting when used in New York City and Oakland during Occupy demonstrations, and led to a federal court decision against NYPD. See
https://www.fastcompany.com/40585221/piercing-sound-can-be-excessiv e-police-force-federal-court-rules ;
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/occupy-oaklands-tent-city-g one/336367/ This particular use should be stricken from the application..

4. Item 15 (40 mm ammunition)

27.35 ● The Authorized use includes “ Situations where use may be authorized include but are not limited to: Armed self-destructive individuals, violent resistive individuals, violent riotous individuals, other situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force.” The phrase “include but are not limited to” means there are effectively no limitations on use, which contravenes the purpose of AB 481. The phrase “other situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force” has the same effect and, therefore, the same problem

27.36 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: April 26, 2022 Agenda Item #27: AB 481 - Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy (PD)
Re. April 26, 2022 Agenda Item #27: AB 481 - Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy (PD) (1) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) Chapter 9.90; and (2) Approve Santa Cruz Police Department (“Department”) Policy 705 and an inventory of military equipment as defined by AB 481; and
(3) Provide direction as necessary.

Good day Council members and Mayor
A few years ago I was very impressed and admired how Police Chief Mills set in motion how he would move the Santa Cruz Police Department’s role towards the 21st Century Policing blueprint. In part this would mean police officers would see their role as “guardians not warriors.” The equipment and the use policy guidelines before you today run contrary to this direction.

There are six pillars to the 21st Century Policing blueprint:
ꞏ Pillar 1 — Building trust and legitimacy.
ꞏ Pillar 2 — Policy and oversight.
ꞏ Pillar 3 — Technology and social media.
ꞏ Pillar 4 — Community policing and crime reduction.
ꞏ Pillar 5 — Officer training and education.
ꞏ Pillar 6 — Officer safety and wellness.

The question I pose to the Council today is how do you reconcile the contradiction between 21st Century policing and use of military equipment? Residents are not enemy combatants.

As I reviewed the Military Equipment Inventory list provided that complies with AB 481 I felt the subtle creeping militarization of our Police Department had reached a tipping point that the Council may not realize. I ask the Council to look at, really look at, the list of military-style equipment that been gradually approved, piece-meal, over many years. Is this what Community policing and building trust and legitimacy looks like? I think not. Are these weapons that Guardians have? I think not. If you’ve got the proverbial hammer everything looks like a nail. If you’ve got military battlefield equipment there’s a stronger and stronger inclination to accumulate more and to use it.

A thought I offer to you is what’s best for the Community is what’s best for the Police Department. For me this is to seriously minimize military equipment to the barest essentials and policies to avoid the look and feel of an invading military force of warriors. Allowing unrestricted purchase and use policies of militarystyle weapons escalates community fear, especially for poor and people of color, and provides and promotes tools of escalation rather than de-escalation in tense and difficult situations. It’s not clear to me how a Police

27.37 2
Department with an overabundance of military equipment, protects officers when having such weapons encourages the use of them as well as the fear and retaliation that would follow. De-escalation of tense situations is the best way to go to protect officers and the public as well. ************
An example in the Police Department’s public report is the use of chemical weapons such as tear gas for the purpose of “crowd control or violent civil unrest situation” (Item 10 and 11 on the Inventory list). NOTE that the policy says that the authorized use of these weapons “may include but are not limited to” the listed purposes. This language in effect means that the Police Department is asking that there be no limitations on the chemicals’ use.

These chemicals are weapons of war that should not be used against residents by law enforcement agencies. “[P]eople exposed to large doses or who have preexisting medical conditions may develop severe symptoms such as respiratory failure, blindness, and even death. “In severe cases exposure to high concentrations of tear gas or exposure in enclosed spaces or for a prolonged period of time can lead to death.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/). (Healthline 5-28-2020, by Kevin Martinez, MD. https://www.healthline.com/health/tear-gas-effects#effects) “Many believe the risks of tear gas exposure are understated and that perceived risks are based on insufficient human epidemiological and mechanistic data.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/).

The staff report says “If this ordinance is not approved the Department will be required to redesign policies, procedures, and operations for critical incident response. This would include the Department’s ability to provide and receive mutual aid, address an immediate threat, or have more expansive less-lethal options. Public safety will be negatively impacted with diminished access to the resources currently in the Department’s inventory.” I find this a veiled threat to invoke fear into your thinking. You represent the entire community not just the Police administration. I find it incomprehensible that the Police Department cannot redesign and make adjustments how mutual aid is handled and responding to immediate threats. How can military weapons be less lethal when by definition they are used in combat where lethal means rule the day? Less lethal options are what’s called for.

I find the Police Department ‘s military weapons and supporting policies potentially in direct conflict with 1st Amendment rights as well as needlessly endangering the public with serious injury and/or health consequences. I believe that officers need good protection to do their job. The public also needs protection from excessive force that endangers their life and limb. I strongly encourage and hope the Council will provide leadership in protecting all residents’ civil rights and against potentially fatal or harmful exposure to military weapons. Please restrict by policy the use of chemical weapons along with other weapons of war presented to you today. Please keep these weapons on the battlefield and not in our yards or on our streets or in our other public spaces.

The following pictures is one example on a website of one business, Defense Technology, a company that sells tear gas among other military style equipment that the Santa Cruz Police Department already has on the shelf. As a retired emergency first responder I find these types of presentations to law enforcement agencies chilling and I hope would affect how you view military equipment use in civilian policing. Policies you approve should error on the side of reducing and restricting the acquisition and use of military equipment. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/exact-impact-40-mm-standard-range-sponge-round/

27.38 3

27.39 4

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING ACADEMY

27.40 5

SHOTGUN TRADE-IN PROGRAM

27.41 6

27.42 7

https://www.defense-technology.com/product/exact-impact-40-mm-standard-range-spong

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Ron Pomerantz

27.43 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Gelblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:32 PM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush; Tony Condotti; Bernie Escalante Subject: CORRECTION - Re: April 26 Council meeting, Agenda Item 27 - SCPD/AB 481 All - I noticed an error in the Comments I sent earlier. Paragraph 2 referred to the Sheriff's policies, instead of the nearly identical SCPD policies. That paragraph should read as follows:

2.. 2. The Inventory does not include the information required by Section 7070(d)(7): “the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.” The SCPD Manual, Section 705.3(g), says that a “Military Equipment Coordinator” will be responsible for “Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner,” but does not include that procedure.

Thank you,
Peter Gelblum
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:16 AM Peter Gelblum <[email protected]> wrote:

Please see attached comments, repeated below for your convenience. Thank you for your careful consideration.
--
Peter Gelblum
Chair, Santa Cruz County Chapter
ACLU of Northern California
City Council April 26, 2022 meeting, Agenda Item 27 - SCPD AB 481 Submission These are comments on Agenda Item 27, the military equipment policy, including the attached inventory, submitted for approval by the SCPD pursuant to Government Code Sections 7070-7075, aka AB 481. All references below to statutes are to the Government Code.

A. General comments applicable to all items

27.44 2
Although the law requires the Council to make the listed determinations, neither the SCPD's submission nor the staff’s report even addresses these issues, much less satisfies them. The proposed ordinance says that the Council made these findings, but how could the Council do that without any information from th eSCPD or staff? These findings can be made only with careful analysis. This is important because there are real dangers associated with the use of military equipment by law enforcement. For example:
 Much military equipment is a force multiplier, and so it multiplies racial disparities in uses of force. (The Center for Policing Equity found that, taking into account the influence of neighborhood crime rates, poverty, and share of Black residents, Black people were subjected to force 4 times as often as White people by San Diego County Sheriff’s Office. For San Diego Police Department the finding was 4.6 times as often. Source: https://justicenavigator.org/#home-assessments)  Several studies show that the acquisition and use of military-grade equipment by civilian law enforcement agencies does not reduce crime or attacks on officers, while it does contribute to substantial community fear.
 Some studies also have found that police departments that acquire military-grade equipment are more likely to use violence.

Anna Gunderson, et. al., “Counterevidence of Crime-Reduction Effects from Federal Grants of Military Equipment to Local Police,” Nature Human Behavior, 2020.

Casey Delehanty, et.al, “Militarization and police violence: The case of the 1033 program,” Research and Politics, April-June 2017, 1-7.

Edward Lawson Jr., “Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force,” Political Research Quarterly, 2018, 1-

27.45 3

4. For the same reason, each policy should include a statement to the effect that “All uses that are not authorized by this policy are prohibited.”

B. Additional comments regarding specific items on the Inventory (these are not the only insufficient or objectionable items on the Inventory; other people may be commenting on other items):

1. Iterm 3 (ARV aka BearCat)
 The expected lifespan is not provided. “As long as it is viable” is insufficient.

3. Item 13 (Long Range Acoustic Device “LRAD”)
 The Purpose includes “To be used to broadcast alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior.” This extraordinarily dangerous and harmful use of this same equipment caused hearing damage and vomiting when used in New York City and Oakland during Occupy demonstrations, and led to a federal court decision against NYPD. See https://www.fastcompany.com/40585221/piercing-sound-can-beexcessive-police-force-federal-court-rules; https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/occupy-oaklands-tent-citygone/336367/ This particular use should be stricken from the application..

27.46 Santa Cruz Police Department
City Council Meeting Presentation – April 26, 2022
AB 481
Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use

27.47 Agenda
Purpose of AB 481
Current Inventory
Timeline Citizen Complaint Process
Define military equipment Reporting Requirements
SCPD’s Policy 705 Community Engagement
Impact
Related Policies and Legislation

27.48 What is AB 481?
• Signed in September, 2021
• Obtain approval of governing body
• Establish policy and post on website
• Public hearing concerning military equipment
• Submit annual report regarding use of equipment
• Establishes requirements for acquisition
and use of military equipment
• Must be commenced by May 1, 2022
• Effective January 1, 2022
• Cease use of items not approved

27.49 Current Equipment
• Why do we have them?
• Less lethal options
• Safely conclude critical situations
• Increase community safety
• No reasonable alternatives
• How do we fund?
• Federal Grants
• City of Santa Cruz General Fund
• Law Enforcement Support Program (1033 Program)
• No equipment obtained from program
• Will not participate in program
• AB 481 does not distinguish funding source

27.50 AB 481 Categories:

Military
equipment
• Drones, robots
• Armored vehicles
• Command and control vehicles
• Firearms of .50 caliber or greater
• Ammo of .50 caliber or greater
• Firearm or accessories designed to launch
projectiles
• Flashbangs, tear gas, pepper balls, grenades,
etc.
• Projectile launch platforms such as 40mm
launchers, bean bags, rubber bullets, etc.
• Any other equipment determined by governing
body

27.51 SCPD Policy - 705
• Definition of military equipment
• A military equipment coordinator and their responsibilities Draft Includes… • Our current military equipment inventory (attached):

Description Authorized Use
Quantity Expected Lifespan
Capabilities Fiscal Impact
Purchase Cost Training
Purpose Legal and Procedural Rules
• Approval requirements
• Complaint process
• Coordination with other jurisdictions
• Annual report
• Community engagement

27.52 Robots & UAS (Category 1)
Recon Scout “Throw bot”
Quantity: 1
Purpose: Unarmed, hand-held robot used in
high-risk situations where its use may enhance
officer or citizen safety
AVITAR II by Robotex
The Santa Cruz Police Department has access to
two throw robots maintained by the Santa Cruz
County Sheriff’s Office.

27.53 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Category 1)
The Santa Cruz Police Department has access to
several Unmanned Aerial Vehicles maintained by
the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles may be deployed
in situations that include, but are not limited to, a
search for a missing person, natural disaster
management, tactical or other public safety and
life preservation situations.

27.54 Armored
Personnel
Carrier
(Category 2 & 3)
Lenco Armored Rescue Vehicle
Purpose:

To be used in response to highrisk or critical incidents to enhance officer and
community safety, assist in
scene containment and to
assist in resolving critical
incidents.

27.55 BEARCAT RESCUE VEHICLE (POLICY 702.2.7)
• Use of the BearCat rescue vehicle is restricted to those situations where the utility and capability of the vehicle are necessary and when the capabilities of other department vehicles are insufficient for those situations as determined by the chief of police or department designee.
• This includes, but is not limited to public safety emergencies where life threatening conditions exist, the extraction of persons at risk, the need to insert police, fire, and emergency medical services into a dangerous environment, ballistic or projectile protection, high-risk vehicle stops, high-risk warrant service, active shooters, unsecured crime scenes. • This policy recognizes that it is not possible to catalog or anticipate all situations where the BearCat rescue vehicle’s capabilities are necessary and/or appropriate. This policy acknowledges that it is not the intent that the BearCat rescue vehicle be used in an offensive manner where no threat to the public or first responder personnel exists. Such situations would include, but are not limited to parades and peaceful demonstrations where violence is not threatened toward the public, property, or law enforcement personnel.

27.56 Recent BearCat Deployments
6/6/20 (OIS, Assistance to Sheriff’s Office in Ben Lomond) Officer Rescue from Hostile Gun Fire. A terrorist murdered Sheriff's Deputy Damon Gutzwiller, and several other police and emergency medical personnel were trapped in rugged terrain. The vehicle was used to extricate law enforcement personnel from where the suspect was believed to be lying in wait. The use of the armored vehicle was critical in saving lives.
7/20/20 (Barricaded Hostage Situation, Assistance to Watsonville PD) WPD requested the armored vehicle's emergency deployment for a subject barricaded in a vehicle with his one-year-old child. The person was wanted for felony crimes. The vehicle was used to block and provide cover for the rescue. 3/30/21 (SCPD Armed Barricade)
Santa Cruz Police Department responded to a report of a battery involving a male subject reportedly in possession of a firearm, making statements about killing others and himself. The ARV was utilized to provide coverage while securing the scene. SCPD personnel were able to ensure the safety of nearby civilians and residential structures and the suspect was taken into custody.
9/13/21 (Assistance to US Marshalls)
The suspect barricaded himself inside his location, and SCPD assisted in setting up a perimeter around the residence. The Bearcat provided protection for personnel, its PA was utilized for verbal commands and its lights assisted in illuminating the scene. The suspect was eventually taken into custody without incident.

27.57 Ford F350 Transport
Vehicle (ESU Truck, Category 5)
2008 Ford F350 transport vehicle
Description:
• A standard Ford F350 truck chassis with a large
box type compartment attached to the chassis
from the cab back. The interior of the
compartment is fitted with shelving and seats.

The outsides of the compartment are fitted
with multiple storage boxes.
• The vehicle contains various equipment, spare
ballistic shields, breeching tools, small tools,
medical supplies, pens, writing tablets, power
inverters etc.

27.58 Command and Control Vehicles
(Category 5)
Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicles:
(1) 2018 Model (Lieutenant)
(3) 2019 Models (Sergeants)
These vehicles can act as a Mobile Command Center.

The vehicle is equipped with file cabinets, dry erase
board, medical supplies and additional mapping
equipment.

27.59 Firearms of Greater than .50 Caliber (Category 8) Mossberg 590 -12 Gauge Pump Action Shotguns
Quantity: 2
Purpose:
• These shotguns are specifically designed to be
used as breaching tools. They are intended to be
used in a situation where rapid entry into a
structure is required, (i.e. hostage situation).
• They are used to defeat the locking mechanism
of a door or the hinges of door by firing a
breaching shotgun round into these areas.

Remington 870 -12 Gauge Pump Action Chemical
Agent Launching Shotgun
Quantity: 1
Purpose:
• This shotgun was repurposed from an out of
service shotgun that SCPD already had in
inventory. This shotgun is specifically designed to
launch a specific type of chemical munition.
• Though based on a standard 12 gauge shotgun, it
is not designed or capable of firing lethal shotgun
rounds. The buttstock and fore-end are bright
orange and it is marked as a “Less Lethal” weapon.

27.60 Ammunition of .50 Caliber or Greater
(Category 9)
Twelve-Gauge Launching Cartridges
(Defense Technologies Part Number 1210)
Quantity: 55
These are essentially blank shotgun cartridges. They
utilize black powder as the propellant
Purpose:

27.61 Specialized Firearms and Ammunition of Less
Than .50 Caliber (Category 10)
Defiance bolt action precision rifles
Quantity: 3
Accuracy International AT series bolt action rifle
Quantity: 1
Hornady .308 155 grain ELD Match TAP ammunition
Quantity: 3,200
• Within the Emergency Services Unit Tactical
team, the department maintains a Precision
Rifle team. These officers are trained in the
use of precision rifles that are specifically
designed to stop lethal threats at various
distances and through barrier mediums that a
carbine rifle would not.
• These specialized firearms provide officers
with the ability address lethal threats with
more precision, at greater distances than a
Carbine rifle or handgun are capable.

27.62 Flashbangs, Tear Gas and Pepperballs (Category 12) NFDD (Noise, Flash, Diversionary Device)
8902NR (12) gram low roll NFDD
Quantity: 40
7007 (4) gram NFDD training reloads
Quantity: 26
• Commonly referred to as “flashbangs” are a
single use device that that emits a loud bang
and a very bright flash.
• They are designed to disorient and distract
dangerous subjects by overwhelming their
senses and provide a window of time,
approximately 6-8 seconds, allowing officers
to take control of dangerous or high-risk
situations.
“Stinger Grenades”
Quantity: 10
• Rubber ball containing a small NFDD in addition to
60 .32 caliber rubber balls.
• When used, the grenade separates along its
hemisphere and expels the balls while
simultaneously giving a loud bang and bright
flash.
• These are useful in riot situations, (a means to
disperse groups of violent, armed or dangerous
individuals) as well as providing a disorienting
effect of the NFDD component to disorient and
mitigate dangerous behavior.

27.63 Chemical Agents “Tear Gas” (Category 12)
1082 Riot Control CS Canister
Quantity: 12
1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister
Quantity: 14
5230B Baffled Launchable CS Canister
Quantity: 10
1026 Triple Chaser Separating Canister
Quantity: 20
56854 Aerosol OC Fogger
Quantity: 4
2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret Projectile
Quantity: 44
2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret Projectile
Quantity: 10
• The Santa Cruz police department uses chemical
agents, commonly referred to as “teargas” as lesslethal tools, to disperse rioting subjects and on barricaded suspects.
• The two agents the department uses are CS (2-
chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) and OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum). CS is an irritating agent and a lachrymator; it irritates the eyes and causes tearing. It also irritates the respiratory system causing coughing. These
reactions are temporary and subside rather quickly
especially if the subjects remove themselves from the
area where the chemical agent has been deployed.

These symptoms generally subside within an hour or
less of exposure.
• OC is legal for civilians to possess in certain quantities.

27.64 Pepperballs (Category 12)
Pepperball Guns:

Quantity 4
The intention of Pepperballs is to limit escalation of force with self destructive, dangerous or combative individuals, riotous situations or other violent civil unrest.

Pepper Ball guns are a compressed air powered launcher, almost identical in manufacture to a common paintball
gun. It fires .68 caliber plastic balls that contain an irritant powder.

Pepper Balls are a .68 caliber projectile. They are a plastic shell that contains an irritant powder that consists of PAVA, a pepper derivative. This powder causes a burning sensation and involuntary eye closure when coupled with the impact of the projectile.

27.65 Long Range Acoustic
Device (Category 13)
GENASYS Inc. LRAD-100X
This device is a self-contained, lightweight, battery
operated hailer that communicates with great
intelligibility up to 600 meters. It emits acoustic sound pressure levels up to 140db.
• Used as a notification/communication system during
critical incidents, where the user is conveying a
message to a person or persons
• Used during violent or riotous situations as a means to advise participants that they are involved in legally
prohibited activities
• Broadcasts alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means
of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior

27.66 40mm Projectiles (Category 14)
40mm Projectile Launchers
Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-single barrel launchers Quantity: 14
Lewis Machine and Tool 1425 40mm single barrel launchers Quantity: 15
Lewis Machine and Tool 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers Quantity: 2
Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher
Quantity: 1
Less lethal tool to apply pain compliance to self-destructive, armed or combative/resistive persons, to prevent them from causing harm to themselves or others. Also used during
violent riots or large crowd control disturbances. They can be used to address individuals throwing items such as rocks, bottles, Molotov cocktails etc.
40mm Ammunition
Exact Impact 40mm
Quantity: 140
Direct Impact 40mm OC
Quantity: 24
Direct Impact 40mm Marking
Quantity: 32
Training Sponge ammunition 24 round kit
Quantity: 7
The projectile is made of a foam rubber often called
a “sponge round” as the projectile has a consistency
similar to a sponge. It is designed to incapacitate
people through pain compliance and impact.

27.67 AB 48: Law Enforcement - Use of Force
Approved September 30, 2021:
• AB 48 Includes standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings.
• These weapons may only be used to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to an individual, including a peace officer. • They may also be used to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control.

27.68 SCPD Use of Force Policy (300.3)
• Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the
circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
• The reasonableness of force will be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time of the incident.
• Given that no policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter, officers are entrusted to use well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate use of force in each incident. Officers may only use a level of force that they reasonably believe is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the reasonably
perceived level of actual or threatened resistance

27.69 SCPD De-Escalation Policy (300.3.1)
As time and circumstances reasonably permit, and when community and officer safety would not be compromised, officers shall consider actions that may increase officer safety and may decrease the need for using force:
(a) Summoning additional resources that are able to respond in a reasonably timely manner.
(b) Formulating a plan with responding officers before entering an unstable situation that does not reasonably appear to require immediate intervention. (c) Employing other tactics that do not unreasonably increase officer jeopardy.

In addition, when reasonable, officers should evaluate the totality of circumstances presented at the time in each situation and, when feasible, consider and utilize reasonably available alternative tactics and techniques that may persuade an individual to voluntarily comply or may mitigate the need to use a higher level of force to resolve the situation before applying force (Government Code §7286(b)(1)).

Such alternatives may include but are not limited to:
(a) Attempts to de-escalate a situation.
(b) If reasonably available, the use of crisis intervention techniques by properly trained personnel.
(c) When circumstances present themselves officers shall consider the process of disengaging from the situation. 27.70
SCPD Control Devices and Techniques Policy (302)
• Only officers who have successfully completed
department-approved training in the use of any
control device are authorized to use the device.
• Control devices may be used when a decision has
been made to control, restrain or arrest a subject who
is violent or who demonstrates the intent to be
violent, and the use of the device appears reasonable
under the circumstances.
• When using control devices, officers should carefully consider potential impact areas in order to minimize
injuries and unintentional targets.
• Policy includes user responsibilities and guidelines for use of specific items.

27.71 Commendation, Inquiries, or Complaints
• Any member of the public wishing to submit a complaint, concern, or question regarding the Department’s use of each specific type of military equipment, should contact the Department’s Professional Standards Unit.
• Comments can be submitted through the SCPD website:
www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/police/c ommunity/police-department-feedback
• The Department will work diligently to timely respond to the public submittal of complaints, concerns, and/or questions regarding the Department’s use of each specific type of military equipment.

27.72 Report Includes:

Annual
Reporting
Requirements
• Use of equipment
• Complaints received
• Internal audits
• Other information violations of policy
• The cost of such use
• Any other similar information
• First Annual Report due May, 2023

27.73 Public Safety Committee
March 23, 2022
Present draft policy for PSC
and public feedback
Posted draft of SCPD
Policy 705
March 18, 2022
www.SantaCruzPolice.com
Chief’s Advisory Body
Meeting
April 7, 2022
Present draft policy and
receive feedback
Virtual Community Meeting
April 11, 2022
Present to the public with Q&A
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2022
Present to City Council for
first reading
Community Engagement
City Council Meeting
May 10, 2022
Present to City Council for
second reading

27.74 Impact
With Approval:
• Continued use of equipment
• Increased safety to community,
law enforcement, and involved
subjects
• Increased transparency
Without Approval:
• Change in response to critical incidents
• Change in response to mutual aid
• Decreased safety to law enforcement,
public and involved subjects
• Lapse in training and skill sets
• Affects retention and recruiting
• No reasonable alternative

27.75 Conclusions
• SCPD has a history of
thoughtful, judicious use of
these tools. These aren’t new.
• Most items are less lethal tools
that provide safer solutions.
• All items are already governed
by existing policy or law.

27.76 Questions?

27.77 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/15/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Department Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021 (PR) RECOMMENDATION: Review, provide feedback, and accept the Parks and Recreation Department FY 2021 Annual Report.

BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Department (Department) manages 1,700 acres of parks, beaches, and open spaces, and provides some of the most iconic amenities in Santa Cruz including the Santa Cruz Wharf, Civic Auditorium, London Nelson Community Center, DeLaveaga Golf Course and Disc Golf Course, and more. Parks and Recreation also provides outstanding programs, community events and services including but not limited to Junior Lifeguards, summer camps, youth and adult sports, senior programs, Halloween Horrors Film Competition and Clam Chowder Cook-Off.

The Department’s annual accomplishments and fiscal summary are included in the City’s annual budget process, which takes place in the spring and summer. Additionally, Parks and Recreation’s scope of responsibilities are defined in the 2030 Parks Master Plan. Specific amenities and scope of responsibilities are included in site specific plans such as the Beach Management Plan, Wharf Master Plan, San Lorenzo Urban River Plan, and many other site specific plans.

With respect to recreation, the Department’s core program areas and associated goals are captured in the FY 2021 Recreation and Leisure Study. Further, achievements are summarized as part of the budget process.

DISCUSSION: First produced for FY 2020, the purpose of the annual report is to combine many of the details outlined above into a single report so that the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the community have a succinct, recurring, and clear report on the impacts and value of the Parks and Recreation Department. With each year, staff aim to incrementally improve the report’s focus and content, so it delivers maximum information and value to constituents. Staff is seeking review, feedback and acceptance from the City Council on content and material included in this second edition (FY 2021) of the annual report.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

28.1 Prepared By:

Lindsay Bass
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks &
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY21 ANNUAL REPORT_FINAL.PDF

28.2 PARKS AND RECREATION
January 2022 2021 Annual Report: Impact and Recovery
The purpose of this document is to present a snapshot of progress for the 2021 fiscal year (July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021) and to lay out goals for the current 2022 fiscal year.

28.3 Parks and Recreation
2 0 2 1 A N N U A L R E P O R T : I M P A C T A N D R E C O V E RY DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
2021 was, in many ways, a continuation of 2020 – the global pandemic presented our world and our community with significant challenges. The City of Santa Cruz and the Parks & Recreation Department had a seat on the year’s roller coaster that offered both ups and downs. Perseverance was our 2020 objective. 2021 was about recovery, and despite a wild ride, Parks & Recreation accomplished remarkable things for Santa Cruz this year. The long-awaited correction of the community center name to accurately reflect Mr. London Nelson was a historic moment and a wonderful example of community collaboration. Junior Guards were back in action on our beaches. New grant funding was put to good use in our parks and facilities. Adoption of the City’s first Street Tree Master Plan was a monumental effort and sets the stage for the future of urban forestry in Santa Cruz.

The list of accomplishments is long. The impacts made this year will serve the community for years to come.

I have been reminded this year how resilient, high-achieving, and service-minded Parks & Recreation is especially in the face of trying times. I am proud of the Parks & Recreation team. As we look ahead, we will continue to be adaptive and resilient in light of the ongoing pandemic. Our commitment to providing a world-class parks and recreation system will not waiver in the face of adversity. We will recover, we will serve, and will look forward to building back better in the years ahead.

On behalf of Parks & Recreation, it is our honor and privilege to serve Santa Cruz. Thank you for your support!

28.4 Parks and Recreation

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MISSION, VISION & VALUES ............................................................................................... 1 LOOKING FORWARD .......................................................................................................... 1 BY THE NUMBERS ................................................................................................................ 2 DOLLARS & CENTS: DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW................................................ 3 FY2021 GOALS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS .............................................................................. 4 GOAL: SAFE PARKS & FACILITIES FOR ALL........................................................... 4 GOAL: CORE AMENITIES AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROVIDED.......................... 5 AWARD'S CIRCLE ................................................................................................... 7 GOAL: COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT AND FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH FORWARD-LOOKING AND RESILIENT PLANNING................................................ 8 SPOTLIGHT: MOVING TOWARD EQUITY ............................................................... 9 GOAL: INCREASE COST RECOVERY THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS AND NEW REVENUES............................................................................................................ 12 GOAL: EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS ........ 12 ADDITIONAL FY2021 ACCOMPLISHMENTS ...................................................................... 13 FY2022 GOALS & OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................... 14 SPOTLIGHT: HOMELESSNESS AND PARKS ........................................................................ 15 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM................................................................................ 16 FAST FACTS ....................................................................................................................... 17 WORKLOAD INDICATORS................................................................................................. 17 PARKS AND RECREATION AMENITY MAP ....................................................................... 18

28.5 Parks and Recreation

Page 1 ends

MISSION, VISION & VALUES
Access to parks, open space and recreational activities is vitally important to establishing and maintaining a high quality of life in Santa Cruz, ensuring the health of our seniors, families and youth, and contributing to the economic and environmental wellbeing of the City and the region. The City of Santa Cruz Parks & Recreation Department manages a diverse portfolio of recreation programs along with a robust, world-class system of parks, beaches, open spaces and urban forest.

This portfolio enables the department to positively impact the community and local economy by: contributing to the strength and health of the City of Santa Cruz and its surrounding communities; functioning as an important component of the City’s social safety net services and emergency services infrastructure; serving as environmental stewards of a vast and stunning array of natural resources; providing desirable destinations popular among residents and tourists; and attracting new businesses. The following mission, vision and accompanying values guide the department’s work in service to the community:

Mission
To provide quality public spaces and experiences that build a healthy community, foster equity, and better the environment.

Vision
We envision a thriving Parks & Recreation system that creates recreational and cultural opportunities, improves quality of life, and strengthens the health of the local environment and economy for all.

Values – Communication, Openness, Service Collaboration The parks and recreation department is essential to the community. To that end, we commit to:
 transparent and honest communication as the foundation of great relationships.  a spirit of equity, openness and innovation, welcoming differences and diversity.  service to the community in a manner that is sustainable, safe, responsive and accessible to all.  collaboration to achieve results that reflect our department vision, leveraging the strengths of the community.

LOOKING FORWARD
Santa Cruz Parks & Recreation is at its best when engaged with the community. Investment into critical resources, partnerships, and outside support for Parks & Recreation will be essential to continue success and advancement of department mission and goals. Parks & Recreation is a conduit for economic recovery, the green economy, for health, and social equity, and we invite the community to join us as a funding partner, a volunteer, or as an advocate.

28.6 Parks and Recreation

Page 2 ends

BY THE NUMBERS
National Averages from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA); City of Santa Cruz Statistics based on FY2021 numbers.

28.7 Parks and Recreation

Page 3 ends

DOLLARS & CENTS: DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Expenditures
The FY2021 Parks and Recreation adopted revised budget included $1.1 million in reductions to address significant pandemic impacts to city and department General Fund revenues. These reductions included the structural elimination of two vacant positions – a 1.0 FTE Special Event Coordinator position and a 0.5 FTE Box Office Representative. With reductions, the department budget was approximately $15.4 million (15,387,534) with personnel costs making up 62 percent of that amount.

Challenges. Early retirements and a hiring freeze led to a vacancy rate of close to 10 percent for FY2021. The department leadership team made up of major area supervisors faced incredible challenges: the global pandemic made outdoor spaces the safest place for community members to be. Further, citizens flocked to parks, beaches and open spaces to sustain their mental health. For the Parks Division, constrained staffing and budget resources limited the ability to respond and keep up with public demand. Alternatively, the Recreation Division was challenged with the opposite dynamic. Bringing people together for in-person events, programs, sports and classes meant completely re-imagining their work and budgets to provide essential support to the community in a manner consistent with ever-evolving public health guidance.

Strategies. The department approached the pandemic budget shock and the city’s structural deficit with a multi-year fiscal sustainability roadmap, knowing that short-, mid- and long-term actions would be required to ensure the department remained fiscally positioned to deliver on its mission and vision for the community. To manage with a reduced budget, the department streamlined operations, reduced service levels, and returned savings from programming not able to operate due to public health constraints. Further, grant opportunities helped offset some costs associated with homeless encampment clean-up.

Revenues
The Parks and Recreation department is funded primarily through general fund revenue sources, such as property taxes, sales and use tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT). In a typical year, the department generates enough revenue via program fees, permits, and other charges to offset about one-third of its expenditure budget. In FY2021, department activities were conservatively projected to bring in nearly $4.2 million (4,179,601) in General Fund revenues.

Challenges. Generating revenues is difficult when facilities are closed and bringing people together can be hazardous to public health. The department took the early stance to sacrifice revenues to support a cautious approach to the pandemic.

Strategies. This fiscal year, staff completed a department revenue policy to guide efforts to improve cost recovery. While some revenue centers were limited in their ability to generate revenues, the department continued to make fee improvements by adjusting the fee structure for beach rentals and continued with the implementation of the golf course operations plan.

Cost Recovery
A key metric for the Parks and Recreation Department is the revenue-to-operating expenditure ratio. In FY2021, the budgeted ratio was 27 percent. With additional budget savings realized from the pandemic along with a record revenue year at the DeLaveaga Golf Course, the actual ratio ended up being 33 percent, well above the national average and consistent with the department’s actual cost recovery from FY2019 (the last normal year for comparison). The resulting net impact of the department on the General Fund was $9.0 million ($9,023,843).
5-YR Budgeted Cost Recovery - Adopted Budget 5-YR Actual Cost Recovery: Year End Actual Performance

28.8 Parks and Recreation

Page 1 ends

FY2021 GOALS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS
GOAL: Safe Parks & Facilities for All
Managing 169,000 facility square footage and over 1,700 acres of urban forest, parks, beaches, open spaces and greenways, the Parks and Recreation Department is working to build a healthy, more resilient future for the Santa Cruz community. These efforts positively impact human and environmental health, as well as the community’s safety and economy.

Despite significant staffing constraints, 99 percent of park acreage remained open and key assets like the Wharf and playgrounds were made safe for public use during the pandemic For the Parks Division, constrained staffing and budget resources limited the ability to respond and manage public demand.

With some facilities unable to operate due to public health orders, select recreation staff transitioned to assist the parks team.

They filled a number of critical roles to help care for and maintain the parks, monitoring parks and beaches for safe use during shelter-in-place orders, as well as addressing normal day-to-day administrative tasks so park staff could remain focused on maintaining services in the field. A few recreation staff also became department coordinators to oversee response to staff COVID exposures and/or positive test results. The adaptabiltiy shown by these staff was remarkable and allowed critical work for the commnunity to continue throughout the pandemic.

Department maintenance crews were on the front lines throughout the pandemic. Nearly all amenities remained open for people to find respite, enjoy the open space, as well as exercise and walk the trails. Maintenance crews mowed lawns, maintained trails, picked up trash and maintained benches and parking areas. Only Lower DeLaveaga Park and Laurel Park were closed due to reduced staff resources. By mid-June, exceptions to hire key maintenance positions allowed the department to reopen Lower DeLaveaga Park for programs and public use.

Kept Playgrounds Safe
In keeping with California State Health and Safety guidelines of supporting a safe environment for children and families to recreate, the department implemented sanitation stations around playground areas. Awareness signage provided
guidance on maximum occupancy limits, waiting areas, social distancing measures and California state guidance on safe play during Covid-19. Included within the sanitation stations were self-use hand sanitizer bottles to encourage everyone to “gel in & gel out.”
Managed record amounts of trash on Main and Cowell Beaches with help from key partners Trash management is always a challenge, on Main Beach in particular. Heading into the the summer of 2021, the
department had received more than the normal level of
complaints due to some larger impacts – constrained
department staffing resources, similarly limited capacity by the department’s traditional partner in beach clean-up, the Seaside Company, and a greater concentration of street vendors (and the associated trash associated with some of their products).

With assistance from the Sanitation Department in the form of more dumpsters for the beach along with additional Save Our Shores volunteer clean-ups, our tireless Wharf and Beaches maintenance team was able to improve trash management. The result was cleaner beaches and a healthier Monterey Bay.

28.9 Parks and Recreation

Page 2 ends

GOAL: Core Amenities and Essential Services Provided
Through programs, services and spaces, the department ensures the health and well-being of community members by: investing proactively in our community’s at-risk and vulnerable populations; providing support to local youth through access to quality education, after school enrichment opportunities, mentorship from a supporting adult, access to jobs, internships and future career possibilities; delivering virtual and in-person activities and connection to resources for our community’s seniors to help prevent isolation and loneliness; aiding community members in need through various programs: low-cost meeting space for twelve-step groups, host to Meals on Wheels, safe sleeping, convenient access to free COVID testing; building relationships with community partners, creating an extension of Parks and Recreation services to those who need it most; and partnering and supporting local and regional agencies in addressing homelessness, COVID and disaster relief.

Answered the call to reinforce fire lines and harden critical infrastructure On August 16, 2020, a thunderstorm generated 11,000 lightning strikes at the height of the California dry season. Two days later, a 40,000 acre wildfire was raging in the Santa Cruz mountains. In the days to come, parks staff would be called to assist with creating defensible space around the City of Santa Cruz water system’s key westside storage tanks, westside and Felton pump stations, and the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. Other team members would be enlisted to help with door to door emergency preparedness education in higher risk city neighborhoods. Just over a month after ignition, the August CZU Lightning Complex fire would be fully contained, having burned 86,509 acres, destroyed 1,490 buildings, making it California’s 12th most destructive wildfire in the state’s history.

Unable to hold events in FY2021, the Civic Auditorium became a critical asset in emergency response On August 18, 2020, the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium became a shelter for CZU fire evacuees. Learning the basics of shelter operations over the course of eight hours, the staff worked through the night with partners from the County Emergency Operations Command Center to pivot the facility to receive those being evacuated from the CZU fire threat in the Santa Cruz mountains. A complicating factor was the need to keep people distanced and safe in those early days of the pandemic. Setting up tents in the main hall and implementing rigorous cleaning protocols, the Civic Auditorium Supervisor, Jessi Bond, and her team created a sanctuary, not only for those displaced, but also for those seeking information, resources or a place to charge a cell phone.

The site became the nexus for an outouring of support from the community, receiving hundreds of messages, phone calls and emails from people asking how they could help.

28.10 Parks and Recreation

Page 3 ends

Four short months later, the same team would see themselves ramping down their facility as a fire shelter so that it could be converted to a COVID testing site. With case rates on the rise and the 2020 winter holidays approaching, providing easy access to testing for the Santa Cruz community became critical to ensuring citizens along with state and local health officials had access to information on the spread of COVID-19 in the community. Collaborating again with Santa Cruz County staff, the Civic Auditorium opened in December for appointment and walk-in testing. By March, the facility had conducted over 7,500 free COVID tests for the community. The Civic Auditorium remained a testing site through the remainder of the fiscal year.

Provided essential programs and services to vulnerable populations Essential Worker Childcare. Fall and Winter/Spring childcare sessions for essential workers operated at maximum capacity within the London Nelson Community Center. Recreation staff assisted students with virtual learning in the morning and provided recreational activities in the afternoon. To provide as much support to children and teachers, staff trained with City schools teachers on effective ways to assist students with virtual learning.

Friends of Parks & Recreation was also there to assist families, awarding over $35,000 in program scholarships to income-qualified families and those suffering fiscal hardships as a result of the pandemic.

Teen Employment Opportunities. The annual Teen
Job Fair moved outdoors to Laurel Park to comply
with COVID restrictions. Applicants had access to
six featured employer booths – Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation, Kianti’s, O’Neill, Whiting’s Foods, All About Theatre, and the Seaside Company, as well as 25 paper applications for other area employers who hire teens. 127 teen job seekers attended and 152 completed applications were delivered to the employers.

Senior Community Support. In addition to offering
well-attended virtual classes for seniors – line
dancing continued to be quite popular – the
Downtown Senior Center also connected 125
seniors with free Amazon Fire tablets through the Senior Center Without Limits partnership with Community Bridges and Elder Day. The Center also helped coordinate vaccine outreach efforts with the county Health Services Agency (HSA). Outreach to high-risk and eligible seniors reached over 2,000 area seniors in remarkable efforts to simplify the appointment-making-process and target the hard-to-reach senior population.

Brought fun back to summer with a wide array of programming in-line with State of California Reopening Blueprint
Parks and Recreation summer programs returned in June 2021 with Junior Guards at Cowell Beach and Summer Camps at Harvey West Park. Kids and parents were thrilled to be back in our programs that have become summer traditions for local families. For possibly the first time ever, summer camp registration filled before Junior Guards in a record-breaking eight minutes. Expanding registration on a rolling basis in response to state guidance was a big lift for the administration team, and they delivered for the community’s parents. Also new for summer 2021, Parks and Recreation collaborated with City Schools to provide after summer school classes at Bay View and Gault Elementary Schools. The afternoon classes provided all day recreation options for working summer school parents.

Summer adult sports also returned with over 40 teams registering for our Adult Softball league, nine registered for adult soccer and a strong bocce registration as well.

28.11 Parks and Recreation

Page 4 ends

AWARD’S CIRCLE
Civic Auditorium Supervisor, Jessi Bond, receives Jim Howes Award In December, Jessi Bond was selected as the staff recipient of the Jim Howes award for her outstanding service to the Santa Cruz community. Jessi exemplifies all the qualities that the award recognizes: community-minded leadership, problem solving, tenacity, engaging enthusiasm and pride in being a Santa Cruz public servant. These qualities were on full display during the Covid crisis as operational needs at the City and the Civic became incredibly fluid from March 2020 onward. Time and time again, Jessi actively looked for solutions to support our community through the crisis. This included small efforts like assisting the Economic Development Department by providing Civic supplies to expand business outdoor operations to assisting the City and County with homelessness response by making the Civic available for storage of large materials like tents and sleeping bags to larger efforts such as running a shelter at the Civic for fire evacuees during a global pandemic.

Recreation Staff win Award of Excellence in Marketing & Communications On March 23, during the annual statewide conference, the London Nelson Community Center was honored by the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) with an Award of Excellence in Marketing & Communications for the Halloween Horror Film Competition marketing campaign. The campaign was launched in July 2020 and included two promotional videos, which paid homage to classic horror films The Shining and Blair Witch Project.

LNCC was also recognized in February by CPRS for outstanding contributions in the community for creating Innovative Programming During COVID-19 for the Halloween Horrors Film Competition and their Cookies, Cocoa and Connection (CCC) event. Each program was a great success! The film competition received registrations from 28 individual teams. The CCC event partnered 50 local seniors who participated in a variety of connection activities together over zoom in the midst of the pandemic and often lonely and challenging holidays.

Santa Cruz Urban Forester, Leslie Keedy, wins WCISA Award In June, Santa Cruz Urban Forester Leslie Keedy received the Award of Commendation by her fellow peers from the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture at its 87th Annual Conference. Leslie was selected as the best in 2020 for promoting the purpose of the ISA organization through continuing education and communication between practitioners, educators, researchers, and the general public. The award recognized Leslie's 20-plus year career with the City of Santa Cruz and her work overseeing the recent CalFIRE Urban Forestry grant that resulted in the planting of 500 trees.

28.12 Parks and Recreation

Page 5 ends

GOAL: Community, Environment and Fiscal Sustainability through Forward - Looking and Resilient Planning
Planning for Our Future Parks and Recreation System
Parks Master Plan 2030 Approved. Receiving City Council approval in the fall, the final Parks Master Plan 2030 provides a guiding framework to plan for, provide, and maintain parks and recreation services for more than 1,700 acres of land. The plan envisions a quality park system that connects the surrounding greenbelts to the Pacific Ocean, preserves and protects its natural heritage, enhances its cultural and recreational environments, and provides a diversity of experiences that enrich lives and support a healthy community. The Parks Master Plan 2030 is intended to evolve with the City over time, providing a guiding framework while allowing adjustments to be made to meet present and unforeseen needs and desires.

The Plan includes guiding goals, policies and actions which were developed through a comprehensive public process. Additionally, it includes some ideas for specific park properties to explore further through future public processes. Many of the conceptual ideas were further refined in additional public meetings. The Parks and Recreation Department tried to be as flexible and accommodating with the planning process to ensure everyone had an opportunity to provide input. As larger projects move forward, there will be opportunities for community members, Commission, and Council to provide input and help shape the direction of each project, including funding allocation, project scope, community outreach and environmental review.

Street Tree Master Plan Approved. In late April, the Street Tree Master Plan was approved by City Council, providing a critical management tool for the Office of Urban Forestry within the Parks and Recreation Department. The management plan effectively quantifies the existing urban forest street tree resource, its values and maintenance requirements, provides a vehicle to maintain consistency between City departments, and establishes goals and actions to be used moving forward.

In addition to utilizing the Street Tree Master plan as a guiding document, future forestry goals also include maintaining the completed tree inventory and the TreeKeeper® software used for tracking accurate data, monitoring tree canopy coverage, and increasing tree planting efforts.

Future Urban Forestry actions include improving the existing street tree planting list, improving public outreach for proper forestry management, enhancing the existing forestry work plan and establishing appropriate resource levels including budgeting and staffing adequate for a successful urban forestry program.

Wharf Master Plan Approved. With City Council approval of the Wharf Master Plan, the document establishes a framework for any potential future expansion of the Wharf, most especially the improvements called out in the Master Plan. The Wharf has not had such a comprehensive plan or design guidelines prepared since the 1980 Beach Area Plan. The California Coastal Commission (CCC), the state agency who oversees any proposed development along the California coast, has long urged the City to develop such guidelines.

The adopted master plan with associated environmental review is also required for the Wharf to be eligible to apply for competitive grants and outside funding.

Where the Wharf Master Plan will create guidelines and identify opportunities for future projects, it will not lock in the development of any proposed improvements. All future projects on the Wharf will be subject to future City Council review and approval, including a public outreach and input process.

28.13 Parks and Recreation

Page 6 ends

Bettering the Environment
Piloting Electric Tools to Reduce Carbon Emissions and Noise Pollution. With the help of a City Carbon Fund Grant, the Harvey West Park team began a pilot of electric equipment to determine feasibility of transitioning away from gas-powered small tools. The electric blowers will not only reduce carbon output but are also quieter. This means less impact on staff while helping to reduce noise and air pollution in our parks. After a trial period, the Parks Division moved the electric equipment over to the Neighborhood Parks team, as the battery life of the tools seemed better suited to smaller scale parks.

Installing the First Department Solar Array. Through a partnership between Sandbar Electrical and Solar and the City of Santa Cruz, the main parking lot of DeLaveaga Golf Course saw the installation of three new solar power carports. The total combined surface area of the arrays is roughly 9,500 square feet and will provide shade for 50 parking spaces. The solar arrays are expected to produce nearly 250,000 kilowatt hours of sustainable electricity to the sports fields and golf course facilities annually.

Reforesting Audrey Stanley Grove. Partnering with Cabrillo Horticultural Program to celebrate National Arbor Day and Earth Day, the Parks & Recreation Forestry Division planted twelve coast redwood trees at the Santa Cruz Shakespeare amphitheater.

In total, Shakespeare staff have added 128 new redwoods to the theatre grounds to improve the venue experience. These new redwood trees will thrive and reforest the grove with a healthy, native tree population.

Helping the Santa Cruz Tarplant Persist at Arana Gulch. The department’s Open Space & Greenways team, in collaboration with the Arana Gulch Adaptive Management Working Group, the UCSC Greenhouse, and UCSC volunteers, successfully implemented an experimental outplanting of over 1,000 Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia). An endangered plant species endemic to Northern California, tarplant persistence is a key goal of the Arana Gulch management plan. The short-term goal of this work is to identify the best outplanting methods. The long-term goal is to increase the seedbank of the tarplant at Arana to a level that will ensure a high probability of persistence for 100 years, or in perpetuity. This planting is something of a landmark in that it exceeds the targeted population goal for the Santa Cruz tarplant management program.

28.14 Parks and Recreation

Page 7 ends

Sustaining Park & Public Spaces for the Community
London Nelson Community Center Tile Cleaning. Staff addressed key maintenance improvements while the Center was closed to normal operations over the course of the year. A focal project for the Center, which was first constructed as an elementary school in 1932 in the Mission Revival style, was a much needed cleaning of its beautiful tiled roof.

New Roof Finished for Noland’s. The Wharf completed reroofing Noland’s, a popular Wharf retail business. The building now has upgraded insulation with fire protection, and an 80 Mil, welded seam IB pool liner roof with a 25-year warranty. This type of roof membrane is necessary for the flat roofs on the Santa Cruz Wharf due to their resilience, ease of repair, and ability to be washed.

Wharf Pile Driving Completed. The Wharf Construction Crew finished pile work allowed under the Army Core of Engineers Nationwide 3 and CA Coastal Commission emergency maintenance permits. Driving piles is a fairly complex operation requiring the trust and cooperation of all involved. From the transporting of the pile to positioning the driver and the driving of the pile to finally cutting the pile off and bolting it in place, all demands the collaborative attention of the team and strict adherence to protocol and procedure.

Bethany Curve Pathway Improvements Kept Neighbors Strolling. Bethany Curve runs four blocks from West Cliff all the way to Delaware Ave. The Parks team completed the installation of two sections of decomposed granite pathway and header board, further improving the space. Take in the beauty of the assorted trees and bird species in this lush riparian zone.

Town Clock and Plaza Refreshed for Spring. The Parks team completed work to get the Town Clock and Plaza ready for the spring season. Lots of effort went into updating the electrical systems to highlight the Collateral Damage statue and make the Town Clock shine bright again. All new landscaping was also added and three new trees were installed creating a beautiful public plaza for all to enjoy for years to come.

Harvey West Park’s Redwood Picnic Area Completed. Installation of the new Redwood Picnic Area, located in Harvey West Park, was completed and brought online for reservations beginning May 28th. This new picnic area accommodates 70 people comfortably and has electrical power and a sink. The Redwood Picnic Area replaces the old “Oak” Picnic area, which saw its namesake tree fail last year.

New Landscaping for Chinatown Bridge Dragon Art Completed. New plantings were installed and included edible plants associated with the original Chinese marketplace, native plants to promote habitat along the San Lorenzo river walk, and pops of perennial color to enhance the design elements and colors of the dragon sculpture. All plants are water wise perennials on a drip irrigation system to promote water conservation. Special thanks to the many community partners that contributed to the outstanding final product.

Lighthouse Avenue Park Playground Updates Complete. Early in the year the Parks team updated sections of the playground play surface and installed new playground components in the park.

28.15 Parks and Recreation

Page 8 ends

SPOTLIGHT: MOVING TOWARD EQUITY
In 1979, the Santa Cruz City Council voted to rename the Laurel Community Center to the Louden Nelson Community Center in honor of the heroic figure who had died more than a century earlier. The Center’s namesake, Mr. Nelson, was born into slavery in 1800 in North Carolina. After news of the Gold Rush in 1850, Mr. Nelson was taken from the plantation by a slave owner to California, where he was eventually able to purchase his freedom. Traveling throughout California as a cobbler, Mr.

Nelson eventually settled in Santa Cruz before succumbing to a terminal illness in 1860. He bequeathed the entirety of his estate to the local schools, a significant contribution to local learning and the community. One that was honored by the 1979 city councilmembers. There was, however, a problem: Louden Nelson was not his real name. A simple mistake in recording his name in the 1870s had compounded for more than a century.

The correction of this long-time error was initiated with a citizen petition started by Brittinii Potter, which secured over 1,000 signatures. Potter’s petition cited an imperative to “have a history that is accurately named after some of our first Black leaders.” Potter along with Parks and Recreation staff convened a project committee including community center supervisor Iseth Rae, Recreation Superintendent Rachel Kaufman, Civic Auditorium Supervisor Jessi Bond, NAACP President Brenda Griffin, City Councilmember Justin Cummings, Santa Cruz Equity Project founder Luna HighJohn Bey, and Sentinel history columnist Ross Gibson.

This group worked over several months to address remaining uncertainty with correcting the community center name. Their efforts included following up with members of the Black community who had originally supported the name of Louden. There were no holdouts left – It was time to get the name right. On June 8, city councilmembers voted unanimously to change the name. In addition, the council also called for the city “to pursue a more accurate depiction of the history of Mr. Nelson and explore further education efforts on his contributions to Santa Cruz.” City councilmembers celebrated the name change with the community during Juneteenth Festivities in Laurel Park, just outside the renamed London Nelson Community Center.

28.16 Parks and Recreation

Page 9 ends

GOAL: Increase cost recovery through partnerships and new revenues DeLaveaga Golf Course saw record use, turning a profit in FY2021 A true bright spot in FY2021 was the record number of people that sought refuge from the pandemic by playing a round of golf at DeLaveaga Golf Course. By the end of the fiscal year, over 62,000 rounds of golf had been played, beating the five year average by nearly 50 percent. Golf Course operators, GSL Inc., worked hard in collaboration with department staff and the County Public Health Officer to develop protocols for safe play during the pandemic. Measures included greater time intervals between parties, restrictions on golf cart use to members of the same household, and changes to the course that eliminated shared contact of items such as sand trap rakes and putting green cups.

Parks and Recreation golf course
staff focused on maintaining
quality conditions on the course
during this time of increased use,
even with personnel furloughs,
water budget reductions, and increased responsibilities resulting from the Parks reorganization. Several factors led to the increase in play, including clear weather, lack of alternative recreation, good course conditions, the closure of the Boulder Creek Golf Club due to the CZU Fire, the opening of the Grille at DeLa (as permitted under state restrictions) and enhanced marketing by the operators.

At the conclusion of FY2021, the golf course had met its operations plan objective of a balanced budget several years ahead of schedule with over $2.1 million in revenues and a profit margin of nearly $50,000.

New Grant Funds Secured to Reduce Fire Risk in Open Spaces and Support Senior Facilities With support from the Fire Department, the Parks Open Space and Greenways team secured from the California Fire Safe Council a new tool trailer and $10,000 in new tools and resources to support fuel reduction and vegetation management across the city’s open spaces.

The Recreation Division also worked closely with their staff at the Downtown Senior Center, as well as partners from the Senior Center Opportunities group, to secure a total of $160,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to improve ADA accessibility at the 222 Market St. Senior Center and to create a “senior studio” at the downtown location for expanded senior community activities.

GOAL: Effective Department Operations and Communications Through the first two quarters of FY2021, the Recreation Division worked with the PROS Consulting Group to complete a full programmatic assessment and services costing. The work clarified Recreation Division offerings into eight major core program areas: Aquatics, Arts and Culture, Health and Wellness, Seniors, Special Events, Sports, and Youth & Teen.

The study established core program goals, evaluated program cost recovery and lifecycle planning, as well as provided best practices for volunteerism, partnerships and community outreach. This work, referred to as the Recreation and Leisure Study (RLS), concluded with eight major recommendations along with additional secondary recommendations.

Under the leadership of the Recreation Superintendent, the Division is working to implement RLS recommendations, including development of business plans for each core program area.

28.17 Parks and Recreation

Page 10 ends

ADDITIONAL FY2021 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Safe Parks and Facilities
for All
 Completed the transition of all staff to smart phones, improving coverage and signal reception in critical areas of the parks system to help promote staff safety  Updated on a routine basis operational and public guidance to keep activities and spaces safe and in compliance with regular changes to both county and state public health guidance.

Core Amenities and
Services Provided
 Provided recommendations to youth sports organizations and group meeting permit requestors on program adaptation based on state issued guidance and safety protocols.  Created virtual programming platform for youth, adults and senior activities.  Offered Virtual Junior Guard program to maintain continuity and fitness option for ongoing Junior Guard participants.  Assumed daily maintenance responsibility for first section of Rail Trail to open on the Westside.

Community, Environment
and Fiscal Sustainability
through Forward-Looking
and Resilient Planning
 Initiated work to secure a Wharf maintenance permit.
 Delivered re-envisioned special events to encourage safe community building during the pandemic. Events included: the Re-Envisioned Clam Chowder Cook-Off, 13 Days of Halloween at the Wharf and the Halloween Horrors Film Competition.  Facilitated discussions to remove the final Mission Bell in the City of Santa Cruz Cost Recovery through
Partnerships and New
Revenues
 Volunteers provided much needed support: the Grant Park Neighbors group gave garbage cans, bike racks, and light poles a fresh coat of paint and completed weeding and raking at the park; City Hall volunteers helped with numerous projects at the City’s front door; and the Pilkington Creek/Tyrrell Park volunteers removed invasive plants and spread wood chips this season.
 Initiated work supported by a $100,000 CalRecycle grant aimed at removing trash from sensitive habitats in Sycamore Grove and Moore Creek Open Space areas  Secured City Council Resolution to pursue a $177,952 grant from the State of California Per Capita grant program.
 Researched and applied for nearly $300,000 in ARPA support from the Shuttered Venue Operator’s grant, administered by the Small Business Association  Clarified and standardized how beach areas are reserved for events, resulting in improved fee structure
 Updated costing analysis for Harvey West Pool and entered into rental contracts with two community groups for use of the pool that provided access to safe, healthy activity during the pandemic and provided improved cost recovery to the department  Finalized internal department revenue policy
Effective Department
Operations and
Communications
 Implemented the cost neutral Parks reorganization while sustaining record vacancy levels due to the city-wide hiring freeze.
 Updated municipal code related to Special Events to reflect its transition from the City Manager’s Office to Parks and Recreation
 Advanced efforts to update the department’s mission, vision and values in response to staff, Parks & Recreation Commission and community comments.  Completed the FY20 Annual Report and began work on a Strategic Framework and Communications Plan.
 Created an online activity guide to maintain accurate information for the public and adapt to changes in state and local COVID guidance.

28.18 Parks and Recreation

Page 11 ends

FY2022 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Deliver high quality parks
 Execute existing and new FY2022 CIP and grant-funded projects  Complete perimeter fence upgrade at Wharf
 Restore parks staffing levels to address vacancies creating by FY21 hiring freeze Provide Essential Services,
Facilities & Programs
 Align programming to support the Children’s Bill of Rights initiative, as well as the Children’s Fund
 Revitalize the Urban Forestry webpage to provide more information for the community  Develop and implement business plans for core recreation program areas  Complete pool feasibility study
 Secure Wharf Maintenance permits
Steward Our Natural
Resources
 Complete CalRecycle grant-funded cleanup of Sycamore Grove and Moore Creek along with mitigations to reduce future impacts
 Continue experimental outplanting of Santa Cruz tarplants at Arana Gulch  Update Approved Street Tree List in accordance with Street Tree Master Plan to help future plantings improve the diversity, environmental benefits, and climate resilience of the urban forest
Responsibly Manage
Valued Resources – Both
People & Budget
 Update department fee schedule
 Implement new cost recovery targets
 Develop strategic report sets to support department workload and performance measure tracking
 Complete department sponsorship policy
 Initiate strategic CIP review
 Continue to implement DeLaveaga Golf Course Operations Plan to close revenue gap  Explore pay-to-play operations at the DeLaveaga Disc Golf Course  Update safety training program for front-line Parks employees  Make ADA improvements to Market Street Senior Center using CDBG funding.  Continue Civic roof replacement and solar installation project.  Rollout updated best practice protocols and templates for partnership agreements Improve Internal/External
Communications
 Upgrade the department’s e-commerce software, Web Trac  Build out P&R Intranet webpage
 Revamp the website homepage
 Respond to the Grand Jury Website Findings
 Deliver the FY21 Annual Report
 Complete the FY23-25 Strategic Plan/Operating Framework

28.19 Parks and Recreation

Page 15 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
April 26, 2022