Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 1 of 8)

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting – August 23, 2022
10:00 A.M. CLOSED SESSION, ZOOM/COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM 11:30 A.M. CONSENT AND GENERAL BUSINESS, ZOOM/COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC HEARING, ZOOM/COUNCIL

CHAMBERS
IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Pursuant to California Government Code 54953(e)(1)(A) and (C), and the City of Santa Cruz’s resolution authorizing continued virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings of the Santa Cruz City Council are being conducted with a hybrid format, providing both in-person and virtual participation in order to promote social distancing and protect the health and safety of attendees, staff, and Councilmembers.

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

The timer will then be set to 2 minutes.

Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 5:00 pm on Monday, August 22nd.

August 23, 2022 City Council 2
PLEASE NOTE:
 Requests for extra speaking time on items other than Oral Communications must be made by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, August 28th by emailing the Mayor and the City Clerk.

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

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

Closed Session
10:00 AM
Closed Session

1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(4))
Initiation of litigation (one potential case)
August 23, 2022 City Council 3
City Council
11:30 AM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification
Additions and Deletions
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Council Meeting Calendar

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

Council Memberships in City Groups and Outside Agencies

4. The Presiding Officer will provide Councilmembers with the opportunity to update Council on any external committee meetings that occurred since the last Council meeting.

Consent Agenda

5. Resolution Extending the Emergency Declaration in Connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire by Sixty (60) Days (CA) Resolution extending by sixty days the Local Emergency Declaration in connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire.

August 23, 2022 City Council 4
Consent Agenda (continued)

6. Resolution Extending the Emergency Declaration in Connection with the COVID-19 Pandemic by Sixty (60) Days (CA)
Resolution extending by sixty days the Declaration of Emergency in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

9. Minutes of the August 16, 2022 City Council Special Meeting (CC) Motion to accept as submitted.

10. Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) Investments Bridge Funding (CM)
Motion to:
1) Approve recipients for Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) bridge funding contracts; and
2) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate $90,000 from the City’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) for the City’s contribution.

11. Resolution Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans for the Santa Cruz Public Libraries (HR)
Resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plans to the FY 2023 Budget Personnel Complement by implementing the Library Board approved Budget/Position and Classification changes in the Library.

August 23, 2022 City Council 5
Consent Agenda (continued)

12. Award Contract for Playground Equipment at Garfield Park Playground (PR)
Resolution to award a contract to Landscape Structures, Inc. (Delano, MN) for the purchase of playground equipment that will be installed at Garfield Park in the amount of $219,777.02.

13. Citywide Vegetation Management – Award Contract (PW) Motion to accept the bid of Lewis Tree Service (Santa Cruz, CA) for Citywide Vegetation Management in the amount of $117,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

14. Traffic Striping Installation and Maintenance – Award Contract (PW) Motion to accept the bid of Chrisp Company (Fremont, CA) for Traffic Striping Installation and Maintenance in the amount of $130,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

15. Cost of Construction – Fee Revision (PW)
Resolution revising the Traffic Impact Fee Estimate Form to include a revised PM peak hour rate of $4,928 and rescinding Resolution No. NS29,865.

16. Annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance (m409505) – Award Contract (PW)
Motion to award a contract for the annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance to Kenny Robinson Construction (Santa Cruz, CA) in the amount of $275,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

August 23, 2022 City Council 6
Consent Agenda (continued)

17. Transfer within the Water Department’s Capital Investment Program for FY 2022 Water Program Administration Expenses – Budget Adjustment (WT)
Resolution amending the FY 2022 budget by transferring $1,956,115 from the Water Department’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) Project c701901, Water Program Administration, to various other Water Department CIP Projects for the purpose of allocating actual program administration expenses to active Water Program CIP Projects.

End Consent Agenda
General Business

18. Independent Police Auditor Report (CM)
Receive a report from the City’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group.

August 23, 2022 City Council 7
General Business (continued)
Please note:
 The Public Comment period for the below item will be for items 19.1 and

19.2.  Group requests for extra speaking time will be limited to a total of three (3) groups, with an allotment of 3 minutes each. Requests for extra speaking time must be emailed to the City Clerk and Mayor Brunner by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, August 21st. Approval will be on a first come, first serve basis, and will be confirmed via email.
[email protected] [email protected]
 Public comment will be limited to no more than a total of 30 minutes. Each speaker will have 2 minutes.

19. HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE UPDATE

19.1. Homelessness Response Quarterly Update (CM)
Receive updates regarding Council-directed homelessness response programs and services, including Homelessness Response Action Plan implementation details, objectives, and outcomes.

19.2. Benchlands Closure and Restoration – Budget Adjustment and Refuse Disposal, Abatement, and Landscape Remediation Contract Approval (CM)
Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023 budget to transfer $1,000,000 from the Safe Sleeping Hygiene Bay Project c102205 to the Benchlands Restoration Project c102304; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute an emergency procurement Agreement, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Santa Cruz and Clean Team Associates in the amount of $280,000 to remove encampment debris in the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands.

August 23, 2022 City Council 8
General Business (continued)
Please note: Public comment for the below item will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker.

20. Revised Fiscal Impact Report for the Empty Home Tax Initiative Petition (FN)
Receive a revised fiscal impact report to that which was presented to Council at the June 28, 2022 meeting, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212, related to the Empty Home Tax initiative petition.

Recess - The City Council will recess to the 6:00 p.m. session.

August 23, 2022 City Council 9
City Council
6:00 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Oral Communications Announcement – Community members may address the Council for two minutes or less about any matter not on the agenda. 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications. No extra time for groups will be granted.

Oral Communications
August 23, 2022 City Council 10
Public Hearing

21. Amendments to Municipal Code Titles 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24 Related to Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family Housing, New Mixed Use Zoning Districts, Development Review Process Changes, Street Trees, Right-of-Way Improvements, and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Associated Updates to the Zoning Map; and Establish In-Lieu Fees for Street Tree Removals (File No. FP20-0002) and Additional Modifications to Municipal Code Title 24 to Clarify and Update Various Code Sections, Remove Obsolete Sections and References, Streamline Application Processes, and Bring the Zoning Ordinance into Conformity with State Law (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22- 0003) (PL)
Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections not included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections that are included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
3) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the proposed amendments to the zoning map, as stated in the ordinance and as shown in the associated map exhibit; and
4) Adopt a resolution establishing a new in-lieu fee requirement for street tree removals.

Adjournment

INFORMATION ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS None Issued.

August 23, 2022 City Council 11

MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS

1. Proclaiming Thursday, August 18, 2022 as “Never Give Up Day” and encouraging all citizens to join in making this day a springboard for awarenessraising actions.

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

Parks and Recreation Commission One Opening
Commission for the Prevention of Violence
Against Women
One opening
Public Hearing
If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.

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

August 23, 2022 City Council 12
City Council Agenda Legislative History Addendum
No information was submitted.

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

The Addendum is a listing of information specific to City Council business, but which does not appear on a Council meeting agenda. Such entities would include, but not be limited to: Court decisions, Coastal Commission Appeals of City Council actions, Closed Session Agreements/Settlements, which are public record, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Local Agency Formation Commission. 1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sasha Lydon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Council Meeting 8/23/22 agenda item one Contract Negotiations Dear City Council,
Given what your offer was when last I wrote and what your offer is now I can only presume that you didn’t read my last letter.

Once again I can’t come to the meeting or call in because I’m busy. I work for you, billing our SCMU customers and stimulating revenue so that you can continue to let people miss manage city funds.

We were out of contract in April, it’s the end of August. You or your representative’s seemed to think that asking the public for an increase in sales tax after a pandemic and during the largest inflation hike in decades would go down well, intimating that we had to wait for that to be approved to bargain. I never thought that fragrant piece of excrement would pass and I’m surprised it did as well as it did, but in the end you offered us big eyes, a sob story and bag of nothing in your Last best and final offer.

You are going to have to do better than that. I’m tired of working in a place where the city pays money to put up signs that say you appreciate us, when you clearly don’t. I’d like you to add the cost of that imbecility to our cola (there are way too many stupid ways you’ve spent money for me to list but I think a 10% cola is fully justified).

You offer us a Bonus, that won’t pay for half or even a third of most people’s monthly rent. Did you see that lovely article that talked about how to meet the average rent for a two bedroom apartment in Santa Cruz you need to make $65 dollars an hour? That we are the 2nd most expensive place to live in the country, behind San Francisco? TL: DR.

Give us a fair salary increase. Squeeze until it hurts your pet projects, I for one am done putting you before me.

Sasha Lydon
Utility Account Specialist.

Water Dept.
8/22/22

P.S. I because I’m so outraged about this whole situation, I am trying to commit to not spending money in the city limits. I feel sorry for the local businesses but I’d rather generate sales taxes elsewhere.

1.1 Meeting Type
Holiday
Jewish Holiday
Regular Meeting
Special Meeting
Study Session (will be added as scheduled)
Budget Hearing
DATE Location Meeting Type
September 5
Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public September 25/26
Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public October 4/5
Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public November 11
Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public November 24
November 25
December 18/19
Council Chambers/Zoom Closed Session ‐ Closed to the Public Council Chambers/Zoom Council Regular Meeting ‐ Open to the Public December 25
City Council Meeting Calendar for 2022
November 22
December 13
City Hall Closure ‐ Thanksgiving Day
City Hall Closure ‐ Day After Thanksgiving Day
September 13
September 27
Please note: Meeting times are not final and are likely to change City Hall Closure ‐ Labor Day
December 27 Meeting Cancelled ‐ CITY COUNCIL DARK
City Hall Closure ‐ Christmas Day
Hanukkah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
Yom Kippur (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
Rosh Hashanah (City observed ‐  sundown to sundown)
November 8
October 11
October 25
City Hall Closure ‐ Veteran's Day (observed)

3.1 Council Membership in City Groups and Outside Agencies (2022) – Updated May 24, 2022 (LAFCO City-seat term ended in May) Councilmembers may provide direction, request additional information or that a topic raised be agendized for future Council action. The Presiding Officer may request oral updates from Council Ad Hoc Committees.

City Council Standing Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff Community Programs Watkins, Brown, Kalantari-Johnson Tiffany Wise-West Public Safety Watkins, Golder, Cummings Emeline Nguyen
City Council Ad Hoc Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee Brown, Watkins, Brunner Laura Schmidt Oversized Vehicles Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, Brunner Brian Borguno Charter Amendment Committee Meyers, Golder, Watkins
Beach Flats Parking Subcommittee Cummings, Brown, Brunner Brian Borguno Health in All Policies Committee Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson, Watkins Tiffany Wise-West External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG)
Cummings, Brown (alternate) Lee Butler
City–Santa Cruz City Schools Committee Watkins, Golder, Kalantari-Johnson Tony Elliot City Select Committee Brunner Matt Huffaker
Library Financing Authority Brunner, Watkins (alternate) Matt Huffaker Homelessness 2x2 Committee Watkins, Brunner Lee Butler
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (City Nominee) Brown Tiffany Wise-West Central Coast Community Energy Policy Board
Central Coast Community Energy Operations Board
Meyers, Brunner (alternate)
Mark Dettle, Tiffany Wise-West (alternate)
Mark Dettle
Santa Cruz County Integrated Waste Management Local
Task Force
Golder, Cummings (alternate)
Bob Nelson, Leslie
O’Malley (staff
alternate)
Santa Cruz County Consolidated Redevelopment
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Meyers Bonnie Lipscomb
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board (METRO) Meyers, Kalantari-Johnson Claire Gallogly Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC)
Brown, Golder (alternate) Nathan Nguyen
Claire Gallogly
(alternate)
Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Councilmember Meyers, Water Commissioner David Baskin, Water Commissioner Doug Engfer (alternate)
Rosemary Menard

4.1 External Governmental Agencies/ Intergovernmental
Coordinating Committees Councilmember Assigned Staff
Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency Water Commissioner Doug Engfer, Former Water Commissioner David Baskin (citizen alternate)
Rosemary Menard
Joint Powers Authorities/City Groups Staff Appointments Agency Contact Information Santa Cruz County Animal Services
Authority
Laura Schmidt, Bernie Escalante Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority 2200 7th Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
https://www.scanimalshelter.org/
Santa Cruz Public Libraries Matt Huffaker Santa Cruz Public Libraries 117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
https://www.santacruzpl.org/
Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 Laura Schmidt Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 495 Upper Park Rd.

Santa Cruz, CA 95065
(831) 471-1000
External Community Organizations Councilmember/Staff Agency Contact Information Area Agency on Aging (AAA) Advisory
Council
Brown, Brunner (Council alternate), Rita
Hester (citizen alternate)
Seniors Council, Clay Kempf
234 Santa Cruz Ave.

Aptos, CA 95003
Phone: (831) 688-0400
Climate Action Task Force Cummings, Dr. Tiffany Wise-West (staff) Dr. Tiffany Wise-West [email protected]
Cowell Working Group Meyers, Tony Elliot (staff) CWG Facilitated by Save the Waves Criminal Justice Council Cummings, Kalantari-Johnson (alternate), Bernie Escalante
Criminal Justice Council of Santa Cruz County
[email protected]
Downtown Management Corporation Meyers, Cummings, Bonnie Lipscomb (staff) Downtown Management Corporation [email protected]
337 Locust Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Santa Cruz County Youth Action Network
Kalantari-Johnson
[email protected]
United Way of Santa Cruz County
4450 Capitola Rd, Ste 106
Capitola, CA 95010
Santa Cruz Community Farmers’ Market Watkins, Brunner (alternate) Bonnie Lipscomb (staff)
Mr. Nesh Dillon Executive Director SCCFM
P.O. Box 8189
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Visit Santa Cruz County Watkins, Brunner, Bonnie Lipscomb (staff) Visit Santa Cruz County 303 Water Street, Suite 100
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
800-833-3494 or 831-425-1234
Community Action Board (CAB) Kalantari-Johnson, Eve Bertram, UCSC Professor (alternate)
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.
406 Main St. STE 207
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-763-2147

4.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Extending the Emergency Declaration in Connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire by Sixty (60) Days (CA) RECOMMENDATION: Resolution extending by sixty days the Local Emergency Declaration in connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire.

BACKGROUND: The CZU August Lightning Complex Fire that began on August 15, 2020, has caused unprecedented damage and destruction in areas of Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties immediately north of the City of Santa Cruz, and currently constitutes a severe threat to portions of the City and vital City-owned infrastructure in areas of unincorporated Santa Cruz County.

DISCUSSION: Chapter 2.20 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code, at Section 2.20.030, empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity or disaster, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the “earliest practicable time.” During the existence of such emergency, the Director of Emergency Services is also authorized, pursuant to Section 2.20.040(1), to “[m]ake and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency,” also subject to confirmation by the City Council “at the earliest practicable time.” In view of the facts and circumstances described above, on Friday, August 21, 2020, the City Manager declared the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Cruz. At its August 25, 2020 regular meeting, the City Council ratified the emergency declaration by Resolution No.

NS-29,704, and the Executive Orders issued pursuant thereto. At its October 27, 2020 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,731 declaring the existence of a State of Emergency in connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire, confirming the proclamation of same dated August 21, 2020 by the Director of Emergency Services, and ratifying Executive Order 2020-19 issued pursuant thereto. At its regular meetings of December 8, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 9, 2021, April 27, 2021, and June 22, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,750, NS-29,765, NS-29,781, NS-29-803, and NS-29,840, further extending the declaration of emergency by 60 days. At its special meeting of September 21, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,872, further extending the declaration of emergency by another 60 days. At its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, and June 28, 2022 the Council adopted

5.1 Resolution Nos. NS-29,885, NS-29,899, NS-29-925, NS-29-940, NS-29-974, and NS-30,007, further extending the declaration of emergency by another 60 days.

The attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council, would extend the emergency declaration related to the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire emergency by an additional 60 days, to October 22, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: Actions taken by the City during a declared emergency are potentially recoverable from Cal OES (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council extend the declaration of emergency as provided for herein until it has determined that conditions giving rise to the emergency have been abated.

Prepared By:

Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

5.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

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

LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CZU AUGUST

LIGHTNING COMPLEX FIRE
WHEREAS, under Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) § 2.20.030, the City Manager serves as the Emergency Services Director, and empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity or disaster; and

WHEREAS, in the event of an emergency declaration, as the Emergency Services Director, the City Manager has the authority to take various actions in the City’s interest, including making and issuing “rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency” subject to ratification by the City Council “at the earliest practicable time.” (SCMC § 2.20.040); and WHEREAS, the wildfires known as the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire that began on August 15, 2020 have destroyed structures and threatened numerous residences and acres of valuable wildland and watershed resulting in evacuations and displacement of residents, road closures, areas of isolation, damage to property and utility systems and damage to critical infrastructure and endangered species within unincorporated areas of Northern Santa Cruz County, and currently constitute an imminent threat to portions of the City, as well as vital City infrastructure located outside of City boundaries; and WHEREAS, while the wildfires are contained, as of this date, they have charred tens of thousands of acres in the Counties of Santa Cruz and San Mateo, damaged or destroyed over 900 residences and buildings, and will displace hundreds of residents for several months, if not permanently, many of whom are seeking shelter in the City of Santa Cruz; and WHEREAS, the San Lorenzo River watershed contains significant portions of the area damaged by the wildfires, and the City continues to monitor post-fire hazards and water quality impacts; and
WHEREAS, efforts to assist the affected population and restore the burned area and/or recover from the effects of the wildfire damage, involve assets from Santa Cruz County, City of Santa Cruz, other local governments in Santa Cruz County, and other local governments within California, as well as California State and federal fire and law enforcement assets, the American Red Cross and other volunteer organizations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to his authority as Emergency Services Director, on August 21, 2020, the City Manager declared the existence of a local emergency in light of the foregoing; and

5.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
Meeting of: August 23, 2022
2 WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2020 regular meeting the City Council declared a local emergency, and ratified Executive Order No. 2020-17 – Closing All Off-Trail Open Space Areas within Pogonip and Sycamore Grove, by Resolution No. NS-29,704; and WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-29,731 declaring the existence of a State of Emergency in connection with the CZU August Lightning Complex Fire, confirming the proclamation of same dated August 21, 2020 by the Director of Emergency Services, and ratifying Executive Order 2020-19 issued pursuant thereto; and
WHEREAS, at its December 8, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,750, extending the declaration of emergency to February 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, at its January 26, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-29,765, extending the declaration of emergency to March 27, 2021; and WHEREAS, at its March 9, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-29,781, extending the declaration of emergency to May 8, 2021; and WHEREAS, at its April 27, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-29,803, extending the declaration of emergency to June 26, 2021; and WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No.

NS-29,840, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its September 21, 2021 special meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,872, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its November 9, 2021 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29, 885, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its December 14, 2021 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29-899, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its February 8, 2022 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,925, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2022 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-940, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2022 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-974, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and WHEREAS, at its June 28, 2022 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-30,007, extending the declaration of emergency for another 60 days; and

5.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
Meeting of: August 23, 2022
3 WHEREAS, although the CZU Lightning Complex fire has been contained, areas of open space, including Pogonip and Sycamore Grove remain in a an extremely dry and fire prone condition, making the risk of wildfire caused by campfires associated with illegal encampments particularly grave; and
WHEREAS, the risk of severe wildfire is further exacerbated by current serious drought conditions and decreasing water supply; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City’s emergency response to the CZU Lightning Complex fire will likely be ongoing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to his authority as Emergency Services Director, the City Manager has issued the following executive orders relating to the CZU Lightning Complex Fire emergency:

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

A. That the City Council hereby declares that the local health emergency declaration adopted at its August 25, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,704, and confirmed and readopted at its October 27, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,731, extended an additional 60 days on December 8, 2020 by Resolution No. NS-29,750, January 26, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,765, March 9, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29-781, April 27, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,803, June 22, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,840, and the local health emergency extended an additional 60 days at its special meeting on September 21, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,872, extended an additional 60 days at its regular meeting on November 9, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, and June 28, 2022 by Resolution Nos. NS-29,885, NS-29,899, NS-29,925, NS-29,940, NS29-974, and NS-30,007, shall be extended an additional sixty (60) days from its adoption pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630, et seq., by this Resolution; and B. That, all previously ratified Executive Orders shall remain in force and effect for the duration the emergency, unless sooner rescinded by subsequent City Council action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

5.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
Meeting of: August 23, 2022
4 APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

5.6 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Extending the Emergency Declaration in Connection with the COVID-19 Pandemic by Sixty (60) Days (CA)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution extending by sixty days the Declaration of Emergency in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: At its regular meeting of March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,640 declaring a local health emergency in connection with the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Council’s action followed similar actions by California Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020, and by County of Santa Cruz Health Officer (CHO) Gail Newel on March 6, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the CHO issued a Public Health Order, requiring all Santa Cruz County residents to shelter in place to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the community, and requiring all businesses to cease operations, except for those deemed essential businesses.

On June 15, 2021, as a result of declining positive case counts and hospitalizations, the Governor rescinded a number of restrictions he had instituted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The Governor did not, however, rescind the proclamation of the State of Emergency he issued on March 4, 2020. Shortly after the Governor rescinded the restrictions, positive cases and hospitalizations began to rise locally and across the state due to the emergence of the highly contagious delta variant. Another COVID-19 variant, known as the omicron variant, emerged in late 2021. The omicron variant quickly became, and still remains, the dominant variant in California and throughout the United States.

On February 25, 2022 and June 17, 2022, as a result of vaccinations rates among Californians and the release of the Governor’s SMARTER Plan, the Governor again rescinded a number of restrictions he had instituted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The Governor did not rescind the proclamation of the State of Emergency he issued on March 4, 2020.

Positive cases and hospitalizations continue to fluctuate, with variants of the virus demonstrating the nature of the pandemic is unpredictable and transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly. Further, variants of the virus continue to emerge, and it is unknown at this time whether such variants may result in a new surge in COVID-19 cases.

6.1 The Council has received updates at its regular meetings related to COVID-19 and has extended the March 10, 2020 declaration of local health emergency at its regular meetings of April 28, 2020, June 23, 2020, August 11, 2020, September 22, 2020, November 10, 2020, December 8, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 9, 2021, April 27, 2021, and June 22, 2021, by adopting Resolution Nos. NS-29,653, NS-29,677, NS-29,695, NS-29,714, NS-29,739, NS-29,749, NS29,766, NS-29,782, NS-29,802, and NS-29,839, at its special meeting of September 21, 2021 by adopting Resolution No. NS-29,873, at its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, December 14, 2021, February 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, May 10, 2022, and June 28, 2022, by adopting Resolution Nos. NS-29,884, NS-29,898, NS-29,924, NS-29,941, NS-29,973 and NS-30,006.

DISCUSSION: During a declared emergency the City Manager, acting as the City’s Emergency Services Director is empowered to take various actions in response to the emergency, including making and issuing “rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency” subject to ratification by the City Council “at the earliest practicable time.” The Resolution would extend the emergency declaration by sixty days from the date of its adoption, to October 22, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: Actions taken by the City during a declared emergency relating to the response and measures taken to slow the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic and mitigate the effects thereof on our community are potentially recoverable from Cal OES (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council extend the declaration of emergency as provided for herein until it has determined that conditions giving rise to the emergency have been abated.

Prepared By:

Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

6.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ EXTENDING BY 60 DAYS THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency to exist within the State of California due to the threat posed by COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2020, the County of Santa Cruz Health Officer ("Health Officer"), under her civil authority, declared a Local Health Emergency, finding an imminent and proximate threat to public health and welfare from the introduction of COVID-19 in the County of Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, February 25, 2022 and June 17, 2022, in response to declining COVID-19 case counts and hospitalizations, and percentage of vaccinated Californians, the Governor lifted a number of restrictions put in place to decrease the spread of COVID-19 during the initial progression of the pandemic, however, the Governor has not rescinded the March 4, 2020 proclamation of a state of emergency within the State of California; and WHEREAS, despite initial progress made locally and within the state in addressing the pandemic, the emergence of the highly contagious omicron variant continues to cause an increase in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State of California; and WHEREAS, positive cases and hospitalizations continue to fluctuate with variants of the virus demonstrating the nature of the pandemic is unpredictable and transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly as the virus evolves; and
WHEREAS, in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Santa Cruz City Council declared a local health emergency re COVID-19 by Resolution No. NS-29,640 on March 10, 2020, extended the emergency declaration by Resolution No. NS-29,653 adopted at its regular meeting of April 28, 2020, and further extended the emergency declaration by Resolution Nos. NS-29,677 on June 23, 2020, NS-29,695 on August 11, 2020, NS 29,714 on September 22, 2020, NS-29,739 on November 10, 2020, NS-29,749 on December 8, 2020, NS-29,766, on January 26, 2021, NS29,782, on March 9, 2021, NS-29,802 on April 27, 2021, and NS-29,839 on June 22, 2021, at its special meeting of September 21, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,873, at its regular meeting of November 9, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29,884, and at its regular meeting of December 14, 2021 by Resolution No. NS-29-898, at its regular meeting of February 8, 2022 by Resolution No. NS29,924, at its regular meeting of March 22, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,941, at its regular meeting of May 10, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,973, and at its regular meeting of June 28, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-30,006, extending the Declaration of Emergency for another sixty days.

WHEREAS, under the California Emergency Services Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 8630, et seq.), upon declaration of a local emergency, the City Council must review the need for continuing

6.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 the emergency declaration at least once every sixty (60) days until it terminates the local emergency; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:

A. That the City Council hereby declares that the local health emergency declaration adopted at its March 10, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,640, extended at its April 28, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,653, at its June 23, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,677, at its August 11, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,695, at its September 22, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-19,714, at its November 10, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,739, at its December 8, 2020 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,749, at its January 26, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,766, at its March 9, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,782, at its April 27, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,802, at its June 22, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,839, at its September 21, 2021 special meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,873, at its November 9, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29, 884, at its December 14, 2021 regular meeting by Resolution No.

NS-29,898, at its February 8, 2022 regular meeting by Resolution No. NS-29,924, at its regular meeting of March 22, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,941, at its regular meeting of May 10, 2022 by Resolution No. NS-29,973, and at its regular meeting of June 28, 2022 by Resolution No. 30,006, shall be adopted and extended an additional sixty (60) days pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630, et seq., by this Resolution; and
B. That this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and shall thereafter terminate on the sixtieth (60th) day after its adoption, unless earlier terminated or further extended by subsequent City Council action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

6.4 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

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

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

DISCUSSION: AB 361 allows for teleconferenced meetings during a declared State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, if one of the following circumstances apply: (1) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (2) The legislative body is meeting to determine whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (3) The legislative body has determined that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.1 The Governor’s March 4, 2020 proclamation of State of Emergency is still in effect. Measures continue to exist that impose and recommend measures to promote social distancing. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) requires that all individuals wear masks indoors in specific, high-risk settings.2 Further, the CDPH and the Santa Cruz County Health 1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(1)(A)-(C)
2 See CDPH, Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (Updated April 20, 2022), https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx.

7.1 Officer strongly recommend that all individuals continue to wear masks in indoor public settings.3
The highly transmissible omicron variant continues to contribute to the increase in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State. Additionally, other variants of COVID-19 exist, and it is unknown at this time whether other variants may result in a new surge in COVID19 cases. As such, holding meetings in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees due to the continued spread of COVID-19.

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

At its regular meeting of October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,877, authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. At its regular meetings of November 9, 2021, November 23, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, June 28, 2022, and August 9, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, NS-29,894, NS-29,900, NS-29,915, NS29,923, NS-29,933, NS-29,942, NS-29,954, NS-29,975, NS-29,987, NS 29,994, NS-30,005, and NS-30,017, further authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue using teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361.

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

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Stephanie Duck
Deputy City Attorney
Submitted By:

Tony Condotti
City Attorney
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
3 See Press Release, Twelve Bay Area Health Officers to Life Most Indoor Mask Mandates on February 16 (Feb. 9, 2022), https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/02.09.22%20ABAHO%20Masking_FINAL.pdf.

See also, BAY AREA HEALTH OFFICERS URGE PUBLIC TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AS COVID LEVELS RISE (May 13, 2022),
https://www.santacruzhealth.org/Portals/7/pdfs/Coronavirus/ABAHOMaskRecommendationENG.05132022.pdf. 4 Cal. Gov’t Code § 54953(e)(3).

7.2 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX

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

THE CONTINUED USE OF TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, due to the threat of COVID-19, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which suspended certain requirements of Government Code section 54950 et seq., the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or electronically without a physical meeting place; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which stated that the provision suspending requirements of the Brown Act in Executive Order N-29-20 would remain in effect through September 30, 2021, at which point the suspensions would expire; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 into law, an urgency measure effective upon adoption, amending the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely during a proclaimed State of Emergency, and either state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees;
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29, 877, making its initial finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, June 28, 2022, and August 9, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. NS-29,886, NS-29,894, NS-29,900, NS-29,915, NS-29,923, NS-29,933, NS29,942, NS-29,954, NS-29,975, NS-29,987, NS-29,994, NS-30,005, and NS-30,017, each making a subsequent finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to conduct remote teleconference meetings; and WHEREAS, as a condition of authorizing the continued use of teleconferenced meetings, the City Council must, every 30 days, reconsider the circumstances of the State of Emergency that exists in the City and the City Council has done so; and WHEREAS, the State of Emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, remains in effect; and

7.3 2
WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health and the Santa Cruz County Health Officer require that all individuals wear face coverings indoors in specified high-risk settings, and continue to strongly recommend that all individuals wear face coverings in indoor public settings; and
WHEREAS, the highly contagious omicron variant continues contribute to the increase in positive cases and hospitalizations locally and throughout the State of California, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of the pandemic, and that transmission rates have the potential to rise quickly; and
WHEREAS, other variants of COVID-19 exist, including an Omicron subvariant, BA.2, and it is unknown at this time whether this or other variants may result in a new surge in COVID-19 cases; and
WHEREAS, due to the continued impact of COVID-19, the City continues to be concerned about the health and safety of attendees at public meetings should they be held in person and in a shared indoor public meeting space, as such, the City Council desires to take the actions necessary to comply with AB 361 and to continue to hold its meetings remotely; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (City Council) as follows:

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

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

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

7.4 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

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

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 9, 2022
12:30 PM
Mayor Brunner opened the City Council Closed Session at 12:30 p.m. in a public meeting in Council Chambers, for the purpose of announcing the agenda, and receiving public testimony.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins (arrived at 12:34 p.m.); Mayor Brunner.

Absent: Councilmember Golder.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb, Human Resources Director L. Murphy, Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

Public Comment
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period at 12:34 p.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period at 12:35 p.m.

8.1 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6172
Referral to Closed Session

1. City-owned Property Located on Mount Hermon Road in Scotts Valley, CA, APNs 022-721-07, 022-721-08, and 002-721-09 (ED)
MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to refer to Closed Session for discussion regarding price, terms of payment, or both.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Councilmember Meyers announced that she will be recusing herself from voting on item 2 as her spouse’s income comes from the owners of 333 Locust Street.

2. 333 Locust Street, APN 005-033-03 (ED)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to refer to Closed Session for discussion regarding price, terms of payment, or both.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Golder.

DISQUALIFIED: Councilmember Meyers.

Closed Session

3. Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) 1) Claimant: Denise Susan Barr
2) Claimant: Progressive West Insurance Company
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz

8.2 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6173
Closed Session (continued)

4. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy

5. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)) 1) City of South Miami v. DeSantis
11th Cir. No. 21-13657 (request for amicus curiae joinder) 2) City of Santa Cruz v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00373)
3) Sunset Farms, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01725

8.3 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6174
Closed Session (continued)

6. Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8) 1) Property: Approximately 8.15 acres located on Mount Hermon Road in Scotts Valley, CA
APNs: 022-721-07, 022-721-08, 022-721-09
Owner: City of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
2) Property: 333 Locust Street
APN: 005-033-03
Owner: Smith Laura Trustee, Mathews William G. and Cynthia S. Trustees, and Smith Sara Wood, Trustee
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Laura Smith Trustee et al.

Under Negotiation: Potential Acquisition including price, terms of payment, or both
At this time, the meeting was closed to the public. (See pages 6176—6177 for a report on Closed Session.)

8.4 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6175
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 9, 2022
3:00 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Brunner called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder (arrived at 3:21 p.m.), Cummings, Brown, Meyers (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt, City Attorney T. Condotti, Director of Public Works M. Dettle (via Zoom), Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler (via Zoom), Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Human Resources Director L. Murphy (via Zoom), Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Water Director R. Menard (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Finance Director E. Cabell, Senior Civil Engineer J.

Spangrud, Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen, Senior Planner T. Maier (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J.

Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

Presentations

7. Central Coast Community Energy Annual Update
Gabe Ruiz, Senior Commercial Accounts Manager with the Central Coast Community Energy, provided the membership annual update.

Presiding Officer's Announcements
Statements of Disqualification – None.

Additions and Deletions – None.

8.5 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6176
City Attorney Report on Closed Session
Conference With Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Government Code §54956.95) 1) Claimant: Denise Susan Barr
2) Claimant: Progressive West Insurance Company
Claims against the City of Santa Cruz
Council received a status report, took up under agenda item 16, and took no reportable action.

Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) SEIU Temporary Employees
SEIU Service Employees
Mid Managers, OE3
Supervisors, OE3
Fire Management
Fire, IAFF
Police Management
Police Officers Association
Executives
City Negotiator - Lisa Murphy
Council received a status report from the City Negotiator, and took no reportable action.

8.6 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6177
City Attorney Report on Closed Session (continued)
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)) 1) City of South Miami v. DeSantis
11th Cir. No. 21-13657 (request for amicus curiae joinder) 2) City of Santa Cruz v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 22CV00373)
3) Sunset Farms, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01725
Council received a status report on the City of South Miami v. DeSantis, and by motion voted 6 in favor and 0 opposed, with Councilmember Golder absent, to join an amicus curiae brief being prepared by the County of Santa Clara and is currently pending in the 11th circuit court of appeals. Council received a status report on the remaining two items and took no reportable action.

Real Property Negotiations (Government Code §54956.8)
1) Property: Approximately 8.15 acres located on Mount Hermon Road in Scotts Valley, CA
APNs: 022-721-07, 022-721-08, 022-721-09
Owner: City of Santa Cruz
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment, or both
2) Property: 333 Locust Street
APN: 005-033-03
Owner: Smith Laura Trustee, Mathews William G. and Cynthia S. Trustees, and Smith Sara Wood, Trustee
City Negotiator: Bonnie Lipscomb
Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Cruz and Laura Smith Trustee et al.

Under Negotiation: Potential Acquisition including price, terms of payment, or both
Council, with the exception of Councilmember Meyers, received a status report from the City Negotiator and took no reportable action.

8.7 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6178
City Manager Report

8. The City Manager provided a report and updates on the City's business and events of interest.

City Manager M. Huffaker provided updates and responded to Councilmember questions on the November 2022 elections, new downtown businesses, the Newell Creek Dam Project, pursuing additional revenue streams after the failing of Measure F, and homelessness response.

Council Meeting Calendar

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

Consent Agenda
Councilmember Cummings pulled item 14 for further discussion.

Vice Mayor Watkins made a comment on item 15.

Councilmember Brown made a comment on item 22.

Senior Civil Engineer J. Spangrud and Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer N. Nguyen responded to Councilmember Cummings’ questions regarding item 18.

Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. The following person spoke via teleconference:

Unidentified person spoke regarding item 18.

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

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

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

8.8 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6179
Consent Agenda (continued)

10. Resolution Authorizing the City to Continue Teleconferenced Public Meetings Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 (CA)
Resolution No. NS-30,017 was adopted authorizing legislative bodies of the City of Santa Cruz to continue the use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

11. Minutes of the June 28, 2022 City Council Meeting (CC) Motion carried to approve as submitted.

12. Certification of Canvass of the June 7, 2022 Primary Election (CC) Resolution No. NS-30,018 was adopted confirming and approving the certificate of canvass of ballots and returns for the City of Santa Cruz Primary Election held on June 7, 2022, and declaring the following results:
• Measure E (District Elections) passed by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Santa Cruz, thus amending the City’s Charter and transitioning to six council districts and an at-large Mayor beginning at the November 8, 2022 election.
• Measure F (Sales and Use Tax) failed, with a majority of the electorate of the City of Santa Cruz voting against.

13. Resolution Ordering an Election for Two Council Seats, Districts 4 and 6, and Mayor for the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election (CC) Resolution No. NS-30,019 was adopted ordering an election, requesting the County Elections Department to conduct the election, and requesting consolidation of the election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election.

8.9 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6180
Consent Agenda (continued)

14. Support for the Protection of Reproductive Rights and Various California Legislative Bills (CN)
Councilmember Cummings, Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, and Vice Mayor Watkins made a comment.

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

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to:
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,020 expressing the Santa Cruz City Council’s support for the protection of reproductive rights; and
 Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to state legislators on behalf of the City Council in support of California Assembly Bill 133 (AB 133), Senate Bill 245 (SB 245), Assembly Bill 1356 (AB 1356), Assembly Bill 1666 (AB 1666), Assembly Bill 1918 (AB 1918), Assembly Bill 2091 (AB 2091), Assembly Bill 2134 (AB 2134), Assembly Bill 2223 (AB 2223), Assembly Bill 2626 (AB 2626), and Senate Bill 374 (SB 374).
 Direct staff to return to Council no later than the second meeting in September with a resolution to formally endorse and support California Proposition 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which, if passed would support amending the State Constitution to prohibit the State from interfering with or denying an individual's reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and a right to contraceptives.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

15. Sister Cities Committee Member Code of Conduct Issues (CN) Resolution No. NS-30,021 was adopted admonishing a Sister Cities Committee Member for disrespectful conduct toward a City employee.

8.10 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6181
Consent Agenda (continued)

16. Liability Claims Filed Against the City of Santa Cruz (FN) Motion carried to reject the liability claim of a) Denise Susan Barr; and to return as late the claim of b) Progressive West Insurance Company, based on staff recommendation.

17. Water Street Signal Interconnect Conduit Project (c401602) – Notice of Completion (PW)
Motion carried to accept the work of Alfaro Communications Construction, Inc. (Compton, CA) as completed per the plans and specifications and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for Water Street Signal Interconnect Conduit Project (c401602).

18. State Route 1/9 Intersection Improvements (c400805) – Contract Amendment 1 (PW)
Motion carried to approve Contract Amendment 1 to an agreement with WSP USA, Inc. (Dallas, TX) to provide construction management services for the State Route 1/9 Intersection Improvement Project (c400805).

19. CCTV Inspection Van – Award Contract (PW)
Motion carried to award a contract for the purchase of one replacement CCTV Inspection Van from Jack Doheny Company (Antioch, CA) in the amount of $316,705.14.

20. Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Gate Entrance Replacement Project – Notice of Completion (WT)
Motion carried to accept the work of Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA) as complete per the plans and specifications and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Gate Entrance Replacement Project and to authorize the Water Director to sign the Notice of Completion as the Owner’s Authorized Agent.

8.11 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6182
Consent Agenda (continued)

21. Resolution to Reimburse Capital Expenditures from Future State Water Resources Control Board Financing for Newell Creek Pipeline Replacement Project (WT)
Resolution No. NS-30,022 was adopted authorizing the Water Department to be reimbursed by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for costs related to the Newell Creek Pipeline Replacement Project.

22. Santa Cruz Grand Jury Response (WT)
Motion carried to authorize the Mayor to respond to the Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz.

23. Beltz Water Treatment Plant Filter Rehabilitation Project – Notice of Completion (WT)
Motion carried to accept the work of ERS Industrial Services, Inc. (Fremont, CA) as complete per the plans and specifications and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Beltz Water Treatment Plant Filter Rehabiliation Project and to authorize the Water Director to sign the Notice of Completion as the Owner’s Authorized Agent.

24. Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project – Notice of Completion (WT) Motion carried to accept the work of Granite Rock Construction, Inc. (Watsonville, CA) as complete per plans and specifications and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Laguna Creek Diversion Retrofit Project and to authorize the Water Director to sign the Notice of Completion as the Owner’s Authorized Agent.

25. Ratification of $100,000 Application Fee for Water Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act Loan and Related Budget Adjustment (WT)
Resolution No. NS-30,023 was adopted to approve the budget adjustment ratifying the July 15, 2022 payment of $100,000 Water Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act application fee and appropriating funds from the Water Department FY 2023 budget for the application fee.

End Consent Agenda

8.12 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6183
Consent Public Hearings
Senior Planner T. Maier spoke regarding item 27, informing Council of the following amendments made to item 17 on the Conditions of Approval.

From:

Prior to recordation of the revised subdivision map, the El Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association (“HOA”) shall vote on the annexation of the market-rate lot (formerly Lot B). The applicant shall submit official meeting minutes as evidence of the vote. If the vote supports annexation, the annexation shall be formalized prior to map recordation. If the vote does not support annexation, it shall not be required in order to amend the map. This would not preclude the El Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association and the owner of Lot B from mutually agreeing to annex the property into the HOA in the future.

To:

1. Prior to recordation of the revised subdivision map, the applicant shall request a vote of the Rancho Carbonera Owners Association (“HOA”) regarding the annexation of the market-rate lot (formerly Lot B). The applicant shall submit official meeting minutes and/or other appropriate evidence of the request and action by the HOA in response to the request. Should the HOA approve the annexation of the market-rate lot, such annexation shall be formalized prior to map recordation. If, following the applicant’s request for a vote of the HOA regarding annexation of the market-rate lot,
1) a vote of the HOA does not occur within a period of six (6) months and result in support for annexation;
or,
2) if all measures necessary to effect final action on the annexation cannot be secured within a total period of twelve (12) months following the applicant’s request, annexation of the market-rate lot shall not be required in order to amend the map.
“Final action,” as used herein, shall mean any and all legal actions necessary to approve the annexation including, but not limited to, obtaining consent of existing lenders to the annexation, to the extent needed in order for the HOA to take final action. This would not preclude the Rancho Carbonera Owners Association and the owner of Lot B from mutually agreeing to annex the property into the HOA in the future. Should the applicant and/or owner seek modification to the above-mentioned time periods, such revision may be considered through an application for Minor Modification, subject to review and approval per City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 24.04.160 on a time/materials basis.

8.13 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6184
Consent Public Hearings (continued)
Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers. Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Golder moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to approve the Consent Public Hearing Agenda.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

26. 2nd Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-11 Second Amendment of the 555 Pacific Avenue Apartments Development Agreement (ED/PL) Motion carried to adopt Ordinance No. 2022-11 approving the second amendment of the development agreement between Green Valley Corporation and the City of Santa Cruz for 94 residential condominiums and 4,680 square feet of commercial space within four separate tenant spaces fronting on Pacific Avenue at 555 Pacific Avenue.

27. 109 S. Rapetta Rd. (Application No. CP21-0060) - Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 008-391-15, -16, and -18 – Final Map Amendment and Major Modification to Planned Development Permit #97-279 to Amend the El Rancho Carbonera Subdivision Map and Modify Lot B to Allow For Residential Development on a Parcel Located in the R-1-7 (Single Family Residence) Zoning District (PL) Resolution No. NS-30,024 was adopted with the amendments made by staff, acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Final Map Amendment and Major Modification, as designed in Alternative 2, to allow for residential development on Lot B in the El Rancho Carbonera Subdivision subject to the attached conditions of approval.

8.14 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6185
General Business

28. Transportation and Public Works Commission Appointment (CC) Mayor Brunner opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.

Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

Councilmember Cummings nominated Chad Mitcham.

Councilmember Meyers nominated Ryan Meckel.

Voting for Ryan Meckel: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

Voting for Chad Mitcham: Councilmembers Cummings, Brown.

Ryan Meckel was appointed to the Transportation and Public Works Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2024.

29. Resolution Requesting the Placement of a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase on the Ballot of the November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election (CN)
Mayor Brunner gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

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

Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Casey Beyer
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

8.15 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6186
General Business (continued)

29. Resolution Requesting the Placement of a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase on the Ballot of the November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election (CN) (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Golder moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins, to:
 Accept an update on the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee; and
 Adopt Resolution No. NS-30,025 requesting that the consolidated November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election include a general purpose tax measure proposing that the City of Santa Cruz’ current Transient Occupancy Tax rate of eleven percent (11%) be increased to twelve percent (12%) for hotels, motels, inns, and other commercial lodging facilities; and from eleven percent (11%) to fourteen percent (14%) for short-term residential vacation rental properties; and
 Support the measure for the purposes of: authorizing arguments; providing direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.

City Manager M. Huffaker responded to Councilmember questions.

Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb spoke.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Recess - The City Council recessed at 4:42 p.m. to the 5:30 p.m. session.

8.16 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6187
Oral Communications
5:30 PM
Oral Communications Announcement - The Mayor provided a brief announcement about Oral Communications.

Oral Communications
At 5:32 p.m. Mayor Brunner opened Oral Communications for members of the public who wished to speak regarding items not listed on the City Council agenda.

G. Lee Young spoke regarding Men Overcoming Abusive or Angry Behavior (MOAAB), letting Council know their meetings have resumed since the onset of the COVID pandemic.

Andy Werner spoke, thanking Council for the proclamation declaring June 30th as Andy Werner day.

Unidentified person spoke regarding an upcoming meeting about the Benchlands encampment.

Unidentified person spoke regarding natural springs on West Cliff Drive that have become polluted.

Unidentified person spoke regarding the food scrap program.

Unidentified person spoke regarding the trolley not operating and suggested building a tunnel from Pacific Avenue to the beach.

Serg Kagno spoke regarding Recovery Café Santa Cruz and invited City Councilmembers to visit Recovery Café San Jose.

Keith McHenry spoke regarding Food not Bombs, and invited Council to a meeting about the Benchlands.

Councilmember Brown announced that the Senior Council will be at the Downtown Farmer’s Market, providing food for seniors.

Unidentified person spoke regarding a meeting about the Benchlands, inviting Council to attend.

At 5:51 p.m. Mayor Brunner closed Oral Communications.

Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

8.17 August 9, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6188
Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor

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

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
August 16, 2022
4:00 PM
Call to Order – Vice Mayor Watkins called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner (arrived at 4:10 p.m.).

Absent: None.

Staff: City Manager M. Huffaker, Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti, Water Director R. Menard, Deputy Water Director/Water Engineering Manager H. Luckenbach (via Zoom), Director of Public Works M. Dettle (via Zoom), Chief of Police B.

Escalante (via Zoom), Director of Planning and Community Development L. Butler (via Zoom), Finance Director E. Cabell (via Zoom), Director of Information Technology K. Morgan (via Zoom), Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Director of Parks and Recreation T. Elliot (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush.

General Business

1. Securing Our Water Future City Council Study Session (WT) Water Director R. Menard and Deputy Water Director/Water Engineering Manager H. Luckenbach gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

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

Doug Engfer
Unidentified person
Mayor Brunner closed the public comment period.

9.1 August 16, 2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 6190 Consent Agenda
City Manager M. Huffaker and Elissa Benson, Assistant County Administrative Officer with the County of Santa Cruz, responded to Councilmember Cummings’ question.

Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson made a comment.

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

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

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

2. $5M Short-Term Loan for the Purchase of Watsonville Community Hospital (CM) Motion carried authorizing the City Manager to execute a short-term loan agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of $5 million with the County of Santa Cruz to support the purchase of the Watsonville Community Hospital (WCH) by August 31, 2022.

End Consent Agenda
Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

9.2 August 16, 2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 6191 Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Sonja Brunner, Mayor

9.3 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) Investments Bridge Funding (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Approve recipients for Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) bridge funding contracts; and
2) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate $90,000 from the City’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) for the City’s contribution.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors or Board) approved a phased-in approach to transition from the historical Community Programs funding model to a results-based collective impact model. After extensive research and collaboration with various stakeholders from multiple sectors, the County’s Human Services Department (HSD) Community Programs funding process was renamed Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) Investments.

CORE Investments is both a funding model and a movement designed to improve the health and well-being of county residents. The development of the CORE program Request for Proposal (RFP) has been community informed, Board and Santa Cruz City Council (Council) approved, and staff implemented. This included multiple community stakeholder meetings both to keep stakeholders informed of the RFP development, to gather input on how best to develop the RFP considering the changing needs of the community since the first RFP, and training once the RFP was released. Staff (County and City) provided updates to the Board and Council, keeping elected bodies informed of these community engagement efforts, and having them take action as to the updated model, RFP format, final RFP, proposed recipients, and awarded recipients.

On June 7, 2022, HSD and City staff presented a list of programs recommended for CORE funding, the process followed to implement the RFP, the opportunity to appeal, and the analysis of the recommended awards. The Board and Council voted to approve the recommended awards for the CORE Investments funding. The Board removed one (1) recommended grantee, the Harm Reduction Coalition (HRC) of Santa Cruz County. The Council directed staff to explore transition plans in conjunction with HSD for organizations not recommended for funding and to report back at the next Council meeting.

10.1 On June 28, 2022, the Board and Council approved the FY 2023 CORE List of Recommended Awards and directed staff to execute associated agreements. The Board and Council also directed that staff return on or before December 13, 2022 with a debrief and lessons learned on the RFP process and a CORE program update. The Council further requested an estimate of costs for consultants and administrative staff time as part of that update. Finally, the Board and Council also approved three (3) months of transitional funding, also known as bridge funding, for all FY 2022 CORE programs that applied and were not recommended for FY 2023, with City staff to return in August to provide additional information for this bridge funding.

DISCUSSION: Staff are working to implement the CORE FY 2023 awards, with HSD taking lead on the administrative actions needed. HSD is working closely with all current CORE funded agencies that applied for a continuation of their program to ensure that all eligible agencies receive transition / bridge funding if they had FY 2022 CORE programs and applied for but were not recommended for funding in FY 2023. The proposed transition funding will allow the agencies more time to adjust their budgets and programs.

After detailed analysis, the recommended bridge funding covers 3.5 months for all agencies, regardless of funding level.

HSD is already working with the identified recipients of the bridge funding per the attached list.

Finally, the County has taken the lead, working with the City and the CORE Steering Committee, to develop the CORE lessons learned evaluation methodology. This project will cover the RFP framework, application, evaluation and decision-making process, contracting, and communications and technical assistance. Input will be from all aspects of the CORE community, including applicants (funded and not funded), grant writers, the CORE Steering Committee, elected officials, staff, and RFP panelists. Running from this summer, a final report will be delivered in Spring 2023, with a check-in report back to the Board and Council as directed in December 2022.

Additional Options for current CORE funded agencies not recommended for award HSD also recognizes the important work of community partners, and that sufficient local government funding will always be a challenge. In the coming year, HSD is committed to partnering with the Health Services Agency, other County departments, and other jurisdictions to explore potential other funding opportunities to support the work of Community Based Organizations not recommended for CORE funding.

FISCAL IMPACT: Per June Council action, the City FY 2023 investment for CORE is $1,080,000 and will be dispersed according to the memorandum of understanding with the County. In addition, Council approval of the bridge funding list requires additional funding – this will be covered by a reduction from the City’s FY 2023 Capital Investment Program (CIP) in the amount of $90,000.

Prepared/Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

10.2 ATTACHMENTS:

1. CORE FY 2023 ONE-TIME BRIDGE FUNDING LIST.PDF

2. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT

10.3 CORE FY 2023 One-time Bridge Funding List
Vendor Program
Previous
Program Annual
Funding

3.5 Month Bridge
FY 2023
Total Bridge
FY 2023
Advocacy, Inc. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program $57,500 $16,771 $16,771 Central Coast YMCA Afterschool and Day Camp Program/YF4L $17,000 $4,958 $4,958 Community Bridges Child & Adult Care Food Program $15,000 $4,375 Community Bridges Child Development Division $210,700 $61,454 Community Bridges Elderday $145,000 $42,292
Community Bridges Lift Line $15,000 $4,375
Community Bridges - Family Resource Centers La Manzana Community Resources $163,000 $47,542 Community Bridges - Family Resource Centers Live Oak Community Resources $60,000 $17,500 Community Bridges - Family Resource Centers Mountain Community Resources $154,000 $44,917 Community Bridges - Family Resource Centers Nueva Vista Community Resources $62,700 $18,288 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Court Appointed Special Advocates $103,000 $30,042 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Juvenile Justice Program $10,000 $2,917 Encompass Community Services Mindfulness-Based Medication Assisted Treatment Program $70,000 $20,417 Encompass Community Services TAY (Transition Age Youth) Youth Advocacy Project $52,700 $15,371 Families In Transition Family Housing Stabilization $68,500 $19,979 $19,979 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast I-You Venture $15,000 $4,375 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast Counseling Services $54,100 $15,779 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast Senior Outreach $22,000 $6,417 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast Survivors Healing Center $25,000 $7,292 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast WomenCARE $15,000 $4,375 Housing Matters 180/2020 $171,500 $50,021 $50,021
Janus of Santa Cruz Co-occurring Disorder (COD) Capable $20,000 $5,833 $5,833 Mental Health Client Action Network (MHCAN) Drop-In Center $35,300 $10,296 Mental Health Client Action Network (MHCAN) Motivational Interviewing Peer Support Counseling $40,300 $11,754 New Life Community Services Gemma $60,000 $17,500 $17,500 Pajaro Valley Prevention & Student Assistance Seven Challenges $172,000 $50,167 $50,167 Pajaro Valley Unified School District Healthy Start Program $43,000 $12,542 $12,542 Parents Center Parents Center - paid through HSA $17,000 $4,958 $4,958 Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM) PPMM: Westside & Watsonville Health Centers $121,000 $35,292 $35,292 Salud Para La Gente Coordinated Care Program $200,000 $58,333 $58,333 Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Inc Barrios Unidos Productions Team A $8,000 $2,333 Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Inc Educational Outreach Program $25,000 $7,292 Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Inc Educational Outreach (City) $15,000 $4,375 Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Inc Kids Club (City) $24,000 $7,000 Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center Child Care Services $4,500 $1,313 Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center $71,200 $20,767 Senior Citizen Org of San Lorenzo Valley Senior Outreach and Activities $15,000 $4,375 $4,375 The Diversity Center Connexiones and the Transgender Program $10,000 $2,917 $2,917 YWCA of Watsonville YWCA State Preschool $20,000 $5,833 $5,833 Totals $2,408,000 $702,333 $702,333
$22,079
Previous CORE Program with Annual Funding Below $25,000 $112,496
$128,246
$32,958
$35,788
$38,238
$22,050
$21,000

Page 1 of 1 ends

10.4 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
3XUSRVH

ACCOUNT REVENUE EDEN ACCOUNT TITLE

TOTALREVENUE

ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE EDENACCOUNT TITLE

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY

DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
&0)18VH2QO\

5HVR

%$5HI

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
)LVFDO<HDU

'DWH

&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
Clear Form
2023
08/16/2022
Bridge funding for FY 2022 CORE programs not recommended for funding in FY 2023. 311-00-00-0000-49101 Capital Investment Program from GF -90,000 -90,000
101-00-00-0000-59103 Transfer to CIP -90,000
101-10-00-6102-54990 Misc. Supplies and Services 90,000 0 -90,000
Emeline
Nguyen
Digitally signed by
Emeline Nguyen
Date: 2022.08.16
13:26:14 -07'00'
Laura
Schmidt
Digitally signed by Laura Schmidt
DN: cn=Laura Schmidt, o=City of Santa Cruz, ou=City
Manager's Office - Assitant City Manager,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 13:31:56 -07'00'
Lupita
Alamos
Digitally signed by Lupita Alamos
DN: cn=Lupita Alamos, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected]
, c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 13:53:57 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by Elizabeth Cabell
DN: cn=Elizabeth Cabell, o=City of Santa Cruz,
ou=Finance Department,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 15:29:45 -07'00'

10.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the City of Santa Cruz Personnel Complement and Classification and Compensation Plans for the Santa Cruz Public Libraries (HR)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plans to the FY 2023 Budget Personnel Complement by implementing the Library Board approved Budget/Position and Classification changes in the Library.

BACKGROUND: As part of the Santa Cruz Public Library’s finalization of its strategic plan and 5-year work plan, recommended classification and position changes have been proposed and presented in a Staff Report to the Library Joint Powers Authority Board on August 4, 2022.

DISCUSSION: Over the past several months, the Library conducted various listening sessions with staff. A result of these listening sessions was the confirmation that the Library relies too heavily on temporary staff to keep branches open. This reliance on temporary staff hinders library operations and leads to reduced levels of service, programming, and outreach to the community. It also puts a strain on the behind-the-scenes operations, including pulling professional staff away from librarian duties to help with customer service coverage and the support it takes to schedule temporary staff each day based on changes in daily staffing needs.

The Library would like to take a phased approach to changes in the staffing model by first addressing the branch staff who provide services while the branch is open, described as Phase 1.

Phase 1 seeks to provide adequate staffing levels to create smooth and less stressful operations. It will also ensure staff is trained and professional when providing services to the public, something the Library experienced gaps with when using temporary employees. This approach to staffing will also help the library recruit, train, and retain benefited permanent staff by lessening job fatigue and staff having to fill multiple positions. Phase 1 will ensure excellent customer service while also meeting strategic goals by helping to dedicate Librarian staff to meeting program, outreach, and service needs.

Phase 2 will examine the impact of these changes on front-line library service and the ability to improve programming and outreach to the community.

Phase 1 of the staffing model plans to hire 8.5 FTE Library Assistant II positions throughout the system. The Library intends to fund Phase 1 of the staffing model changes with a portion of the temporary budget and the new MOE funds the Library receives after the recent adoption of the

11.1 LFA 4th Amendment Agreement. Additionally the Library is changing, primarily increasing hours to four existing Library Assistant II positions and combining two 20 hour part time positions into one 40 hour position to four existing positions.

Attrition in the Library Specialist and Information Specialist classifications created the vacancies and opportunities for replacing these positions with both a Community Relations Specialist and Librarian I/II position which better reflects the work duties in both marketing and outreach duties and conducting adult program and services.

The recommended position and classification changes and related expenditures as outlined on the Library’s August 4, 2022 Staff Report to the Library Joint Powers Authority Board have been approved for adjustment to the Library’s FY 2023 Operating Budget. The attached Resolution is being brought to council for administrative implementation of the City’s Classification and Compensation plan.

FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of these FY 2023 Position and Classification changes were approved by the Library Joint Powers Authority Board at its August 4, 2022 meeting as part of the FY 2023 Library’s Adopted Budget
Prepared By:

Cathy Bonino
Principal HR Analyst
Submitted By:

Lisa Murphy
HR Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. LIBRARY STAFF REPORT - AUGUST 4 2022.DOCX

11.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANS – LIBRARY
WHEREAS, staff has recommended certain modifications to the Classification and Compensation Plans.

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

That effective September 3, 2022 the City of Santa Cruz Classification and Compensation Plans be modified to:

Class No. Activity Classification Title Salary
(new classification and
changes)
Library
Add two (2) 283-xxx 3601 Library Assistant II
Positions: .50 FTE
Add three (3) 283-xxx 3601 Library Assistant II
Positions: .75 FTE
Add four (4) 283-xxx 3601 Library Assistant II
Positions: 1.0 FTE
Change From: 283-013 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II .75 FTE
Change From: 283-072 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-082 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-063 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-075 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-078 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-064 Library Assistant II .50 FTE

11.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Change From: 283-004 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Change To: 3601 Library Assistant II 1.00 FTE
Delete 283-080 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Position:

Delete 283-071 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Position:

Delete 283-070 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Position:

Delete 283-025 Library Assistant II .50 FTE
Position:

Add Position: 750-xxx 3601 Librarian I/II

1.0 FTE
Add Position: 757-xxx 3601 Community Relations
Specialist 1.0 FTE
Delete 285-001 Library Information
Position: Specialist 1.0 FTE
Delete 740-001 Library Specialist
Position: 1.0 FTE
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

11.4 STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2022
TO: Library Joint Powers Authority Board
FROM: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director
RE: Classification Changes

RECOMMENDATION
Approve classification changes and the expenditure to the FY 23 Library Operating Budget.

DISCUSSION
The Library continues to finalize its strategic plan and 5-year work plan goals. However, in anticipation of the final proposal, the Library would like to move forward with the following classification changes, resulting in increased expenditure in the FY 23 operating budget.

1. Remove Library Specialist/Volunteer Coordinator

2. Add Community Relations Specialist

3. Remove Library Information Specialist/CMS

4. Add Librarian II/CMS
The Library Director spent the last six months conducting listening sessions with staff. The listening sessions revealed the Library would immediately benefit from a few staffing changes.

Attrition in the Library Specialist and Information Specialist classifications created the vacancies used to offset the expenditures.

In addition to managing volunteers, the Library Specialist-Volunteer Coordinator helped plan and organize library events and outreach utilizing volunteers. Analysis in the marketing department revealed that the Librarian currently providing marketing is overextended with marketing and outreach duties while also conducting adult programs and services. To deepen relationships with our partners and improve communication, collaboration, and outreach, we request removing the Library Specialist-Volunteer Coordinator position and adding a Community Relations Specialist.

Chair Mali LaGoe
Vice Chair Carlos Palacios
Board Member Jamie Goldstein
Board Member Matt Huffaker

11.5 The Librarian can then focus on programming and outreach. At the same time, the Community Relations Specialist will provide the marketing experience and capacity the Library needs to communicate its mission, vision, and message.

The Community Relations Specialist develops public and internal communication strategies and coordinates and implements informational, educational, and outreach communication and events.

They provide development and maintenance of the department's website and social media pages, including updating and expanding the content and appearance of the site. They facilitate developing and implementing community engagement to identify community needs and interests and manage library media relations, including writing news releases, articles, social media, and blog posts. They serve as the media contact for the Library, ensuring that communication efforts are coordinated with the cities and County.

The Santa Cruz Public Libraries develops and maintains a robust collection of materials to support the educational and informational needs of the community. The importance of having professional Librarians perform collection selection and deselection across genres, formats, and languages is an essential component of Library operations. Collection Development takes professional judgment, skill, and knowledge gained through a master's degree in library science. The necessary skills can be attained through other education and experience, though this is not typical. Therefore, we recommend converting the vacant Library Information Specialist position to a Librarian II position to ensure the highest levels of material selection for our patrons.

Financial Impact
Classification Change Financial Impact: $85,694
The Library will fund the classification changes by utilizing the removal of one Library Specialist/Volunteer Coordinator, and one Library Information Specialist vacancy and the new MOE funds the Library receives from the recent LFA 4th Amendment Agreement adoption. The chart below outlines the impact on the general fund.

FY 23Operating Budget
Approval of Item 8:

MOE & Sales Tax Adjustments $1,370,651
Janitorial Increases $ 72,000
8% for Collections $ 109,652
Subtotal $ 1,188,999
Classification Changes $ 85,694
Total $ 1,103,304
Attachments:

11.6 Budget Adjustment
Prepared by: Kira Henifin, Principal Management Analyst Reviewed and Approved by: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director

11.7 11.8

11.9 11.10

11.11 11.12

11.13 STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2022
TO: Library Joint Powers Authority Board
FROM: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director
RE: Annual Staff Training Day

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Closure for All Staff Training Day on Thursday, October 13, 2022.

DISCUSSION
In September 2013, the Library Joint Powers Authority approved an annual and recurring staff training day requiring all branches to close on Columbus Day.

In 2021, All Staff Training Day was moved to a Thursday to accommodate the work schedules of Sunday through Thursday or Tuesday through Saturday. The Library Holiday Closure Policy Schedule erroneously listed the closure as Columbus Day, Monday, October 10, 2022.

Therefore, we recommend adjusting the date to remain open on Columbus Day and close on Thursday, October 13, 2022.

Report Prepared by: Kira Henifin, Principal Management Analyst Reviewed and Forwarded by: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director Chair Mali LaGoe
Vice Chair Carlos Palacios
Board Member Jamie Goldstein
Board Member Matt Huffaker

11.14 STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2022
TO: Library Joint Powers Authority Board
FROM: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director
RE: Library Policies

RECOMMENDATION
Accept and File:

Policy #307 Freedom to View
Policy #308 Freedom to Read
Policy #311 Library Bill of Rights

DISCUSSION
The Library System is governed by policies in order to maintain standards to ensure a safe and healthy environment for staff and patrons.

The Library would like the LAC to review the attached three (3) policies that are up for renewal.

Attachments:

Policy #307 Freedom to View
Policy #308 Freedom to Read
Policy #311 Library Bill of Rights
Report Prepared by: Kira Henifin, Principal Management Analyst Reviewed and Approved by: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director Chair Mali LaGoe
Vice Chair Carlos Palacios
Board Member Jamie Goldstein
Board Member Matt Huffaker

11.15 The Freedom to View Statement
JPAB Policy # 307
Approved: 7/1997
Last Revised: 8/2022
Five-year Review Schedule: 8/2027
The freedom to view, along with the freedom to speak, to hear, and to read is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In a free society, there is no place for censorship of any medium of expression. Therefore, we affirm these principles:

1. It is in the public interest to provide the broadest possible access to films and other audiovisual materials because they have proven to be among the most effective means for the communication of ideas. Liberty of circulation is essential to insure the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

2. It is in the public interest to provide for audiences films and other audiovisual materials which represent a diversity of views and expression. Selection of a work does not constitute or imply agreement with or approval of the content.

3. It is our professional responsibility to resist the constraint of labeling or prejudging a film on the basis of the moral, religious or political beliefs of the producer or filmmaker, or on the basis of controversial content.

4. It is our professional responsibility to contest vigorously, by all lawful means, every encroachment upon the public’s freedom to view.

Adopted by the Education Film Library Association in February, 1979, and endorsed in June, 1979 by the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association.

Adopted by the Santa Cruz City/County Library System [citizen] Board in December 1987, and by the Library Oversight Committee at its first meeting on November 3, 1988.

Confirmed by the Library Joint Powers Authority Board in July 1997.

11.16 ALA Website:

Freedom to View Statement
The FREEDOM TO VIEW, along with the freedom to speak, to hear, and to read, is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In a free society, there is no place for censorship of any medium of expression. Therefore, these principles are affirmed:

1. To provide the broadest access to film, video, and other audiovisual materials because they are a means for the communication of ideas. Liberty of circulation is essential to insure the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

2. To protect the confidentiality of all individuals and institutions using film, video, and other audiovisual materials.

3. To provide film, video, and other audiovisual materials which represent a diversity of views and expression. Selection of a work does not constitute or imply agreement with or approval of the content.

4. To provide a diversity of viewpoints without the constraint of labeling or prejudging film, video, or other audiovisual materials on the basis of the moral, religious, or political beliefs of the producer or filmmaker or on the basis of controversial content.

5. To contest vigorously, by all lawful means, every encroachment upon the public's freedom to view.

This statement was originally drafted by the Freedom to View Committee of the American Film and Video Association (formerly the Educational Film Library Association) and was adopted by the AFVA Board of Directors in February 1979. This statement was updated and approved by the AFVA Board of Directors in 1989.

Endorsed January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council

11.17 FREEDOM TO READ
JPAB Policy #308
Adopted: 6/1953
Revised: 8/2022
Five-year Review Schedule: 8/2027
The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label "controversial" views, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to counter threats to safety or national security, as well as to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as individuals devoted to reading and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating ideas, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.

Most attempts at suppression rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that the ordinary individual, by exercising critical judgment, will select the good and reject the bad.

We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be
"protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise inideasandexpression.

These efforts at suppression are related to a largerpattern ofpressures being brought against education, the press, art and images, films, broadcast media andthe Internet. The problem is not only oneof actual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary
curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy· or unwelcome scrutiny by government officials.

Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of accelerated change. And yet suppression is never moredangerous thanin such atimeof social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions,andenables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy,
diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversyanddifference.

Now as always in our history, reading is among our greatest freedoms. The freedom to read and write is almost the only means for making generally available ideas or manners of expression that can initially command only a small audience. The written word is the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth. It is essential to the extended discussion that serious thought requires,and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into organized collections.

We believe that free communication is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture. We believe that these pressures toward conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety ofinquiryandexpressionon whichour democracyandour culture depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read. We believe that

11.18 publishers and librarians have a profound responsibility to give validity to that freedomto read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variety of offerings.

The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those with faith in free people will stand firm on these constitutional guarantees of essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany these rights.

We therefore affirm these propositions:

1. It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, un popular, or considered dangerous by the majority.

Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that idea is refined and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppression of any concept that challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly strengthened by the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To stifle every nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic process. Furthermore, only through the constant activity of weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the strength demanded by times like these. We need to know not only what we believebut whywe believeit.

2. Publishers, librarians, and booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation they make available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to establish their own political, moral, or aesthetic views as a standard for determining what should be published or circulated.

Publisher s and librarians serve the educational process by helping to make available knowledge and ideas required for the growth of the mind and the increase of learning. They do not foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns of their own thought. The people should have the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those that may be held by any singlelibrarian or publisher or government or church. It is wrong that what one can read should be confined to whatanother thinksproper.

3. It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to bar access to writings on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author.

No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free people can flourish that draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatevertheymay have to say.

4. There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression.

To some, much of modern expression is shocking. But is not much of life itself shocking? We cut offliterature at thesourceif we prevent writers fromdealing withthe stuff of life.Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters’

11.19 values differ, and values cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised that will suit the demands of one group without limiting thefreedomof others.

5. It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept the prejudgment of a label characterizing any expression orits author as subversive or dangerous.

Theidealoflabelingpresupposestheexistenceofindividualsorgroupswithwisdomto determineby authority what is good or bad for others. It presupposes that individuals must be directed in making up their minds about the ideas they examine. But Americans do not need others to do their thinking for them.

6. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large; and by the government whenever it seeks to reduce or deny public access to public information.

It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts of an individual or group will occasionally collide with those of another individual or group. In a free society individual are free to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely associated members. But no group has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own concept of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic society. Freedom is no freedom if it isaccorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive.

Further, democratic societies are more safe, free, and creative when the free flow of public informationis notrestricted by governmental prerogativeor self-censorship.

7. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By the exercise of this affirmative responsibility, they can demonstrate that the answer to a "bad" book is a good one, the answerto a "bad" idea is a good one.

The freedom to read is of little consequence when the reader cannot obtain matter fit for thatreader's purpose. What is needed is not only the absence of restraint, but the positive provisionof opportunity for the peopleto read the best that has been thought and said.

Books are the major channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and the principal means of its testing and growth. The defense of the freedom to read requires of all publishers and librarians the utmost of their faculties, and deserves of all Americans the fullest of theirsupport.

Westatethesepropositions neitherlightlynor aseasygeneralizations.We herestake out alofty claim for the value of the written word. We do so because we believe that it is possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe ratherthat what people read is deeply import ant; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society.

Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours.

11.20 This statement was originally issued in May of 1953 by the Westchester Conference of the American Library Association and the American Book Publishers Council, which in 1970 consolidated with the American Educational Publishers Institute to become the Association of American Publishers.

Adopted June 25, 1953, by the ALA Council and the AAP Freedom to Read Committee; amended January 28, 1972; January 16, 1991; July 12, 2000; June 30, 2004.

11.21 The Library Bill of Rights
JPAB Policy # 311
Approved: 7/1997
Last Revised: 8/2022
Five-year Review Schedule: 8/2027
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services:

1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression and free access to ideas.

5. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

7. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

First adopted by the American Library Association in 1949, with subsequent amendments approved and incorporated over the years.

Adopted by the Santa Cruz City/County Library System [citizen] Board; adopted at the first meeting of the Library Oversight Committee on November 3, 1988; confirmed by the Library Joint Point Powers Authority Board, July 1997.

11.22 STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2022
TO: Library Joint Powers Authority Board
FROM: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director
RE: Staffing Proposal

RECOMMENDATION
Approve staffing model Phase 1 including additional FTEs and the reduction of the temporary budget for FY 23.

DISCUSSION
Over the past several months the Library has conducted various listening sessions with staff. A result of these listening sessions was the confirmation that the Library relies too heavily on temporary staff to keep branches open. This reliance on temporary staff hinders library operations and leads to reduced levels of service, programming, and outreach to the community. It also puts a strain on the behind the scenes operations including pulling professional staff away from librarian duties to help with customer service coverage and the support it takes to schedule temporary staff each day based on changes in daily staffing needs.

The Library would like to take a phased approach to changes in the staffing model by first addressing the branch staff who provide services while the branch is open, described as Phase

1. Phase 1 seeks to provide adequate staffing levels to create smooth and less stressful operations. Phase 1 will also ensure staff are trained and professional when providing services to the public, something that the Library experienced gaps with when using temporary employees.

This approach to staffing will also help the library recruit, train and retain benefitted permanent staff by lessening job fatigue and staff having to fill multiple positions. Phase 1 will ensure excellent customer service while also meeting strategic goals by helping to dedicate Librarian staff to meeting program, outreach and service needs.

Chair Mali LaGoe
Vice Chair Carlos Palacios
Board Member Jamie Goldstein
Board Member Matt Huffaker

11.23 Phase 2 will examine the services and programs Librarians provide to the community. This report is currently being developed and will be presented to the Board at their November meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Phase 1 of the staffing model plans for the hiring of 8.5 FTE Library Assistant IIs throughout the system. The Library plans to fund Phase 1 of the staffing model changes with a portion of the temporary budget as well as with the new MOE funds the library will receive after the recent adoption of the LFA 4th Amendment Agreement.

The table below breaks down the number of Library Aide hours each branch with the influx of new Library Assistants.

LJPB Staffing Proposal
Aide Hours
(Weekly)
Annual
Salary LAII FTE Salary & Benefits
APT 50 $ 40,140 0.25 $ 22,719
BC 20 $ 16,056 0.75 $ 68,156
B40 30 $ 24,084 1.00 $ 90,874

0.75 $ 68,156
CAP 50 $ 40,140 1.00 $ 90,874

1.00 $ 90,874
DTN 120 $ 96,336 0.50 $ 90,874
DTN/CMS 20 $ 16,056
FEL 30 $ 24,084 1.00 $ 90,874

0.75 $ 68,156
GP 20 $ 16,056
LO 30 $ 24,084 1.00 $ 90,874
LSB 10 $ 8,028 0.50 $ 45,437
SV 50 $ 40,140
OUT 20 $ 16,056
TOTAL FTE ADDED 450 $ 361,261 8.50 $ 817,869

11.24 The tables below show the reduction in the temporary personnel budget and the costs associated with hiring the new 8.5 FTE Library Assistant IIs.

FY 23 Adopted Temp Budget $ 825,000
Library Aides-Systemwide $ 361,261
On Call Substitutes $ 90,000
Subtotal: New Temp Budget $ 451,261
Balance of MOE Funds Used $ 1,103,304
Balance of Temporary Budget $ 373,739
Staffing Proposal Balance $ 817,869
Remainder of New Revenues $ 659,175
The cost of the new benefitted permanent hired Library Assistant IIs is offset by applying the temporary personnel budget savings as well as applying the remainder of the MOE funds from the previous staff report. After these staffing changes are made, the Library will have a remainder of roughly $650K for Phase 2 or other adjustments needed in FY 23.

Attachments:

Budget Adjustment
Report Prepared by: Kira Henifin, Principal Management Analyst Reviewed and Forwarded by: Yolande Wilburn, Library Director

11.25 11.26
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Award Contract for Playground Equipment at Garfield Park Playground (PR)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution to award a contract to Landscape Structures, Inc. (Delano, MN) for the purchase of playground equipment that will be installed at Garfield Park in the amount of $219,777.02.

BACKGROUND: City Council (Council) authorized the Garfield Park renovation project in the FY 2022 Capital Investment Program (CIP) plan. The existing Garfield Park playground was installed in 1997. Structurally, the playground is approaching the end of its lifespan. To meet current requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) along with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) parks staff performed extensive public outreach to design play structures that incorporate community feedback and meet or exceed current code compliance standards.

DISCUSSION: Section 3.08.170 of the Municipal Ordinance allows the City to buy from cooperative purchasing agreements when is in the best interest of the City to do so.

The City of Santa Cruz is a member of Cooperative NPP.Gov and will utilize a cooperative contract to purchase from Landscape Structures Incorporated. NPP Contract No. PS21070 is effective through March 22, 2027. The cooperative contract has been awarded by virtue of a public and formal competitive procurement process compliant with state statutes and formal procurement methods. Cooperative agreements result from a procurement process completed by a consortium or single agency that is authorized for use by other municipalities and government agencies.

Landscape Structures Incorporated has successfully completed other projects for the City in the past and staff recommends utilizing this vendor for this improvement to the Garfield Park Playground.

FISCAL IMPACT: This project (c302217) is funded by a Prop 68 Per Capita grant in the amount of $177,952 with matching funds in the amount of $44,488 from the Parks and Recreation Facility Tax (Fund 249). This project has no impact on the General Fund.

12.1 Prepared By:

Mike Godsy
Field Supervisor
Submitted By:

Tony Elliot
Director of Parks &
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. GARFIELD PARK IMAGE 001.JPG

3. GARFIELD PARK IMAGE 002.JPG

12.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE INSTALLED AT GARFIELD PARK TO LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. (DELANO, MN) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz authorized the Garfield Park renovation project as part of the fiscal year 2022 capital improvement projects list; and WHEREAS, the existing playground equipment at Garfield Park has been install and fixtured at the park for over forty-five years; and
WHEREAS, to meet current standards in accessibility, design, and safety improvements as compelled by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the American Society for Testing Materials design standards, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz was awarded a proposition 68 per capita grant in the amount of $177,952 with matching funds from the parks and recreation facility tax (Fund 249) in the amount of $44,488.00; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is a member of Cooperative NPP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement, on a form as approved by the City Attorney, with Landscape Structures, Inc. for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at Garfield Park in the amount of $219,777.02.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

12.3 12.4

12.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Citywide Vegetation Management – Award Contract (PW) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the bid of Lewis Tree Service (Santa Cruz, CA) for Citywide Vegetation Management in the amount of $117,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: The Public Works Street Maintenance division maintains more than 50 areas within the city limits annually. These efforts manage vehicle traffic and bicycle and pedestrian access to improve safety, as well as limit fire risks in the public right of way.

DISCUSSION: Lewis Tree Service was one of three vegetation management companies requested to submit bids on multiple locations involving riparian habitat, greenbelts and roadway right of ways that include trees and vegetation. Out of the three companies contacted (Lewis Tree, Davey Tree and Community Tree), Lewis Tree submitted the most competitive bids.

Theses quotes included the use of weed whips, chain saws, excavators and cranes. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the lowest and responsible bidder, Lewis Tree Service.

FISCAL IMPACT: There are adequate funds in the Public Works FY 2023 General Fund budget within the Street Maintenance division for these services.

Prepared By:

Christina Alberti
Management Analyst
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

13.1 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 8:51 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Matt Huffaker; Mark Dettle
Subject: 8/23/22 City Council Consent agenda # 13
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest a clarifying addition to the Consent Agenda item # 13: Citywide Vegetation Management – Award Contract (PW):

RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the bid of Lewis Tree Service (Santa Cruz, CA) for Citywide Vegetation Management in the amount of $117,000 in compliance with applicable City Management Plans, understanding of the USACOE and Waterways Consulting’s vegetation management prescriptions and CDFW permit RMA 1600- 2013-0176-R3 regulatory requirements., and to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

REASON FOR SUGGESTION:

This contract involves vegetation management work in sensitive riparian habitat & greenbelts, which are subject to regulatory tool use such as weed whips, chain saws, excavators and cranes.

Consent Agenda item # 16 also pertains to riparian corridor. The City & PW’s support their contract award recommendation by highlighting that the Contractor staff is best qualified in their knowledge and understanding of the various regulatory permits & requirements.

Therefore doesn’t it stand to reason that the item # 13 contract includes that the contractor has knowledge of the regulatory permits, requirements and the work crew will comply with them? Thank you for your time to consider my suggestion.

Kind regards,
jane mio
Consent agenda item # 16:

Annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance
Award a contract to Kenny Robinson Construction (Santa Cruz, CA) in the amount of $275,000

13.2 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Traffic Striping Installation and Maintenance – Award Contract (PW) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the bid of Chrisp Company (Fremont, CA) for Traffic Striping Installation and Maintenance in the amount of $130,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: In fall of 2016 the City of Gilroy issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for striping installation and maintenance contract. The RFP was advertised on their city website and Ebidboard, which is the same process and online site the City of Santa Cruz (City) uses to advertise projects. The only proposal City of Gilroy received was from Chrisp Company. In October 2020, the City of Alameda also conducted a competitive RFP process and Chrisp won that bid as well. The current contract is valid through June 30, 2023, with the option of extending the agreement for an additional two years. For the last five years, the City has been able to take advantage of other agencies’ competitive contracts, locking in the same low rates.

The City’s Public Works Street Maintenance Division regularly requests striping installation and maintenance from Chrisp Company. They are typically the only contractor willing to bid on projects in the Santa Cruz regional area and are currently in contract to stripe the most recently completed annual overlay and cape seal projects as well as special improvement projects as needed each year.

DISCUSSION: Section 3.08.170 of the Municipal Ordinance allows the City to use cooperative purchasing agreements when feasible. Based on the open procurement process performed and fair pricing received by the City of Alameda, and to save time on procurement and encumber striping maintenance funds, the Street Maintenance Division is seeking authorization for an open purchase order with Chrisp Company in the amount of $130,000. Note that the pricing schedule received by the City of Alameda meets or is lower than the current pricing in contracts with the City and Chrisp Company has agreed to extend the same pricing, terms, and conditions to the City.

FISCAL IMPACT: There are adequate funds in the Public Works FY 2023 General Fund budget within the Street Maintenance division for these services.

14.1 Prepared By:

Christina Alberti
Management Analyst
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. CITY OF ALAMEDA – CHRISP COMPANY AGREEMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE.PDF

14.2 14.3

14.4 14.5
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Cost of Construction – Fee Revision (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution revising the Traffic Impact Fee Estimate Form to include a revised PM peak hour rate of $4,928 and rescinding Resolution No. NS-29,865.

BACKGROUND: The City Council approved changes to the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program in August 2021. The changes included an increase in the PM peak hour rate, which has not changed since 2012. The increase included an initial 10% increase to the PM peak hour trip and a 2% increase each year that the Engineering News Record (ENR) cost of construction index is 2% or greater. The fee took effect September 1, 2021 and increased the fee from $3,850 to $4,480 for the net new PM peak hour trips that development generates. The annual increases take effect at the new fiscal year and is done administratively. The Public Works Department may request a higher increase by resolution if very high construction cost increases occur.

DISCUSSION: Over the last 10 years, construction costs on average exceeded a 50% increase (5% per year), with increases of 14.2-15.1% this year per the Engineering News Record Cost of Construction Index (CCI). This is a much greater increase than originally anticipated. This continues to limit the TIF program’s ability to fund multi-modal transportation projects and the balance in the fund is at its lowest ever since the early stage of the program.

The Highway 1/9 project has been more expensive than projected despite acquiring State grants for the construction portion of the project. There are a number of important intersection improvements and bike/pedestrian projects that will rely on the program for matching funds and for standalone funding. Without this program Arana Gulch Multi-use Paths, the Beach Area Roundabouts, Ocean/Water Intersection Improvements, and other projects would not have been built.

Staff is recommending a total 10% increase in the per PM peak hour trip for this year due to the large CCI increases over the past year. The fee has already been increased by 2%. The fee would take effect September 1, 2022 and would increase the fee from $4570 to $4,928 for the net new PM peak hour trips that development generates. The 2% annual increase would continue to be applied administratively and increases would take effect at the following fiscal year on July 1, 2023 if construction costs continue to increase. While this will not “catch us up”, it will improve the resiliency of the program and allow the mitigation projects to be implemented in a moretimely manner.

15.1 Because the TIF addresses cumulative development impacts, some of the improvement projects are typically longer range and complex projects. Many are already identified in the Capital Investment Program (CIP), which is the appropriate medium to address how cumulative development mitigation projects are programmed.

FISCAL IMPACT: The TIF provides an important financing mechanism to address traffic impacts related to development and provides a fair share methodology. It often provides important local matching funds for alternative transportation grants. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Nathan Nguyen
Assistant Director/City
Engineer
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOC

2. TIF ESTIMATE FORM.DOC

15.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MODIFYING

THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,865
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz wishes to address the traffic impacts associated with new development citywide; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is authorized by the California Constitution to levy fees on new development; and
WHEREAS, the City General Plan Policy M3.1.5 recommends that a Transportation Impact Fee be maintained and updated to ensure that developers pay a proportional share of circulation system and alternative transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance on April 27, 2004 establishing a system of traffic impact fees that distributes the cost of mitigation measures fairly to those developments contributing to the impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz adopted the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz City General Plan on June 26, 2012 that identified the need for improved infrastructure City-wide to address growth in weekday peak hour trips from potential development and a mitigation program to address those impacts.

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz approved modifications the program on November 12, 2012 to improve administrative efficiency and flexibility and established the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Area incorporating the Citywide Traffic Mitigation Program and the Beach/SOLA mitigation measures.; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Impact Fee Estimate Form was modified administratively to reflect changes in land use categories and trip generation rates based on revisions to the Institute of Transportation Engineers published data and other relevant transportation sources; and WHEREAS, the trip impact fees were adjusted for the Downtown Area, the Soquel Avenue Corridor, the Water Street Corridor, the Ocean Street Corridor, and Mission Street Corridor, to reflect the anticipated reduction in trip generation associated with mixed use development, and:

WHEREAS, The City’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines were revised on June 9, 2020 to comply with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a measure of significance in analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) and it did not preclude traffic impact fee mitigation programs.

15.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS2
WHEREAS, the trip impact fees were increased in 2017 and in 2021 as the cost of construction had increased at least 50% over the last 10 years jeopardizing the programs ability to fund public multi-modal transportation projects to address growth from development.

WHEREAS, the trip impact fees were adjusted for the Downtown Area based on the Downtown Amendments adopted November 28, 2017 to reflect additional development potential, and:

WHEREAS the Transportation Impact Study Guidelines are renamed the Transportation Study Requirements to improve consistency in application and conformance for all development projects that meet the thresholds and that further revisions may be undertaken administratively as determined appropriate by City staff.

WHEREAS, the Citywide traffic impact fee is currently $4,570 per new peak hour trip and those fees are adjusted administratively on July 1, by 2% per annum if the change in the construction cost index for the preceding year is 2% or greater as determined by the Engineering News Record, the McGraw Hill Construction Weekly.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Santa Cruz that the Citywide traffic impact fee is increased to $4,928 per new peak hour trip effective September 1, 2022 to address construction cost index increases of over 15% this past year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. NS-29,865 is hereby rescinded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

15.4 P:Public\Forms\ Traffic Impact Fee Calculation Form FY2023.doc Attachment 1
City of Santa Cruz - Public Works
Traffic Impact Fee Estimate Form*
FY23
This form is based on the approved Citywide Traffic Impact Fee resolution and is used to estimate traffic impact fees. Land uses not identified in this table shall be estimated on a case by case basis by the staff of the Public Works Department. Where a traffic study is prepared for a proposed project the trip generation estimate made in that study may be used at the discretion of the decision making body.

Property Address: APN:

Applicant: Appl/Permit #:

Completed by: Date:

Land use
(ITE Land Use Code)
Trip Gen.

Rate per PM
Peak Hr
A**
Unit of
Measure
Prop. Project
Details
B
Existing
Uses
C
Project Trips
D = A X (B-C)
Single family residence
(210) 1.01 Unit
Apartment (220) 0.62 Unit
Condo/ Townhouse (270) 0.62 Unit
Senior Housing (251) 0.27 Unit
SRO (220 / 1 vehicle) 0.61 Unit
Hotel/Motel (320) 0.58 Room
Office (710) 1.5 1,000 sf gfa***
Medical Office (720) 3.57 1,000 sf gfa***
Retail (814) 2.3 1,000 sf gfa***
Retail Building Materials/
Large items (812) 4.5 1,000 sf gfa***
Supermarket (850) 7.0 1,000 sf gfa***
Convenience Market
(852) 24.1 1,000 sf gfa***
Service Station (944) 9.7 Pump station
General Light Industrial
(110) 0.97 1,000 sf gfa***
Manufacturing (140) 0.7 1,000 sf gfa***
Warehousing (150) 0.32 1,000 sf gfa***
Mini-warehouse (151) 0.02 Storage unit
Congregate Care (253) 0.2 Dwelling Unit
Assisted living (254) 0.22 Bed
All Suites Hotel (311) 0.6 Room
Multiplex Movie theater
(445) 13.6 Screen
Free-Standing Discount
(815) 5.0 1,000 sf gfa***
Nursery (817) 7.5 Acre

15.5 Auto Parts Store (843) 5.1 1,000 sf gfa***
Apparel Store (876) 3.3 1,000 sf gfa***
Pharmacy no drive-thru
(880) 7.2 1,000 sf gfa***
Furniture Store (890) 0.45 1,000 sf gfa***
Quality restaurant (931) 7.5 1,000 sf gfa***
High Turnover Sit Down
Restaurant (932) 9.5 1,000 sf gfa***
Fast Food w/o Drive Thru
(933) 18.3 1,000 sf gfa***
Fitness 3.53 1,000 sf gfa***
Restaurant 0.26 Per seat
Total trips: D
CW TIF = $4,928 X D
Downtown: CW TIF X 60%
Soquel: CW TIF X 82.7%
Water: CW TIF X 84%
Ocean: CW TIF X 92.2%
Mission: CW TIF X 86.2%
Total TIF
* This form is used to estimate traffic impact fees of development based on submitted preliminary plans. Actual fees will be calculated based on final plans and uses submitted at the time of a building permit. The fee will be based on the per trip cost (may include an annual cost of construction inflation factor) at the time of submittal. **Source Institute of Transportation Engineers “Trip Generation”. Rates have been adjusted to reflect pass-by-trips diverted from existing traffic stream
*** Square foot gross floor area.

Auto Parts, Apparel, Pharmacy, and High turnover Restaurant reduced by 15% for pass-by trips. Fast food, Supermarkets and Coffee Shop were reduced by 30% for pass-by trips.

Comment:

15.6 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 8.23.22 Agenda Item #15 Jack those fees

8.23.22 Agenda Item #15 Jack those fees
Dear Council,
Reading this item shows me you are masters of obfuscation as It's real hard to figure out exactly what justifies this approach to funding. I'll give it a try anyway.

Essentially you are saying construction costs, such as projects you undertake improving traffic flow, go up every year and the reason is? You apparently blame any construction project in the city and therefore you should use your authority to deny permits to jack so called "impact fees" on every project whether it actually has any impact or not. Is that close?
You cite traffic diversions around construction sites as causing this need to improve traffic flow. I scratch my head trying to figure how much traffic is actually diverted in such a way with for instance building a single family residence that requires improvements to the traffic system. You know some construction just replaces old buildings and doesn't actually add to traffic flow overall in any way.

I hardly see the connection of the Hwy 9 project which you say is going cost over run being the fault of someone remodeling or building an ADU somewhere in the city.

But I don't work for the government, so why would I see these connections you seem to see?
In REAL small print I see building for Auto Parts, Apparel, Pharmacy, and High turnover Restaurant reduced by 15% for pass-by trips. Fast food, Supermarkets and Coffee Shop were reduced by 30% for pass-by trips which actually went down, a lot. Care to explain the difference?
Garrett Philipp

15.7 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/10/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance (m409505) – Award Contract (PW)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to award a contract for the annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance to Kenny Robinson Construction (Santa Cruz, CA) in the amount of $275,000, and to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute change orders within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: The San Lorenzo River annual maintenance is required as outlined in the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan and as a flood control measure required by the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) manual. This maintenance consists of vegetation management within the parameters set forth in the above-noted documents.

This year’s vegetation management will be conducted primarily within the riverine reach (Highway 1 to Water Street bridges), with additional work in the transitional reach (Water Street to Laurel Street bridges) and estuarine reach (the east bank of Laurel Street to the Riverside Avenue bridge).

DISCUSSION: The San Lorenzo River requires annual vegetation maintenance to comply with the requirements outlined in the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan and to maintain flood capacity as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). These prescriptions require all willows over 3-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) be cut and all other riparian trees (elders, alders, cottonwoods) over 6-inches dbh be removed. The work takes about four weeks and begins after the nesting season is over, after September 1. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) amended permit allows vegetation maintenance to occur between September 1 to January 15 to decrease project impacts to nesting and breeding birds, the USACOE requires that the vegetation maintenance be completed prior to winter flood flows.

In 2017, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), with consensus from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), directed Public Works staff to discontinue the practice of chipping cut vegetation in place when conducting the vegetation management for flood control due to the potential risk of increased nitrate in the water from decomposing chipped material. This significantly increased the cost and amount of time related to flood control work in the San Lorenzo River because the cut vegetation is dried on the levee

16.1 bank for several days prior to being chipped into a truck and transported off site. The additional cost of prevailing wage and increased labor personnel has added to the City’s cost of annual vegetation maintenance for flood control.

Kenny Robinson Construction’s staff, formerly Draft Horses for Hire, has successfully completed the annual San Lorenzo River vegetation management program for flood control since 2003. The staff is best qualified in their knowledge and understanding of the USACOE and Waterways Consulting’s vegetation management prescriptions and CDFW permit RMA 1600- 2013-0176-R3 regulatory requirements. The City of Santa Cruz’s consulting biologist works closely daily with the contractors as required by the CDFW permit.

Section 3.08.150 of the Purchasing Ordinance allows the Purchasing Division to award a contract without competition when there is only one source for the required item/service. The Purchasing Division concurs that Kenny Robinson Construction is the only company able to provide the Annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance at the proposed cost and within the allowable time frame.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is $275,000 budgeted in the FY 2023 Stormwater Overlay Enterprise Fund (Fund 752) in the San Lorenzo River System Maintenance project (m409505). This is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Filipina Warren
Public Works Operations
Manager
Christina Alberti
Management Analyst
Submitted By:

Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. VEGETATION PRESCRIPTIONS.PDF

2. LOCATION MAP.PDF

16.2 16.3

16.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 8:51 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Matt Huffaker; Mark Dettle
Subject: 8/23/22 City Council Consent agenda # 13
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to suggest a clarifying addition to the Consent Agenda item # 13: Citywide Vegetation Management – Award Contract (PW):

REASON FOR SUGGESTION:

This contract involves vegetation management work in sensitive riparian habitat & greenbelts, which are subject to regulatory tool use such as weed whips, chain saws, excavators and cranes.

Kind regards,
jane mio
Consent agenda item # 16:

Annual San Lorenzo River Flood Control Maintenance
Award a contract to Kenny Robinson Construction (Santa Cruz, CA) in the amount of $275,000

16.5 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/08/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Transfer within the Water Department’s Capital Investment Program for FY 2022 Water Program Administration Expenses – Budget Adjustment (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution amending the FY 2022 budget by transferring $1,956,115 from the Water Department’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) Project c701901, Water Program Administration, to various other Water Department CIP Projects for the purpose of allocating actual program administration expenses to active Water Program CIP Projects.

BACKGROUND: On June 28, 2022 Council approved the renewal of a five-year agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for Program Management services to assist Water Department with the implementation of a large and complex CIP. Each fiscal year, HDR develops a Service Order (SO) for tasks to be completed within that fiscal year. The work completed in FY 2022 was under SO 7.

HDR’s scope of work for each SO includes both project specific, as well as more broadly defined tasks that apply to all projects. Effort spent on the latter tasks is charged to a general CIP project, c701901 Water Program Administration. For example, when HDR is tasked to work on a specific capital project, their time is easy to document in blocks of time per project; however, a few staff members work on tasks that develop, design, or support processes impacting all the Water Program projects, such as cost control and risk management. As a result, their time cannot be easily estimated per project and are instead charged to project c701901. At the end of a fiscal year, the actual expenses charged to c701901 are split, based on the total project estimated cost, amongst the various Water Program CIP projects.

DISCUSSION: When creating each SO, HDR provides an estimate of work to be completed under project c701901 for that fiscal year. That cost is used to budget and create a purchase order to pay for the actual work completed by HDR throughout the fiscal year. During the fiscal yearend process, the actual expenses (along with the associated budget appropriation) are transferred to the active CIP projects supported by HDR.

Transferring the Water Program Administration expenses from c701901 to the active projects benefitting from this work allows the City to track these costs as a capital expense within the construction CIP project and, in some cases, to seek reimbursement from outside funding sources.

17.1 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to either the General Fund or the Water Operations Fund.

Prepared By:

Malissa Kaping
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Rosemary Menard
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

17.2 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
3XUSRVH

ACCOUNT REVENUE EDEN ACCOUNT TITLE

TOTALREVENUE

ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE EDENACCOUNT TITLE

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY

DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
&0)18VH2QO\

5HVR

%$5HI

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
)LVFDO<HDU

'DWH

&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
Clear Form
2022
08/10/2022
Transfer $1,956,115 from the Water Dept’s Capital Investment Program (CIP), c701901, Water Program Administration, to various other Water Dept. CIP Projects for the purpose of allocating actual program administration expenses to active Water Program CIP Projects. 0 See attached
0 0
Digitally signed by Malissa Kaping
DN: cn=Malissa Kaping, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Water
Department,
[email protected]
om, c=US
Date: 2022.08.10 12:39:53 -07'00'
Rosemar
y Menard
Digitally signed by Rosemary Menard
DN: cn=Rosemary Menard, o=Santa Cruz Water
Department, ou=Water Director,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.10 12:47:24 -07'00'
Michael
Manno
Digitally signed by Michael Manno
DN: cn=Michael Manno, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected]
m, c=US
Date: 2022.08.11 11:22:41 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by Elizabeth Cabell
DN: cn=Elizabeth Cabell, o=City of Santa Cruz,
ou=Finance Department,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.15 08:57:27 -07'00'

17.3 &zϮϮtĂƚĞƌWƌŽŐƌĂŵĚŵŝŶ&ĞĞĂŶĚ:

WƌŽũĞĐƚEƵŵďĞƌ '>EƵŵďĞƌ WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂŵĞ &zϮϮŵŽƵŶƚ &zϮϮ:
ŵŽƵŶƚ
ĐϳϬϬϬϮϱͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϮͲϱϳϯϬϮ 'ƌĂŚĂŵ,ŝůůtdW&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWůĂŶ Ψ ϱϵϴ͕ϯϯϭ Ψ ;ϱϵϴ͕ϯϯϭͿ ĐϳϬϭϱϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϮͲϱϳϯϬϮ 'ƌĂŚĂŵ,ŝůůtdWŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdĂŶŬƐ Ψ ϭϴϮ͕ϯϬϮ Ψ ;ϭϴϮ͕ϯϬϮͿ ĐϳϬϭϱϬϮͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϮͲϱϳϯϬϮ 'ƌĂŚĂŵ,ŝůůtdW&ůŽĐĐƵůĂƚŽƌZĞŚĂďͬZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ ϳ͕ϰϮϬ Ψ ;ϳ͕ϰϮϬͿ ĐϳϬϭϱϬϱͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇdĂŶŬEŽ͘ϰZĞŚĂďͬZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ Ϯϲ͕ϳϲϮ Ψ ;Ϯϲ͕ϳϲϮͿ ĐϳϬϭϱϬϲͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇdĂŶŬEŽ͘ϱZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ ϭϲ͕ϲϵϱ Ψ ;ϭϲ͕ϲϵϱͿ ĐϳϬϭϲϬϲͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ EĞǁĞůůƌĞĞŬĂŵ/ŶůĞƚͬKƵƚůĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ ϰϬϵ͕ϴϲϳ Ψ ;ϰϬϵ͕ϴϲϳͿ ĐϳϬϭϲϬϵͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ ƋƵŝĨĞƌ^ƚŽƌĂŐĞΘZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇDŝĚŽƵŶƚǇ'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌ Ψ ϭϵ͕ϲϬϮ Ψ ;ϭϵ͕ϲϬϮͿ ĐϳϬϭϲϭϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ ZĞĐǇĐůĞĚtĂƚĞƌ&ĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚǇ^ƚƵĚǇ Ψ ϱ͕Ϭϵϳ Ψ ;ϱ͕ϬϵϳͿ ĐϳϬϭϳϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ EĞǁĞůůƌĞĞŬWŝƉĞůŝŶĞZĞŚĂďͬZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ ϰ͕ϳϲϮ Ψ ;ϰ͕ϳϲϮͿ ĐϳϬϭϳϬϱͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ tĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƵŐŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϯϲϭ͕ϬϮϰ Ψ ;ϯϲϭ͕ϬϮϰͿ ĐϳϬϭϴϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ >ĂŐƵŶĂƌĞĞŬŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶZĞƚƌŽĨŝƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ Ψ ϭϮ͕ϮϲϮ Ψ ;ϭϮ͕ϮϲϮͿ ĐϳϬϭϴϬϲͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ ZŝǀĞƌĂŶŬ&ŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƵĚǇ Ψ Ϯϳ͕ϲϱϱ Ψ ;Ϯϳ͕ϲϱϱͿ ĐϳϬϭϵϬϯͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϭͲϱϳϯϬϮ dĂŝƚŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶZĞŚĂďͬZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ Ψ ϯϭ͕ϱϭϯ Ψ ;ϯϭ͕ϱϭϯͿ ĐϳϬϭϵϬϲͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ &ĞůƚŽŶŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶΘWƵŵƉ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ Ψ ϭϳ͕ϯϭϰ Ψ ;ϭϳ͕ϯϭϰͿ ĐϳϬϭϵϬϴͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ EŽƌƚŚŽĂƐƚ^ǇƐƚĞŵZĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ Ψ Ϯ͕ϯϬϵ Ψ ;Ϯ͕ϯϬϵͿ ĐϳϬϮϬϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϭͲϱϳϯϬϮ ŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚǇ Ψ ϰϬϱ Ψ ;ϰϬϱͿ ĐϳϬϮϬϬϮͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ ƌĂĐŬŶĞǇ>ĂŶĚƐůŝĚĞƌĞĂWŝƉĞůŝŶĞZŝƐŬZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϰϱ͕ϴϮϳ Ψ ;ϰϱ͕ϴϮϳͿ ĐϳϬϮϭϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ ^ZDŝĚŽƵŶƚǇ ǆŝƐŝƚŝŶŐ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ Ψ ϯϱ͕ϵϵϭ Ψ ;ϯϱ͕ϵϵϭͿ ĐϳϬϮϭϬϱͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϯͲϱϳϯϬϮ EĞǁĞůůƌĞĞŬWŝƉĞůŝŶĞ&ĞůƚŽŶͬ'ƌĂŚĂŵ,ŝůů Ψ ϭϯϵ͕Ϭϰϯ Ψ ;ϭϯϵ͕ϬϰϯͿ ĐϳϬϮϭϬϵͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϵͲϱϳϯϬϮ 'ƌĂŚĂŵ,ŝůůtdW ŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϲϯϰ Ψ ;ϯ͕ϲϯϰͿ ĐϳϬϮϮϬϮͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϵͲϱϳϵϬϭ DD^^ŽĨƚǁĂƌĞZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌtĂƚĞƌĞƉƚ Ψ Ͳ Ψ Ύ ;ϱϬ͕ϵϯϯͿ ĐϳϬϮϮϬϯͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϮͲϱϳϯϬϮ ĞůƚǌϭϮŵŵŽŶŝĂZĞŵŽǀĂů Ψ ϴ͕Ϯϵϵ Ψ ;ϴ͕ϮϵϵͿ ĐϳϬϭϵϬϭͲϭϬϬͲϮϬϮϬͲϬ ϳϭϭͲϳϬͲϵϭͲϳϭϱϵͲϱϳϯϬϮ tĂƚĞƌWƌŽŐƌĂŵĚŵŝŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ;ϭ͕ϵϱϲ͕ϭϭϱͿ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϳ͕Ϭϰϴ E
ddZE^&
Z Ψ Ͳ Ψ Ͳ Ύ
ǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ;,ZƐƚĂĨĨƚŝŵĞͿĨŽƌƚŚĞDD^^ŽĨƚǁĂƌĞZ&WͬǀĞŶĚŽƌƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐǁĂƐĐŚĂƌŐĞĚƚŽĐϳϬϭϵϬϭŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͘dŚŝƐǁŽƌŬǁĂƐďƵĚŐĞƚĞĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůǇŝŶĐϳϬϮϮϬϮĂŶĚŽŶůǇƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůĞǆƉĞŶƐĞ ŽĨΨϱϬ͕ϵϯϯŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĐŽƌƌĞĐƚƚŚŝƐĞƌƌŽƌ͘

17.4 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Independent Police Auditor Report (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report from the City’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group.

BACKGROUND: In January 2003, Santa Cruz City Council created the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) position. The IPA is charged with providing independent reviews of the citizen complaint process and reviewing and making recommendations regarding the City’s Police Department (SCPD) policies and practices.

In July 2020, the City Manager’s Office issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a new IPA. In December 2020, the RFP panel selected OIR Group, led by Michael Gennaco, a nationally recognized expert on law enforcement reform and accountability systems.

DISCUSSION: Within the scope of their contract (see attachment), the OIR Group annually reviews cases with the City’s Public Safety Committee (PSC) and also publishes at least annually a public report.

The OIR Group’s annual report ("Independent Police Auditor Annual Report - March 2022") includes summaries of cases reviewed, information about misconduct complaint investigations and trends, recommendations concerning improvements to SCPD policy, procedures and training, and the results of audits since December 1, 2020.

OIR Group presented the report to the PSC on March 23, 2022 and are now presenting it to Council. The report addresses the IPA’s review of thirteen formally investigated public complaints, administrative investigations involving an in-custody death and a vehicle pursuit, and two additional concerns about SCPD performance. The report notes that many files reviewed reflect “thorough investigations and sound conclusions” but also outlines 26 recommendations to strengthen accountability systems, including ways that SCPD can improve investigation and review of critical incidents.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

18.1 Submitted By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. IPA SCOPE OF WORK.PDF

2. INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR ANNUAL REPORT - MARCH 2022.PDF

18.2 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR November 2020 (Form Rev. 1120) Page 11
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Work for the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) includes the following :

1. Review of Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) Cases
a. Internal Affairs Investigations:
i. IPA will review all Department Internal Affairs investigations involving complaints against police officers which allege excessive or unnecessary force. ii. IPA will review some or all other Department Internal Affairs investigations, including internally initiated allegations of misconduct, against police officers to determine if the investigation was complete, thorough, objective, and fair. iii. IPA may attend Internal Affairs interviews of any civilian witness/complainant. The IPA may ask questions directly of civilians at the end of the interview in a manner that will not disrupt the timeliness or violate the Police Officers Bill of Rights. iv. IPA shall make a request, in writing, to the Police Chief for further investigation whenever IPA concludes that further investigation is warranted. v. Unless IPA receives a satisfactory written response from the Police Chief, IPA shall make a request in writing to the City Manager for further investigation. b. Officer-Involved Shootings - IPA will review each Department investigation of any officerinvolved shooting (regardless of whether a person was hit by gunfire) to determine if the investigation was complete, thorough, objective, and fair. c. Citizen Complaints – IPA may recommend to Council that an independent investigation of a citizen complaint involving allegations of excessive force or violation of civil rights be conducted. IPA may interview any civilian witnesses or complainants in the course of IPA’s reviewing an investigation into any citizen complaint.
d. Other review parameters:
i. At the discretion of the IPA, IPA may attend interviews of complainants, public witnesses, and sworn officers.
ii. The IPA may ask questions directly (civilians) or through the lead investigator (police personnel), in a manner that will not disrupt the timeliness or violate the Police Officers Bill of Rights.
iii. IPA will have full access to completed complaint investigation files; all evidence related to the issue, reports (as allowed by state law), analysis, proposed findings, and any proposed discipline.
iv. IPA will provide evaluations as to whether an investigation is complete, thorough, and objective and/or an explanation if more investigation or a change in finding is recommended.

18.3 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR November 2020 (Form Rev. 1120) Page 12
v. IPA will document any recommendations on policy, procedures, or training growing out of a complaint investigation.
vi. If an external investigator is used, IPA will provide input into the scope of work of the investigator, and offer assistance in the selection of the investigator.

2. Receipt of Cases
a. Santa Cruz Police shall have a documented process to send notice to the IPA of all complaints, classification1
of complaints, and assigned investigator.
b. IPA shall have a publicly noticed email and phone number to receive complaints directly and will refer them to the SCPD for investigation. IPA will be involved in review of cases per “1. Review of Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) Cases” above.
c. In order to monitor cases and coordinate interviews as needed, the IPA shall receive updates from an SCPD Internal Affairs Sergeant regarding cases and investigations.

3. Notice of Death, Serious Injury, or Other Critical Incidents The IPA will receive timely notification of critical incidents with authority to respond to the scene at IPA’s discretion. An SCPD Internal Affairs Sergeant shall notify the IPA. Critical incidents include:
a. Officer-involved shootings, regardless of whether a person was hit by gunfire; b. A traffic collision involving police officers that result in death or serious bodily injury to another person;
c. A use of force resulting in death or serious bodily injury per California definition (injuries requiring hospitalization for an overnight stay) to another person; or d. All deaths while an arrestee/detainee is in the custodial care of the Department.

4. Audit Santa Cruz Police Department Misconduct Complaint and Discipline Process a. The IPA will have access to the SCPD complaint database and regularly assess issues such as the nature of complaints, how complaints are classified, and whether investigation timelines are met. b. The IPA will have access to SCPD personnel and discipline records and will assess the discipline system for fairness and appropriate levels of discipline.

5. Audit Santa Cruz Police Department Policies, Procedures, and Training The IPA should prioritize and audit SCPD policies, procedures, or training related to these topics or other matters that may be identified and take precedence for auditing purposes. The following is not an exhaustive list of issues but indicative of what can be done:
1 Classification is a SCPD hierarchical construct for complaints and can be found in Attachment C.

18.4 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR November 2020 (Form Rev. 1120) Page 13
a. Progress on meeting SCPD Strategic Plan goals - in particular, goals with regards to training on procedural justice, the Guardian mindset, implicit/unconscious bias, and de-escalation. b. Progress on SCPD compliance with CA Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA) requirements SCPD stop data, using SCPD data reported under RIPA and other appropriate sources.
c. SCPD enforcement actions with regards to bias.
d. Individual use of force investigations, including Taser usage, and use of force aggregate data. e. Body camera usage by officers and review by supervisors, Professional Standards, etc.

6. Recommend Changes/Improvements to Policy, Procedure, or Training a. Systematically review SCPD existing policies and procedures and evaluate new or changed SCPD policies.
b. Systematically review SCPD training.
c. Make written recommendations for improvements or changes to SCPD policy, procedure, or training regarding any matter to the Police Chief.

7. Produce Reports
a. Regarding reviews conducted:
i. IPA shall provide evaluations of cases to the City’s Public Safety Committee, with a carbon copy the City Manager and Police Chief.
ii. At least annually, the IPA shall review the IPA’s case evaluations with the Public Safety Committee in closed session.
b. IPA will publish public reports, at least on an annual basis, to include: information about misconduct complaint investigations and trends; recommendations concerning improvements to SCPD policy, procedures, and/or training; results of audits. IPA may be requested to present reports to the City Manager and City Council.

8. Conduct Independent Investigations
In cases in which the IPA deems an investigation insufficient or the SCPD does not open an investigation, and recommendations for additional investigation are not heeded, after written notification to and concurrence from the City Manager and the City Attorney, the IPA may conduct additional or an independent investigation. The SCPD will provide full access to all materials concerning the incident underlying the complaint and all relevant personnel.

18.5 7142 Trask Avenue Playa del Rey, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
Independent Police Auditor Annual
Report
March 2022
Michael Gennaco
Samara Marion
Independent Police Auditor Team
City of Santa Cruz

18.6 2
Executive Summary
The Independent Police Auditor for the City of Santa Cruz (IPA) is pleased to provide its second annual report on its work, findings, and recommendations.

Our oversight role with the City affords us the opportunity to review the Santa Cruz Police Department’s investigations of complaints filed by members of the public, internally generated complaints, and administrative investigations of significant incidents such as in-custody deaths and vehicle pursuits. Upon completion of its investigations, Santa Cruz Police Department (“SCPD”) provides its investigative file and conclusions for IPA review. This annual report addresses IPA’s review of thirteen formally investigated public complaints, administrative investigations involving an in-custody death and a vehicle pursuit, and two additional concerns about SCPD performance.

Many of the files we reviewed reflected thorough investigations and sound conclusions. We observed the Department using individual incidents as an opportunity for making thoughtful recommendations to improve the performance of individual officers and the agency as a whole.

Our review also identified areas of the Department’s accountability systems that should be strengthened. Our twenty-six recommendations address these concerns. Some public complaints involved significant investigative delays that would have precluded discipline had actionable misconduct been identified. The Department should develop a system to accurately log in, track and monitor complaint investigations to ensure their timely completion. The Department’s complaint policy should be revised to require prompt interviews of complainants.

The Department’s notification to complainants about the Department’s investigation’s conclusion should be timely and when appropriate, describe any reform or learning that resulted from the complaint.

We also identified aspects of the Department’s investigation and review of critical incidents that can be improved. The Department’s policy on Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths would be enhanced by requiring interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift. We also recommend (at least for deadly force incidents and other critical incidents) that the Department (pursuant to current policy) convene a Use of Force Review Board for critical incidents so that the Department has a formal process to discuss, monitor and

18.7 3
implement recommendations and action steps arising from the Board’s assessment. Finally, our review of an incident at a rental storage locker provided an opportunity to address the role “bias by proxy”
1 may have played in the
original call for service and the subsequent interaction the complainant and her two companions had with SCPD officers. We recommended that the Department revise its Biased-Based Policing policy to address bias by proxy and develop training for officers, supervisors and dispatchers.

Below is our summary of cases we reviewed and key recommendations.

Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations An individual arrested for
being under the influence
of drugs became
unresponsive when
removed from the police
vehicle. Officers promptly
summoned medical care.

He was transported to the
hospital and died shortly
thereafter.

Review for
compliance
with SCPD
policy
In policy; SCPD
recommended
discussion with
the District
Attorney about
delayed
interviews and
monitoring of
non-seat-belted
arrestees.

Timely interviews of involved and witness
officers.

Monitor handcuffed, non-seat belted
arrestees during transport.

Require In-car video recording during
arrestee transport.

Implement a Use of Force Review Board.

Debrief officers post-Review Board.

Debrief officers in this case about their
incorrect assumption that the arrestee was
feigning his medical distress.
(IPA Recommendations 1-8)
In response to a report of
a gun brandishing during a
road-rage incident, SCPD
officers stopped a car
matching the suspect
vehicle. investigation
determined the driver was
the victim, not the
perpetrator of the gun
threat. Numerous officers
were involved in the highrisk felony stop.

Excessive
force,
discourtesy,
racial profiling
In policy; SCPD
recommended
dispatch records
be preserved;
911 caller should
have been
interviewed;
number of
officers in high
risk stop should
be reassessed;
officer counseled
for not activating
his body worn
camera.

Ensure post-incident recommendations are
considered and implemented.

Document time, date and manner SCPD
receives complaints.

Require approval and documentation of
significant investigative delays.

Monitor complaint investigations through
status updates to the Chief.

Require tolling exception to one-year statute
of limitations be approved & documented.

Describe any reform or learning from
complaint when notifying the complainant
of the investigation’s conclusion.
(IPA Recommendations 9-14)
1 Bias by proxy occurs “when an individual calls the police and makes false or illinformed claims about persons they dislike or are biased against.” Fidel, Producing Bias-Free Policing: A Science-Based Approach (2017) Springer International Publishing, p. 90.

18.8 4
Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations SCPD officers contacted
complainant and
companions who were
helping her load boxes
from her rental storage
unit into a van.

Complainant alleged the
officer was rude and
threw his business card on
the ground when his
contact information was
requested. The call for
service did not describe
criminal or suspicious
behavior and the
complainant and
companions questioned
why their lawful presence
resulted in police
response.

Discourtesy Sustained Re-evaluate this complaint in light of bias by proxy principles.

Develop policy and training on bias by proxy.

Retain complainant’s notification letters.

Require complainants be interviewed about
each allegation and investigate accordingly.

Notify the complainant of SCPD’s
investigative conclusions and explain its
policy and training efforts on bias by proxy.
(IPA Recommendations 15-19)
An internal complaint
concerning an officer
driving to a call for service
in an unsafe manner and
initiating a pursuit on
Highway 17 in an
extremely dangerous
manner.

Driving
unsafely
initiating
pursuit
without
justification,
driving in a
pursuit that
threatened
public safety;
continuing to
engage in a
pursuit when
ordered to
terminate it
Sustained IPA found the investigation thorough and
resulting in timely remediation.

18.9 5
Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations The complainant and her
boyfriend alleged they
were wrongly arrested for
possession of a stolen
vehicle, the officer used
excessive force by
pointing a firearm at her
and threatening to kill her
dog.

Unlawful
arrest
Excessive
Force
Unfounded Revise SCPD’s complaint policy to require
timely interviews of complainants.
(IPA Recommendation 20)
The investigation did not conclude until
almost two years after complaints were
filed, providing further support for
Recommendations 10-13 that address the
timely completion of investigations.

IPA found investigative conclusions were
sound and supported by body-worn camera
footage and a confirmed stolen vehicle
report.

The complainant alleged
that officers damaged his
watch while he was in
custody.

Damage to
property
Unfounded IPA noted the Department made reasonable
efforts to investigate this complaint though
there were significant delays during the
investigation.

SCPD officers responded
to a disturbance call that
resulted in the
complainant’s arrest.

False arrest;
refusal to
provide name
& badge
number;
ordered to
stand; failure
to provide
reason for
arrest; kicked
during a
search;
handcuffs too
tight; injury to
shoulder;
seatbelt too
tight; refused
access to
restroom;
refused to
accept citizen
arrest
Allegations
resulted in
exonerated,
unfounded or not
sustained
findings.

Command staff
noted the need
to complete
investigations
within a year and
recommended
that having a
complainant view
video of the
incident could
assist during the
complaint
process.

In appropriate cases permit complainants to
view the body-worn camera footage of the
incident that gave rise to their complaint.
(IPA Recommendation 21).

The investigation did not commence until
ten months after receipt of the complaint
and was not completed until two weeks
after the one-year statute of limitations had
run, providing further support for
Recommendations 10-13.

Body worn camera video supported
investigation’s conclusions that the officers’
actions were within policy.

18.10 6
Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations Complainant alleged that
an officer improperly
parked in the bike lane
and was discourteous.

Illegal parking
Discourtesy
Exonerated
Not sustained
The complainant alleged
that the officer was rude,
pushed his skateboard
into a puddle and drove
the wrong way on a oneway street when pursuing
him.

Unsafe driving
Rudeness
Sustained
SCPD noted that
rudeness,
aggression and
professional
demeanor were
recurring issues
for this ranger
who is no longer
a SCPD
employee.

The complainant alleged
that the ranger was rude
while issuing a citation.

Discourtesy Exonerated Consider implementing a procedure that identifies and offers mediation for low level
complaints.
(IPA Recommendation 22)
The complainants alleged
that the ranger was rude,
hostile and aggressive.

Discourtesy Sustained
SCPD notified
complainants
that their
complaint
resulted in
further training.

The Department initiated
an investigation after a
social media posting of a
picture claimed that a
named SCPD officer was
standing next to an
individual making a Hitler
salute.

SCPD
investigation
concluded that
that the
individual in the
photo was not
the named SCPD
officer nor any
other SCPD
officer.

18.11 7
Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations Complainant alleged that
SCPD officers failed to
enforce a court-issued
restraining order and that
the officers’ failure was in
retaliation for filing of a
previous complaint
involving the same officer
from a previous incident.

Refusal to
serve a civil
restraining
order; failure
to cite or
arrest the
restrained
party;
retaliation for
prior
complaint
Unfounded on all
allegations
Issue roll call training on Civil Harassment
Restraining Orders After Hearing.

Implement a system that captures accurate
and sufficient detailed information
regarding the intake, status and disposition
of complaints.

Re-evaluate the findings in this case and
consider issuing the complainant a new
disposition letter.
(IPA Recommendations 23-25)
Complainant alleged that
a SCPD officer unlawfully
towed his car and failed to
appear at a post-storage
hearing.

Improper Tow
Failure to
appear at
post-storage
hearing
Unfounded The investigation was thorough and timely;
the complainant did not provide further
requested information about the poststorage hearing and thus, no further investigation occurred on this allegation.

Anonymous complaint
that an officer engaged in
racist conduct 40 years
ago, is an alcoholic and
drinks on the job.

Biased
policing;
alcohol and
drug-free
workplace;
conduct
unbecoming
Unfounded The investigation was thorough and timely.

IPA and the Chief received
a letter from a parent
concerning the
Department’s social
media posting of their
son’s name and
circumstances of the
arrest. The parent
pointed out that in other
social media posts by the
Department involving
arrests on the same
charges the arrestee’s
identity was not included.

The Department
removed the
posting.

Develop policy to address the circumstances
for including or excluding the identity of an
arrestee in its social media postings.
(IPA Recommendation 26).

18.12 8
Case Summary Allegations SCPD Finding Auditor Recommendations SCPD officer arrested the
complainant for vandalism
after he used liquid chalk
to paint in the middle of
the street. He was
handcuffed, transported
by patrol car to the
parking lot of the jail, and
cited and released from
the scene without
incident. The arrest and
release were captured on
the officers’ body-worn
cameras. The District
Attorney reviewed the
incident and concluded
there was no basis for
criminal charges against
the involved officers.

IPA reviewed the incident and concluded the
officers complied with Department policy.

18.13 9
Outreach to City and Community
IPA Michael Gennaco has continued to meet with community members and advocacy groups, with most meetings virtual as a result of the COVID pandemic.

IPA has participated in ACLU sponsored fora and participated in panels convened by the NAACP and UC Santa Cruz advocacy groups Since our first reporting period, IPA Gennaco and IPA team member Samara Marion have both met with the Chief and his command staff. Ms. Marion also attended the Chief’s Advisory Committee meeting.

On April 19, 2021, IPA attended a virtual meeting organized by the Chief and Santa Cruz Police Department to discuss the Department’s preparations to support and manage anticipated protests concerning the verdict in the Derek Chauvin murder trial. This meeting included city council members and several community leaders and advocates.

IPA has also continued to field referrals and complaints regarding SCPD police actions. Because Samara Marion, a member of the IPA team, now resides in Santa Cruz, we expect our in-person availability and our access to both the public and the Police Department to increase in the coming year.

Review of SCPD Investigations
Case 1: In Custody Death
This investigation involved an in-custody death after two SCPD officers arrested an individual for being under the influence of drugs. While waiting to be booked at the jail, the arrestee became unresponsive when the officers removed him from the police vehicle, prompting an evaluation by the on-duty jail nurse. He was transported to the hospital by ambulance, went into cardiac arrest and died shortly thereafter in the emergency room. A forensic pathologist determined that the individual died from ventricular tachycardia with cardiac arrest caused by acute methamphetamine intoxication and a congenital bicuspid aortic valve.

The Santa Cruz County Critical Incident Guideline was initiated at the time of the arrestee’s death. As provided by the Critical Incident Guideline, and in an effort to ensure the objectivity of the process and result, it is the Santa Cruz County

18.14 10
District Attorney’s Office that leads the criminal investigation when an in-custody death occurs. When the case involves its personnel, the Santa Cruz Police Department provides assistance. Additionally, the Chief initiated the Department’s own administrative investigation into the incident to evaluate compliance with agency policies and procedures. Per the protocol established by the Department’s “Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths” policy (#305), that internal review was led by the Department’s Professional Standards Unit.

Given the scope of our auditing responsibilities, we focused on the SCPD administrative process in conducting our review. We do, however, mention elements of the criminal investigation below, to the extent they influenced the efficacy of the SCPD internal inquiry. It should be noted that the District Attorney ultimately determined that there was no basis for prosecuting the officers in conjunction with the man’s death.

SCPD had a considerable body of evidence upon which to base its ultimate findings and recommendations. Surveillance and officer body-worn camera footage from the day of the incident captured several relevant aspects of what had occurred. These included the original stop and arrest, the individual’s entry into and exit from the SCPD’s patrol vehicle, and the efforts by the officers, jail staff, and emergency medical personnel to attend to him before he was transported by ambulance to the hospital. Additionally, SCPD’s investigation included interviews of jail, ambulance and medical staff, in addition to a witness who had called 911 after observing the individual stumbling and falling.

SCPD also conducted administrative interviews of the involved officers. To SCPD’s credit, SCPD requested that the District Attorney immediately commence its criminal investigation of the incident, including prompt interviews of the involved officers. However, the District Attorney did not conduct officer interviews until three days after the incident. SCPD conducted its administrative interviews of the officers shortly after the DA had concluded its interviews. As SCPD command staff members themselves noted in the materials we looked at, the three-day delay in interviewing the involved officers was antithetical to the best practice of collecting and preserving evidence immediately following the incident.

18.15 11
As for any possible influence by SCPD officers on the man’s death, the involved personnel denied using any force other than wrist locks (while placing the individual in handcuffs and into the patrol vehicle) and sternum rubs and pressure on his ear (while addressing the individual’s sudden nonresponsiveness after being removed from the patrol vehicle). BWC footage showed an extremely intoxicated and often incoherent individual stiffening slightly while officers handcuffed him and placed him in the patrol vehicle. The arrestee was handcuffed and sitting upright – though not seat-belted when officers originally placed him in the patrol car. He was lying on his stomach with his head leaning down toward the driver’s side floorboard and his hands cuffed behind his back when officers opened the patrol vehicle door after arriving at the jail.

Officers stated they did not seat belt the arrestee because it would have required them to reach across him, and his known history of aggression toward officers led them to believe he would become combative.

A Department command staff member reviewed the Department’s administrative report and concurred with the report’s findings that the officers had not violated any SCPD policies. He made two recommendations:

1. That SCPD discuss with the District Attorney’s Office the delay in interviewing the involved officers, in light of the value of investigating and collecting evidence immediately in an in-custody death.

2. That SCPD’s Seat Belt policy (#1010) be revised to require constant monitoring of individuals handcuffed in patrol vehicles who cannot be safely seat-belted, since their freedom of movement could lead to an increased risk of positional asphyxiation.

SCPD’s internally generated recommendations are noteworthy both in substance and approach. They identify and seek to address key concerns: the importance of timely officer interviews to both the intrinsic effectiveness and the public’s confidence in the investigative process, and the need for a refinement of transport practices to better ensure detainee safety. More broadly, the recommendations reflect a commitment to meaningful self-scrutiny – an approach that uses incident review as an opportunity for thoughtful reassessment and strategies to impact future operations. SCPD’s willingness to take that step is commendable.

18.16 12
Our own views on this incident are related, and push a bit further in the identified directions. To enhance both the criminal and administrative investigation of critical incidents, IPA recommends that the Department propose that the County’s Critical Incident Guideline be revised to require interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift unless extenuating circumstances (such as an injury of an officer) preclude this. SCPD should also revise its Officer Involved Shooting and Death policy (#305) to incorporate this same requirement. This latter step is particularly important, insofar as the Department has direct control over its own procedures.

As for the seat belt issue, SCPD’s current Seat Belt policy has not yet incorporated the recommendation that emerged from this case a year ago. 2 It is
not apparent that the Department’s review of critical incidents such as this one includes a process to monitor the implementation of recommendations that result from the review. As discussed further below, a Use of Force Review Board would assist during this important stage.

Additionally, as another safety and transparency measure, IPA recommends that the Department consider requiring the activation of in-car video camera when transporting prisoners. The transporting officer in this case reported that the arrestee was yelling while he was being transported; the backup officer reported hearing yelling from the vehicle when it was stationary. However, there was no recording of the arrestee’s behavior because the transporting officer had turned off his body-worn camera while transporting the arrestee3 and he had not 2 Per a new California state law that takes effect on January 1, 2022, law enforcement agencies are prohibited from authorizing techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia in addition to prohibiting officers from using the carotid restraint or choke hold. See
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB490.

SCPD will need to revise its relevant policies to align with the new standards. 3 SCPD’s Body Worn Camera policy permits officers to stop recording when the arrestee is cooperative and safely secured inside a police car or law enforcement facility. The policy advises officers to resume recording “if an arrestee becomes uncooperative, or if there is some evidentiary purpose.” See SCPD Policy 426.7.

18.17 13
activated the in-car video camera during transport.
4 In light of the Department’s
responsibility for the care and custody of prisoners, requiring the activation of the in-car video camera during their transport can provide an important safety and transparency tool.

Another topic worthy of Department consideration (and consistent with SJPD current policy but not current practice) is a Use of Force Review Board, at least for critical incidents. The Department’s Officer-Involved Shooting and Death policy states that completed administrative investigations shall be submitted to the Use of Force Review Board. (See Policy 305.5 (c)(6)5). From IPA’s file review, it does not appear that this case was submitted to a Use of Force Review Board. Nor does it appear that the Department has a practice of convening a Use of Force Review Board upon completion of an administrative investigation of a critical incident such as this in-custody death. Moreover, although its Shooting and Death policy mentions a Use of Force Review Board, the Board’s composition, duties, timelines, meetings and scope are not defined.

A growing number of police departments convene a Use of Force Review Board comprised of command staff, training personnel and other relevant members to review the administrative and criminal investigations into critical incidents as to both individual performance and agency-wide issues. The Review Board provides an opportunity to assess the full incident, including officer tactics and decision-making, planning and coordination, force option choices, supervision, de-escalation efforts, equipment, training and post-incident responses (including medical assistance and community outreach). After considering all these components, the Review Board should have a formal process to document, 4 SCPD’s marked patrol vehicles are equipped with a Mobile Audio/Video (MAV) recording system that turns on automatically whenever the unit’s emergency lights are activated and the recording system remains on until turned off manually. Officers can manually activate the audio recording which also activates video recording. (See SCPD Policy 421). The officer did not use the patrol vehicle’s emergency lights during transport and thus the MAV recording system was not automatically activated. Nor did the officer manually turn on the audio recording system during transport. 5 The Department’s Officer-Involved Shooting and Death policy states, “Regardless of whether the use of force is an issue in the case, the completed administrative investigation shall be submitted to the Use of Force Review Board, which will restrict its findings as to whether there was compliance with the Use of Force Policy.” (4/14/2021).

18.18 14
monitor and implement recommendations and action steps arising from the Board’s discussions. The involved and witness officers should be specifically debriefed at the conclusion of the process regarding any issues/concerns identified by the Review Board.6
Another topic for Department consideration involved the officers’ initial view that the detainee was faking his medical distress. When the officers pulled the nonresponsive detainee out of the patrol vehicle, they attempted to have him stand upright and he collapsed onto his knees. They continued to assume the detainee was feigning his symptoms, repeatedly ordering him to stand up. One officer told him, “Stop, you were fine five minutes ago, stand up.” To their credit, they summoned medical assistance. However, when the jail nurse arrived, they told her, “He’s pretending to be unresponsive,” and explained that he had been screaming the whole way to the jail until they opened the door to remove him from the patrol car.7 The IPA recommends that the Department debrief with the involved officers about this case, including their incorrect assumption that the detainee was feigning his medical distress as well as the other issues raised by the Department’s and IPA’s review.

RECOMMENDATION ONE: The Department should propose that the County’s Critical Incident Guideline be revised to include interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift unless extenuating circumstances such as significant injury to an officer preclude this.

RECOMMENDATION TWO: The Department should revise its OfficerInvolved Shooting and Death policy to require interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift unless precluded by extenuating circumstances such as an injury of an officer.

RECOMMENDATION THREE: The Department should revise its Seat Belt policy to require constant monitoring of individuals handcuffed in patrol 6 The involved officers in this case were notified by letter that their conduct was in policy. There is no indication in the file that the involved officers were debriefed about the specific issues and learning points that emerged from the review process. 7 As previously mentioned, there was no audio recording of the detainee while he was inside the patrol vehicle.

18.19 15
vehicles who cannot be safely seat-belted in light of the significant risk of positional asphyxiation of handcuffed individuals lying in a stomach-down position.

RECOMMENDATION FOUR: The Department should revise its Mobile Audio/Video (MAV)policy to require the activation of the in-car video camera when transporting prisoners.

RECOMMENDATION FIVE: The Department should revise its OfficerInvolved Shooting and Death policy to define the Use of Force Review Board’s composition, duties, timelines, meetings and scope.

RECOMMENDATION SIX: The Department should revise its OfficerInvolved Shooting and Death policy to include a formal process to document, monitor and implement recommendations and action steps arising from the Board’s assessments.

RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: The Department should revise its OfficerInvolved Shooting and Death policy to require that involved and witness officers be debriefed on any issues/concerns identified by the Review Board.

RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: The Department should debrief with the involved officers about this incident, including their incorrect assumption that the detainee was feigning his medical distress as well as the other issues raised by the Department’s and IPA’s review.

Case 2: Public Complaint
This investigation arose from a complaint involving SCPD’s response to a report of a road-rage incident and collision involving two vehicles, the brandishing of a gun, and one vehicle’s flight from the scene. When SCPD officers spotted a vehicle matching one of the suspect vehicles, they conducted a high-risk vehicle stop and took the driver into custody. Further investigation at both scenes determined that the driver was actually the victim, not the perpetrator of the gun threat. The driver was released from the scene.

The Department’s investigation addressed allegations of excessive force, discourtesy and racial profiling. The investigation included interviews of the

18.20 16
complainant, involved and witness officers, civilian witnesses and review of bodyworn camera footage. Although the original reporting party was not interviewed and radio communications were not obtained, other aspects of the investigation were thorough.

A Department command staff member reviewed the incident, concurred with the investigator’s findings of no misconduct and made four recommendations:

1. In cases involving a complaint, the investigator should request that radio communications be preserved immediately.

2. Officers should have re-contacted the original reporting party to clarify why they believed the gun was associated with the vehicle the police stopped.

3. In a high-risk vehicle stop, officers and supervisors should constantly re-evaluate the number of officers and vehicles on scene.

4. The officer who did not have his body-worn camera on during the incident should be counseled.

As with the in-custody death case, these recommendations are reflective of a commendable emphasis on improvement. However, other than indicating that the officer was counseled about activating his body-worn camera, the file did not document any Departmental efforts to implement the recommendations. Again, the Department should develop a better mechanism to ensure that any recommendations coming out of a force review are timely considered and when appropriate, implemented.

This complaint process also revealed some shortcomings in the Department’s handling. The protracted timeline of the investigation was one problematic issue.

The complainant was not interviewed until at least four months after filing the complaint. The Department did not take any investigative steps (such as conducting witness and involved officer interviews) until almost a full year had passed. Dispatch recordings were no longer available because the request for their retention had not been made in a timely manner.

The investigative file did not document or explain the reasons for delay. Nor did the file include any authorization from the Chief to extend the investigation beyond 90 days as required by Department policy. On its face, then, the seventeen-month delay from receipt of the complaint in May 2019 until completion of the Department’s investigative findings in October 2020 seems to

18.21 17
have violated the Department’s policy that complaint investigations be completed within 90 days. (See SCPD policy 1009.3.1)8
The time lag had other implications as well. State law requires that officers be provided notice of discipline within a year of the incident unless tolling exceptions apply. (See California Government Code section 3304). Thus, by taking seventeen months to complete the investigation and make findings, the Department would have been precluded by state law from disciplining any of the officers had the Department identified actionable misconduct.

In addition to these delays, the date the Department received the complaint is in question.9 According to the second investigator assigned to the case, he learned from the original investigator that the Department received the complaint on May 23, 2019. However, the complaint form is signed and dated by the complainant on April 2, 2019. The investigative file did not include any notes from the original investigator as to the date, time and manner he received the complaint.

Apart from the inherent disadvantages to such uncertainty, officer misconduct allegations are subject to the aforementioned one-year statute of limitations period for discipline to be viable. SCPD clearly needs a system that uniformly documents the date, time and manner of receipt of complaints and monitors the assignment and completion of complaint investigations.

We recommend that the Chief or his designee be provided monthly updates on the status of complaint investigations.10 We suggest that the current policy that 8 SCPD policy 1009.3.1 requires completion of Category I and II complaints within 90 days. Category I complaints involve allegations regarding excessive use of force, unlawful arrests, discrimination, bias, or criminal activity. Category II complaints involve “relatively minor violations of procedure, courtesy, service or conduct.” The Chief’s approval is required to extend completion of a Category I complaint investigation; the Deputy Chief’s approval is required to extend completion of a Category II complaint investigation.
9 This is not the only complaint case during this reporting period where the “date of receipt” was at issue. (See Case 2020-024 discussed below) 10 It is our understanding that in August 2021, the former Chief began to require the Professional Standards Unit to report regularly on the status of its investigations, a practice the interim Chief has continued. Additionally, the interim Chief has indicated that beginning in January, the Acting Deputy Chief will also attend these case status

18.22 18
requires authorization from the Chief or Deputy Chief to extend complaint investigations beyond the 90-day deadline be enforced and documented in the investigative file. Additionally, the Department’s personnel complaint policy should be revised to require any tolling exceptions11 to the one-year statute of limitations be approved by a supervisor in consultation with the City Attorney and documented in the investigative file.

Finally, the Department missed an important opportunity when it issued its findings letter to the complainant. The Department’s letter to the complainant explained why it concluded the complainant’s allegations were not sustained or unfounded. However, the Department’s letter could have also explained that the complainant’s concerns and subsequent internal affairs investigation did provide a basis for improving the Department’s response to felony traffic stops and investigative practices.

RECOMMENDATION NINE: SCPD should implement a more robust mechanism to ensure that any recommendations coming out of a postincident review are timely considered and implemented.

RECOMMENDATION TEN: The Department should implement a system for accurately documenting the time, date and manner it has received a personnel complaint in its investigative file, and should update its Personnel Complaint policy to include this documentation requirement.

RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: The Department’s Personnel Complaint policy should be revised to require that any reasons for significant investigative delays be documented in the investigative file, and SCPD should ensure compliance with the approval requirement for extensions.

RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: The Department should continually monitor the timeliness of its complaint investigations through regular status updates to the Chief or his designee.
meetings. These are positive steps to address some of the timeliness issues we have identified.
11 The concept of tolling refers to a “stopping of the clock” that extends the normal oneyear statutory deadline when certain conditions – such as a pending criminal investigation about the same conduct – apply.

18.23 19
RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: The Department’s Personnel Complaint policy should be revised to require that any tolling exception to the oneyear statute of limitations be approved by a supervisor in consultation with the City Attorney and documented in the investigative file.

RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: The Department should describe any reform or learning that resulted from the complaint when notifying the complainant of its investigation’s conclusion.

Case 3: Public Complaint
This investigation arose from an incident involving three SCPD officers contacting the complainant and two individuals who were helping her load boxes from her rental storage locker into a cargo van during mid-afternoon. The complainant alleged that one officer was rude, antagonistic and threw his business card on the ground when one of the individuals requested his contact information. She also alleged that a sergeant was rude and hung up on her when she called to lodge her complaint.

Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) notes indicated that a 911 caller requested that police respond to a public storage facility where a male adult was unloading 20 or more boxes that included brand new bikes into a van; the involved individuals were described as a white female adult and a black male adult. Two minutes later the caller advised dispatch “it is about 10K worth bikes” and that he was “just passing through the area.”
The interaction among the complainant, the two males who were helping her and the lead SCPD officer was captured on a BWC recording, including the officer flipping his business card to the ground – purportedly to maintain social distance.

The lieutenant assigned to investigate the complaint correctly concluded that the officer’s act of flipping his business card to the ground violated the Department’s policy that officers be courteous and respectful to members of the public. Equally important to the Department’s review process was the lieutenant’s discussion with the officer in which he admitted he could have handled the situation differently, and they identified strategies for better communication with the public in the future. Nonetheless, the lieutenant’s remedial actions and the Department’s review fell short.

18.24 20
The Department’s review should have considered the role that “bias by proxy” may have played in the original call for service and the subsequent interaction with the complainant and the two men who were assisting her. Bias by proxy occurs when individuals call the police and their request for service is more reflective of their own prejudice than any actual observed misconduct. Recent well-known examples include the arrests of two Black men waiting for the arrival of an acquaintance at the Philadelphia Starbucks,
12 and police response to a
Black student napping in the Yale University common room.13 When police act on a request for service that stems from a caller’s own bias, there is a significant risk of an encounter that, in one way or another, reinforces that bias and its harms. 14 In this incident, the call for service did not describe criminal or suspicious behavior. In fact, moving boxes at a storage facility mid-day is precisely the type of behavior expected at that location. When police arrived on scene, the complainant and her companions immediately questioned why their lawful presence at the rented storage locker resulted in a police response. The Department’s review should have addressed this issue, not only as a stated element in the encounter but also as a fundamental part of the dynamic that ultimately prompted the complaint.

The Department’s current Bias-Based Policing policy does not address the topic of bias by proxy.15 The California Attorney General’s Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board recommends that law enforcement agencies develop 12 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/us/starbucks-arrest-agreements/index.html. 13 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/05/10/a-black-yalestudent-fell-asleep-in-her-dorms-common-room-a-white-student-called-police/. 14 Fridell, A. (2017). A Comprehensive Program to Produce Fair and Impartial Policing.

In Producing Bias-Free Policing. Springer, p. 90.
15 Of note, in 2020 the City of Santa Cruz adopted a type of bias by proxy ordinance.

The ordinance’s purpose is “to allow individuals who have been reported to law enforcement for unfair and unnecessary reasons to seek justice and restitution, and it also is intended to motivate people who contact law enforcement to consider the reasons they are making the report.” See
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0986.html#9.

86. 18.25
21 policies and training on how to prevent bias by proxy when responding to calls for service. RIPA recommends that the policy include:
• how officers can identify a bias-based call for service; • once identified, how officers and dispatchers should interact with the caller who has made a bias-based call for service;
• how an officer should interact with the community member who is the subject of the bias-based call;
• how the officer’s supervisor should interact with the caller; • required training for officers and dispatchers that covers responding to bias-based calls for service; and
guidelines for how to implement a restorative justice approach to address bias-based incidents in the community.
16 The Department should re-evaluate this complaint through the lens of bias by proxy. The Department should revise its Bias-Based Policing policy to address bias by proxy, including the above-mentioned topics recommended by the California Attorney General’s RIPA Board. The Department should also develop bias by proxy training for both officers, supervisors and dispatchers.17 The dialogue in this encounter could be useful for scenario-based training.

Another area of improvement concerns the complainant’s allegation about her attempt to lodge her complaint. File notes indicated that the complainant called the Department on the day of the storage unit incident to complain and called back the next day to request a different sergeant to take her complaint. During her interview with the investigating sergeant, she said she was more concerned with the storage unit incident that had prompted her call to the Department than with the sergeant whom she said was rude and had hung up on her when she had called to file a complaint. To the Department’s credit, the investigation included interviewing the intake sergeant about this contact. However, the 16 See Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Report 2021, https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ripa/ripa-board-report-2021.pdf. 17 We understand that the dispatchers are a County-wide and separate entity from the police department and can only be encouraged to participate in such training. We are hopeful that those overseeing such service would see the value in participating in such joint training.

18.26 22
investigator did not question the complainant about her complaint intake experience and ultimately, the Department made no findings about this allegation. The investigation should have obtained the complainant’s account of what occurred when she called the Department to complain, and her account and other relevant evidence should have been evaluated to determine the merits of this allegation. In the future, the Department should ensure that the complainant is interviewed as to each allegation and that a final personnel complaint investigation includes findings for each allegation.

Another area for improvement concerns how the Department informs the complainant of its investigative results, a duty required by state law.18 In this case, there was no letter in the Department’s investigative file informing the complainant of the investigative results.
19 Best practices dictate that copies of
the complainant letters should be retained in the investigative file. In fact, in October 2020, we recommended that the Department develop a protocol to ensure that copies of complainant letters are retained as part of the investigative file.
20 This case (and several other examples of the problem from this reporting period) provides further support to prioritize this recommendation. After the Department completes its re-evaluation of this case, we suggest the Department notify the complainant in writing of its investigative conclusions and take the opportunity to explain whatever policy and training efforts resulted from this complaint. 18 California Penal Code section 832.7 (e)(1) requires law enforcement agencies to provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition.
19 The Department’s recent attempt to locate a copy of the complainant’s letter was unsuccessful. Although a memo from a lieutenant indicates he recontacted the complainant and at that time discussed the investigation, this discussion occurred before the lieutenant had presented his investigative findings for review to command staff.
20 October 21, 2020 Review of IIPA Activity (December 19, 2019 to October 20, 2020) Letter to City of Santa Cruz Public Safety Committee Members from Michael Gennaco, Interim Independent Police Auditor, page 4.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/82971/6374753287171 00000

18.27 23
RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: The Department should re-evaluate this complaint by focusing on principles of bias by proxy when responding to calls for service.

RECOMMENDATION SIXTEEN: The Department should develop
policy and training on how to prevent bias by proxy when responding to calls for service.

RECOMMENDATION SEVENTEEN: The Department should develop a written protocol to require that copies of complainant letters are retained and included as part of the investigative file.

RECOMMENDATION EIGHTEEN: The Department should revise its Personnel Complaint policy to require that the complainant be interviewed as to each allegation and that a final personnel complaint investigation include findings for each allegation.

RECOMMENDATION NINETEEN: The Department should notify the complainant in writing of its investigative conclusions and explain its policy and training efforts on bias by proxy.

Case 4: Administrative Case
This incident involved an internal complaint about an officer driving to a call for service in an unsafe manner, initiating a pursuit without proper justification, driving in a pursuit in a manner that threatened the safety of the public and the officer, and continuing to engage in a pursuit when ordered to terminate it. The investigation was thorough and resulted in timely remediation.

To be more specific, the supervisor called the officer back to the Department to complete the pursuit notification and documentation requirements. He then promptly reviewed the officer’s in-car and body-worn camera videos that confirmed the extreme dangerousness of the pursuit. (The officer drove into oncoming traffic at speeds up to 80 mph for 5 miles on Highway 17—one of the most dangerous highways in the state which has sharp turns, blind spots, and narrow shoulders over the mountain between Santa Cruz and San Jose.) Shortly thereafter, he notified his watch commander about the officer’s conduct as an apparent violation of the pursuit policy. Per the watch commander’s instruction, the following day he drafted a memorandum outlining the officer’s conduct and

18.28 24
potential pursuit policy violations that was reviewed by command staff and resulted in an immediate IAD investigation.

While deference to an officer’s due process rights is important, it need not be mutually exclusive with timely, affirmative intervention. This is a principle that many agencies overlook, and we commend SCPD for this approach.

Case 5: Public Complaint
This incident involved a complaint concerning the officers’ arrest of a complainant and her boyfriend for possessing a stolen vehicle. The complainant alleged that she and her boyfriend were wrongly arrested, that an officer used excessive force by pointing his firearm at her, and that he threatened to kill her dog. The complainant’s boyfriend alleged that he was wrongfully arrested.

Although the complainants were not interviewed as part of the investigative process, other aspects of the investigation were thorough. The arrest of both complainants was captured on officers’ body-worn cameras.

Concerning timeliness, the investigation concluded almost two years after the complaints were filed. The file did not document the reasons that the investigation took twenty-three months to complete. This case provides further support for adopting Recommendations Ten through Thirteen to ensure the timely completion of the Department’s complaint investigations.

Despite issues of timeliness, the investigative conclusions were sound.

Supported by body-worn camera footage, the Department concluded that the allegations of threats and pointing a firearm at the complainant were unfounded.

The Department also exonerated the officer of the false arrest allegation based on a confirmed stolen vehicle report and the complainants’ statements. The Department notified the complainants of their conclusions.

SCPD command staff’s review of the investigation noted that complainants should be interviewed during the complaint investigation. Additionally, the review emphasized the importance of timely investigations and noted that either the investigation should be completed within the one-year statute of limitations and/or any “tolling exception” should be documented.

18.29 25
IPA recommends that the Department’s policy on Personnel Complaints be revised to require timely interviews of complainants.
21 RECOMMENDATION TWENTY: The Department’s Personnel Complaint policy should be revised to require reasonable efforts to timely interview complainants.

Case 6: Public Complaint 2020-003
The complainant alleged that SCPD officers damaged his watch while he was in police custody. An investigator reviewed body-worn camera footage of the complainant’s arrest, which showed the complainant handing his watch to the officer and then returning it to his wrist and being taken into custody without incident. Body-worn camera footage of the complainant’s in-custody interview showed the complainant without his watch. The complaint form did not include a phone number or email for the complainant. The file indicated the investigator wrote the complainant at the complainant’s address for follow up. The Department made reasonable efforts to investigate this complaint. This case involved a significant delay between receipt of the complaint in October 2019 and notification to the complainant of the investigation’s disposition in March 2021 that the allegation of damage to his watch was unfounded.

Case 7: Public Complaint
This complaint arose from SCPD officers’ response to a disturbance call involving the complainant and a neighbor that resulted in the complainant’s arrest. Body-worn camera video from the officers captured the complainant’s arrest and supported the investigation’s conclusions that the officers’ actions were within policy.

Again, the timeliness of the Department’s investigation was problematic.

Investigation of the complaint did not commence until ten months after receipt of the complaint. The investigative report was not completed until two weeks after 21 Although the Department’s Personnel Complaint policy requires supervisors to ensure that complainants are interviewed during reasonable hours, thereby implying that complainants should be interviewed as part of the investigation, the policy does not explicitly require a complainant interview. (See Policy 1009). As indicated above, SCPD’s command staff noted the absence of complainant interviews in this case and stated that, absent extenuating circumstances such as complainant’s non-cooperation, complainant interviews should be required during a complaint investigation.

18.30 26
the one-year statute of limitations had run. Attempts to contact civilian witnesses did not occur until after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. No documentation or explanation for the delays was included in the file. This case provides further support for adopting Recommendations Ten through Thirteenth to ensure the timely completion of complaint investigations.

A member of the Department’s command staff reviewed the investigation and noted the need to complete the investigation within a year or document the applicable tolling exception. He also suggested that in select cases such as the current one – where the complainant’s recollection of events is substantially different from the body-worn camera footage – it could be fruitful to view the video with the complainant to clear up misunderstandings or discrepancies about the incident. This is a sound recommendation that in appropriate cases could assist in providing both the Department and complainants a better understanding of the incident.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-ONE: The Department should develop a policy that in appropriate cases permits complainants to view the bodyworn camera footage of the incident that gave rise to their complaint.

Case 8: Public Complaint
The complainant alleged that an officer had improperly parked in the bike lane, causing a hazard to bicyclists, and was discourteous when the complainant approached him. The investigative officer determined that no body-worn camera footage existed of the encounter. Due to inadequate signage and the officer’s engagement in a lawful purpose, the Department exonerated the officer on the allegation of illegal parking. The Department issued a “not sustained” finding regarding the discourtesy allegation in light of the absence of body-worn camera footage and both party’s respective accounts appearing equally credible. 22 Case 9: Public Complaint
The complainant alleged that a ranger was rude, unprofessional, and unnecessarily pushed his skateboard into a puddle. He also alleged that the 22 The Department’s letter to the complainant was not included in the investigative file.

See Recommendation Seventeen, above, that addresses this issue.

18.31 27
officer driving the police vehicle that attempted to stop him drove the wrong way on a one-way street.

A supervisor’s investigation of the unsafe driving allegation was thorough and timely and resulted in a finding that the officer had in fact driven unsafely in responding to the call. SCPD ordered remediation to address this problem.

The supervisor also noted that concerns about rudeness, aggression, and professional demeanor were recurring issues for the ranger and that he needed to work on his de-escalation skills when coming into contact with non-compliant individuals.23 The ranger was counseled concerning active listening, deescalation, and basic communication skills.

Case 10: Public Complaint
The complainant alleged that a ranger was rude, aggressive and discourteous during an encounter in which the complainant was issued a citation. Body-worn camera footage indicated that the ranger was professional in demeanor.

However, an opportunity to view the body-worn camera footage with the complainant could have potentially facilitated a discussion about the ranger’s safety concerns as well as the complainant’s immediate apology that the ranger did not acknowledge for a better shared understanding of the incident.

Alternatively, this complaint could have benefitted from mediation which the Department lists as an option on its complaint form.24 The Department should consider implementing a procedure that identifies and offers mediation for low level complaints such as this one.
23 Notably, this ranger was also subject to another complaint (Case No.2020-16, below) for similar conduct. The ranger is no longer an employee of SCPD due to restructuring of the ranger program.
24 The Department’s complaint form instructs complainants to choose one of the five options: 1) a commendation; 2) a concern; 3) request for mediation information; 4) a citizen inquiry; and 5) a citizen complaint. Concerning mediation, the complaint form states, “If you filed a citizen complaint, you may request to mediate your complaint.

Mediation is a dispute resolution process where parties involved met with trained party mediators to constructively discuss their differences. Mediation is voluntary and may only proceed upon agreement by all parties and approval by the Chief of Police.”

18.32 28
Although the file did not include a letter to the complainant explaining the Department’s conclusion, notes indicated that the assigned investigator informed her of the investigation’s result.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-TWO: The Department should consider implementing a procedure that identifies and offers mediation for low level complaints.

Case 11: Public Complaint
This complaint involved negative interactions the complainants had with a ranger whom they described as rude, hostile and aggressive. (See case 2020-014, above.)The investigation was thorough and timely and resulted in counseling of the ranger. To the Department’s credit, the correspondence with the complainants about the investigation’s disposition noted the value of their feedback as an impetus for further training in customer service and deescalation.

Case 12: Public Complaint
The Department initiated an investigation after a social media posting of a picture that claimed that a named SCPD officer was standing next to an individual who was making a Hitler salute. The Department conducted an extensive investigation that confirmed that the individual in the photo was not the named SCPD officer, nor any other SCPD employee.

Case 13: Public Complaint
This case involved a complaint that SCPD officers failed to enforce a courtissued restraining order and alleged that the officers’ failure was in retaliation for the filing of a previous complaint involving the same officer from the previous incident.

The manner in which the Department discovered the complaint was irregular and problematic. The Department’s complaint form, signed by the complainant includes a one-page typed summary of the incident and a copy of a Watsonville Superior Court’s Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing and a picture of the alleged restrained party. A note in the investigative file states that the complaint was found in an envelope in a file cabinet in a folder, but there is no date on the envelope and no “received” stamp to indicate when the Department officially received the complaint. The note also states the complaint was not

18.33 29
entered in IAPro (the Department’s system for tracking complaints). But the note itself is not signed, and no investigator apparently recalled receiving or seeing the complaint before. Nor is any date provided as to when or by whom the envelope was discovered.

On August 12, 2020—14 months after the complainant signed the complaint and two months beyond the statute of limitations—an investigator assigned to investigate the complaint wrote a memo outlining his investigation. He learned from Dispatch that the restraining order was listed as served on June 14, 2019 at 11:13 hours. Dispatch could not determine whether this information was available to the officers during their contact with the complainant and the individual restrained by the court order.

The investigator met with the primary officer with whom the complainant had contact on June 14, 2019 concerning the restraining order. He could not recall the incident. The investigator reviewed body-worn camera footage from four officers who came into contact with the complainant and the restrained party on the night of the incident. One officer called an unnamed supervisor during the incident and after concluding the call, advised the officers they were not to serve the civil restraining order in question. The officers returned the restraining order paperwork and advised the complainant to contact the Sheriff’s office for civil process servicing.

The investigator also stated that his supervisor told him that the complainant had not previously filed any complaint with the Department, thereby undercutting the supposed motive for retaliation asserted by the complainant. The basis of the supervisor’s claim is not indicated.

Twenty-one months after the date of the complaint –the Department sent a letter to the complainant stating:

1. The allegation that officers refused to serve a civil restraining order in violation of department policy is unfounded because a department policy prohibits officers from serving civil processes or rendering assistance in a civil court case. Furthermore, it was not apparent whether the officers knew the order had been served earlier that day.

2. The allegation that the officers failed to cite or arrest the restrained party was unfounded because it was not apparent whether the officers knew the order had been served.

18.34 30

3. The allegation that the restrained party should have been arrested for being under the influence or cited for expired registration was unfounded for lack of evidence.

4. The allegation that officers were acting in retaliation to a prior complaint about a 4/1/19 incident was unfounded because the Department has no record of the complainant filing a formal complaint about an incident on 4/1/19.

The IPA found fault with several aspects of these conclusions. The Department’s failure to assist the complainant in enforcing the civil harassment restraining order is problematic. The Watsonville Superior Court issued a Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing that specifically states that the order is “enforceable by any law enforcement agency that has received the Order, is shown a copy of the Order, or has verified its existence on the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS).” The order also instructs that if the law enforcement agencies has not received proof of service on the restrained person, and the restrained person was not present at the court hearing, the agency must advise the restrained person of the terms of the Order and then enforce it. Violations of this Order are subject to criminal penalties.” (See California Judicial Council Form CH-130 Civil Harrassment Restraining Order After Hearing, page 5. )25
The Department incorrectly concluded that the Department’s Policy 320.2.9 (a) prevented the officers from advising the restrained party of the terms of the court’s civil harassment restraining order and enforcing it. As part of the Department’s Standards of Conduct and Discipline, Policy 320.2.9 (a) states that officers “will not serve civil processes nor will they render assistance in civil court cases, except when the City of Santa Cruz is party or they have been subpoenaed in the proper manner.” The officers were not acting as a process server in a civil law suit. They were required to enforce a court-ordered civil harassment restraining order. The signed court order issued on California Judicial Council Form CH-130 that the complainant provided them gavespecific instructions about law enforcement’s enforcement duties. The officers’ initial 25 A copy of the California Judicial Council Form CH-130 the Watsonville Superior Court judge used to issue her court order and its instructions to law enforcement on their duty to advise the restrained person are available at
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CH130.pdf.

18.35 31
mishandling was clearly compounded by the erroneous outcome of the complaint review.

The Department should issue roll call training on Civil Harassment Restraining Orders After Hearing that instructs officers on their duty to advise restrained parties of the terms of the order, and on how to take enforcement action as needed. The roll call training should also clarify that Policy 320.2.9(a) does not apply to court-ordered civil harassment restraining orders.

Equally problematic is the Department’s finding that the retaliation complaint was unfounded. The premise of the Department’s position was the lack of any prior complaint – and thus the lack of any corroboration for the animus the woman believed that officers were showing in the June 2019 incident. This was mistaken. Indeed, and contrary to this erroneous assertion, the Department had received an earlier formal complaint from the complainant about a felony car stop that had occurred on April 1, 2019. One of SCPD’s officers from the felony car stop was also involved in the civil harassment restraining order incident.

Given SCPD officers’ refusal to follow the restraining order’s explicit instructions, it is not unreasonable that the complainant questioned whether her previous complaint influenced the officers’ reluctance and ultimate refusal to take enforcement action on her behalf. Not only did the Department’s investigation and letter to the complainant fail to adequately address the complainant’s concern of retaliation, but the Department’s continued insistence that it had no record of the previous complaint she filed two months before this one surely cast doubt on the effectiveness of the Department’s system and any substantive results that eventually emerged from it.
26 This case is clearly reflective of procedural deficiencies that require attention. To accurately keep track of and monitor its complaints, the Department should implement a system that at a minimum identifies complainants, the date and nature of their complaints, the involved officers, and the status and disposition of complaints.
26 For a discussion of the complainant’s prior complaint, see Case No. 2019-032 discussed at pages 6-8.

18.36 32
Under the circumstances, the Department should re-evaluate the findings in this case and consider issuing the complainant a new disposition letter.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-THREE: The Department should issue roll call training on Civil Harassment Restraining Orders After Hearing that instructs officers on their duty to advise restrained parties of the terms of the order and how to take enforcement action. The roll call training should also clarify that Policy 320.2.9(a) does not apply to court-ordered civil harassment restraining orders.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-FOUR: The Department should implement a system that captures accurate and sufficient detailed information regarding intake, status, and disposition of complaints for easy tracking and reference.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-FIVE: The Department should re-evaluate the findings in this case and consider issuing the complainant a new disposition letter.

Case 14: Public Complaint
This case involves an allegation that a SCPD officer had unlawfully towed the complainant’s vehicle without providing proper notice, and that SCPD improperly failed to appear at a post-storage hearing. Documentation indicated that the Department’s Vehicle Abatement officer followed the proper steps to provide notification to tow the vehicle. The investigation was thorough and timely, and the complainant was notified of the investigation’s results that the officer’s actions complied with Department policy. The complainant did not provide further requested information concerning the post-storage hearing, thus precluding the investigator from further inquiry into the allegation.

Case 15: Public Complaint
This case involved an anonymous complaint that an officer engaged in unspecified racist conduct forty years ago, is an alcoholic, and drinks on the job.

The Department engaged in a timely and detailed investigation that found no evidence of the alleged misconduct.

18.37 33
Additional Matters
Apart from the formally investigated complaint cases discussed above, the IPA also monitored two additional incidents after outreach from involved parties. They were concerned about aspects of the SCPD performance in their respective matters.

Concern About the Department’s Social Media Posting
A parent sent a letter to both the Chief and IPA concerning the Department’s social media posting of their son’s name and circumstances of the arrest. The parent pointed out that in other social media posts by the Department involving arrests on the same charges the identity of the individual was not included. The Department agreed to remove the posting. The Department’s Use of Social Media Policy (#322) does not address the circumstances for including or excluding the identity of arrestees. IPA recommends that the Department develop policy to address this topic.

In developing such a policy, SCPD should consider the implications of new law AB 1475, which came into effect on January 1, 2022, and restricts the public posting of booking photos of those arrested for non-violent offenses unless certain conditions are met. The legislation also requires law enforcement to purge the posting of any booking photo from social media platforms if the individual is acquitted or other conditions are met. In that bill, the legislature spoke approvingly of San Francisco PD’s decision to prohibit the release of booking photos in most cases. While this case did not involve the release of a booking photo, the concepts and competing considerations are analogous.

RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-SIX: The Department should develop policy to address the circumstances for including or excluding the identity of an arrestee in its social media postings.

Complaint About a Vandalism Arrest
SCPD officers arrested the complainant for vandalism after he used liquid chalk to paint in the middle of the street. SCPD officers handcuffed the complainant and transported him by patrol vehicle to the parking lot of the jail without incident.

18.38 34
At the parking lot, an officer explained to the complainant that if he provided his name, he would be cited and released. When he complained that his handcuffs were too tight, the officer loosened his handcuffs and permitted him to stand outside of the patrol vehicle while the other officer verified his identity and wrote him the ticket. Upon the complainant’s request, the officer provided his badge number and his business card. The complainant signed the ticket and he was released from the scene. The complainant’s arrest and subsequent release at the parking lot jail were captured on the officers’ body-worn cameras.

Upon request of the complainant, the District Attorney reviewed the incident to determine whether there was any basis for filing criminal charges of false arrest and false imprisonment against the involved officers. In a written email to the complainant, the District Attorney noted that when officers arrived on scene, the complainant was actively painting in the street. The officers arrested the complainant for vandalism (Penal Code 594). The District Attorney pointed out that vandalism includes defacing with graffiti which does not require permanent damage. The District Attorney concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest the complainant for vandalism and there was no basis for filing criminal charges against the involved officers.

Upon request of the complainant, IPA also reviewed body-worn camera footage of the incident, as well as other relevant documents and evidence. IPA concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest the complainant, responded appropriately when the complainant stated that his handcuffs were too tight, provided badge number and business card upon request, and acted professionally with the complainant.

Conclusion
Throughout the past year, recently departed Chief Mills and newly named interim Chief Escalante were receptive to the Independent Police Auditor’s role and fully cooperated in providing access to the documents we needed to fulfill our monitoring responsibilities. Many of the files that we reviewed reflected the thoroughness of the investigations in a commendable way, and the Department’s effective use of individual incidents as a springboard for thoughtful recommendations to improve the performance of individual officers and the agency as a whole.

18.39 35
During the review period, we also observed a few cases with significant investigative delays that would have precluded discipline had actionable misconduct been identified. We have since learned that staff changes within the Professional Standards Unit along with delayed training due to COVID contributed to the Department’s challenges.27 Our recent discussions with the interim Chief and his command staff have been positive. Already we have seen the Department take important steps to address some of the concerns we have raised in this report.

We look forward to continuing this work with interim Chief Escalante and his Department.
27 The pandemic placed additional challenges on law enforcement’s ability to complete internal investigations state-wide, so much so that the Governor extended the one-year deadline for completion of such cases.

18.40 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Big Joe 77 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Independent Police Auditor's Report- Scope
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members,
In reviewing the Independent Police Auditor's report (Agenda Item 18) I noticed that OIR Group didn't review SCPD Case# 21S-01145 involving (then) 33 year old Joshua Nay.

The incident took place within the date parameters of the report, involved alleged misconduct on the part of the Police, and from my understanding, ended up in a lawsuit won by the plaintiff.

I'd like somebody, either OIR Group or the City Attorney, to explain why the scope of this report didn't include a review of police procedures/ policy for this case.

Thank you
--
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

18.41 Independent Police
Auditor Annual
Report 2021
Michael Gennaco
Samara Marion

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
AUGUST 23, 2022

18.42 Our Role as
Independent
Police Auditor
(IPA)
•Review complaint investigations
•Review officer-involved
shootings & other critical
incidents
•Provide input on SCPD policies
and procedures
•Report to City Council annually
•Meet with Santa Cruz
community members and police
department
https://www.oirgroup.com/ 18.43
2021 IPA
Activities
Met with community members,
advocacy groups and SCPD
Reviewed 13 public complaint
investigations, 2 administrative
investigations and 2 other
policing performance matters
Drafted 2021 Annual Report

18.44 Observations
from
Reviewing
Investigations
Cooperative and
Receptive Department
Thorough investigations
and sound conclusions
Thoughtful internal
review process

18.45 Areas for
Improvement
26 IPA
Recommendations
Timeliness of Investigations
Aspects of the Complaint Process
Investigation Procedures for
Critical Incidents
Bias by Proxy Policy and Training

18.46 Post-Annual Report Update
•SCPD has taken positive steps to
address the timeliness of investigations
•SCPD actively addressing other Annual
Report recommendations
•IPA and SCPD meet quarterly

18.47 QUESTIONS

18.48 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 14, 2022
AGENDA OF: August 23, 2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: Homelessness Response Quarterly Update (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive updates regarding Council directed homelessness response programs and services, including Homelessness Response Action Plan implementation details, objectives and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the City Council passed the Camping Standards and Services Ordinance (CSSO) and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance (OVO). These two ordinances contain programmatic elements aimed at providing alternative shelter and parking locations for those living unhoused on City streets. In addition, the City Council adopted the City’s first comprehensive Homelessness Response Action Plan (HRAP) on March 8, 2022.

With these new policies and plans in place, staff has been working on developing services that utilize best practices and identifying funding and partnerships to ensure long-term sustainability.

To keep Council and the public abreast of the new programs coming online, program outcomes, and the means by which the programs are funded, staff has committed to providing quarterly homelessness response updates to the Council. This is the third quarterly update of 2022.

DISCUSSION: Until recently, the City’s role in the area of homelessness response has been one of support to the County both as a partner in the region’s Continuum of Care and through in-kind contributions to County-funded health and human services programming. However, the passage of the Camping Services and Standards Ordinance (CSSO) and the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance (OVO), and the associated programming, have shifted the City into the new position of ongoing service provision for homelessness response. This requires the establishment of additional infrastructure and resources to support the significantly increased requirements and commitments associated with a comprehensive and holistic approach to homelessness response.

In recognition of this fact, staff created the Homelessness Response Action Plan (HRAP), which was adopted by Council on March 8, 2022. The HRAP is an evolving, responsive, and actionoriented plan to guide the City’s homelessness response for the next three years. Embedded in the HRAP are steps necessary to help ensure:

1. Growth of City organizational capacity to execute the plan;

2. The necessary coordination with the County and regional partners;

3. Identification of funding sources to support ongoing programming;

19.1.1 4. Appropriate data collection and reporting for tracking success;

5. Adequate alternative shelter options throughout the region; and

6. Effective land stewardship by the City.

At the March 8, 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented an expenditure plan for the State of California $14 million appropriation that was developed collaboratively with the County of Santa Cruz. The use of these funds was integrated into and supports the goals and objectives in the HRAP. The evolving context in homelessness response requires ongoing flexibility - including in the specific uses of the State funds. The broad categories of funding will remain consistent; however, the specifics may need to change based upon the availability of other funding opportunities, the development of other programs and services by the County, or as a result in shifting needs and priorities.

As the City moves significantly into new shelter service provision, the need to collaborate and align with the County and other local jurisdictions becomes even more essential. To this end, the City and County maintain regular collaborative meetings focused on homelessness response.

These meetings have allowed both agencies to better understand their respective priorities and efforts, as well as to share insights on provision of services, successes, and resource identification. Examples of this recent collaboration is the joint efforts underway to create a north county navigation center and an expanded Coral Street campus.

While the City-County collaboration is very active and appreciated, it does not ensure that both agencies always see eye-to-eye on the best path forward. Although the goal of minimizing homelessness is shared, there is not always agreement on the means to get there, particularly as limited funding is available. As the County shifts its investments from emergency shelter provision to a focus on more permanent supportive housing and service-rich shelter beds focused on improved outcomes, the number of emergency shelter beds for individuals in the City remains a significant challenge. The County’s coordinated entry system has been fully subscribed for some time now, making access to the limited number of existing shelter beds difficult. The County’s shift should provide more stable shelter options and better overall outcomes for homeless in the long run, but in the short term, the City is left to carry a significant burden as the number of County-run emergency shelter sites continues to close in our region. These challenges are compounded by the concentration of regional homelessness services located within the City and fewer services elsewhere in the County, creating a concentration of the number of unhoused in the City of Santa Cruz.

The City continues to work on acquiring the resources and infrastructure needed to supplement the decline in the County’s temporary shelter facilities resulting from the end of COVID-19 funding. As noted in the previous quarterly update on May 10, 2022, one-time state funds are being leveraged, along with federal one-time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, to launch and expand the City’s safe sleeping and safe parking programs, stand up additional emergency shelter sites, and bolster our organization’s overall homelessness response capacity and effectiveness.

This quarterly update provides a summary of the recent activity, including a comprehensive update on the City’s homelessness response programming, ongoing City-County collaborations, and the allocation of the State funding.

UPDATES:

19.1.2 Homeless Response Action Plan Implementation
The HRAP provides a comprehensive list of actions to ensure the City has the necessary systems, people, and partnerships to successfully implement the programs associated with the CSSO and OVO. This includes building internal staffing capacity to accomplish the objectives, as well as the establishment of data collection mechanisms to ensure that outcomes can be tracked and can be evaluated. In addition, the HRAP contains steps in the areas of permanent affordable and supportive housing, basic support services, care and stewardship, and community safety.

Building Internal Capacity to support the City’s Homelessness Response Homelessness response continues to be a Citywide effort touching nearly every department, and as noted in the previous quarterly update, the workload delineated in the HRAP exceeds the current capacity of City staff. The homelessness response efforts outlined in the CSSO and OVO, in addition to the continued demand brought on by the ongoing homelessness crisis, requires an expansion of Citywide resources and staffing. The HRAP outlines the development of new and expanded services and programs, as well as the infrastructure expansion needed for successful implementation. In order to implement the HRAP, several staff positions were identified and approved by Council. At the March 8, 2022 meeting, the Council approved the creation of several new positions in the Homelessness Response Team. The Homelessness Services Coordinator (0.65 full-time equivalent (FTE)) and three part-time Homelessness Response Outreach and Shelter Specialists (2.0 FTE) were hired and are working in these roles. In addition, two Community Service Officers (2.0 FTE) have been specifically dedicated to support the City’s homelessness response.

At the May 10 meeting, Council approved several other City staff positions outlined in the HRAP, including a part-time Community Relations Specialist and a five positions in a new Public Works Homelessness Response Field Division. The part-time Community Relations Specialist (0.5 FTE) was recently hired. This position will work with the Communications Manager in developing and disseminating information on the City’s homelessness response activities and programs to residents and individuals experiencing homelessness in the City of Santa Cruz. The Community Relations Specialist will also lead the implementation of community engagement efforts to collect community input and build community consensus on specific homelessness response projects. The Public Works Homelessness Response Field Division (4.5FTE) will consist of a Field Supervisor, a Senior Homelessness Response Field Worker, two Homelessness Response Field Workers, and a part-time Building Maintenance Worker II. State of California funding is also being allocated to support the infrastructure and operating costs of this new division.

These new positions will work across all City departments in an integrated approach to homelessness response. Although these positions will reside across multiple departments (e.g., Homelessness Response Field Worker positions in Public Works and Community Service Officers in the Police Department), the work of these employees will be part of a coordinated effort supported by the City Manager’s Office.

Data Collection & Financial Systems Development
In the process of developing specific outcomes for the HRAP, the limitations of local and regional data collection and data integration became clear. Since the City has not traditionally played a role in health and human services, it does not have the necessary infrastructure and

19.1.3 systems for collecting client data, nor in many cases, access to systems at the County level. In the first Action Area of the HRAP, “Building Capacity & Partnerships,” several of the goals and objectives are focused on City-County collaboration, including the establishment of more comprehensive data collection and data sharing mechanisms across jurisdictions and local agencies. This goal is extremely important for evaluation and evidence-based assessments to determine effectiveness of our efforts. Significant progress has been made on this front in the past two months.

City Outreach staff have obtained access to HMIS and are utilizing the data system to enter client data for participants at the 1220 River Transitional Community Camp. In addition, the participants in the City’s safe sleeping programs at the Armory are also being entered into HMIS.

More recently, the County launched a new HMIS Outreach module to gather information and support engagement and rehousing efforts for persons experiencing homelessness that are not in shelter programs. This new data collection tool is being piloted by County, City, and nonprofit service providers as part of the rehousing-focused service coordination in advance of the closure of the Benchlands sanctioned camp and the restoration of San Lorenzo Park.

Similarly, staff in the Finance Department and City Manager’s Office have made significant progress in developing an integrated, Citywide budget tracking system and homelessness response financial infrastructure for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. Together, these tools will improve the City’s ability to make effective financial decisions on homelessness response and make efficient use of resources. In addition, a methodology has been established for tracking staff time on homelessness response across departments.

Coral Street Master Plan
On June 1, 2022 the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Coral Street Housing and Services Master Plan Charrette. This RFP sought a land development, architectural, planning, and/or urban design consulting firm to organize and facilitate a community and stakeholder engagement process to inform the conceptual design and development of a master plan around the Coral Street and River Street area to provide new/expanded housing and services for people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. The submittal deadline was June 22, 2022, and the City received one proposal from Dahlin Group, Inc. Staff reviewed the proposal and found that it met the City’s needs for the planned project.

The Dahlin Group’s work plan begins with stakeholder interviews to evaluate existing conditions and to understand program needs and spatial implications. The consultant will then prepare test fit and typology studies for various program needs that will be used as the basis for creation of various alternative development scenarios. Two or three of the alternative development scenarios will be used as the base for a design charrette, where community members provide input on the potential development options. After Dahlin has an opportunity to assess the ideas and translate them into alternative development scenarios, they will identify a draft preferred plan. A second community meeting will be held to solicit feedback on the draft preferred plan. Following these efforts, the baseline analysis, a draft vision plan and goals, a summary of the charrette process and community feedback, an updated draft preferred plan, and potential phasing and alternatives for the site and public realm will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. The overall process is expected to take approximately seven months.

The work will be funded through the $14 million received from the state as part of its FY 2022 budget. Dahlin Group’s proposal fee is under the $100,000 threshold for Council authorization,

19.1.4 so staff are proceeding with finalizing the contract, which is expected to be complete in August, at which time the consultant’s work on the project will commence.

Housing Matters Hygiene Bay Remodel
On April 14, 2022, the City released a Request for Proposals for the Housing Matters Hygiene Bay Remodel Project. The submission deadline was May 12, 2022, and three bids were received.

On June 28, 2022, Council authorized the award of the contract to Selden & Son in the amount of $1,359,800. The remodel consists of ground floor work including selective demolition for the installation of new walls, floors, moisture barriers, partitions, and fixtures. A new reception desk, cabinets, and lockers will be installed for a new reception area. New electrical work includes new lighting, power supply for various new components, and a new electrical panel. The new HVAC work will include new ducts and exhaust fans installation, among other tasks. A preconstruction meeting was held on-site on August 1, 2022, and construction has now commenced.

The project is expected to be completed in early February 2023.

Acquisition of 125 Coral Street Property
In May 2022, the City purchased the property at 125 Coral Street, which is adjacent to the Housing Matters Campus. The property will be a prominent opportunity site for the upcoming Coral Street master planning effort and will make it possible to build a north county navigation center. Navigation centers are low-threshold, high-services temporary shelters programs for persons experiencing homelessness. Current plans envision a new navigation center to be part of the services and shelter needs addressed in the master plan. The exact location and how it is related to other uses, such as permanent supportive housing, will be explored as part of the design charrette and master plan process. The property acquisition was funded through the use of the State of California $14 million appropriation to the City to support homelessness response efforts.

Eviction Prevention
In partnership with the County of Santa Cruz and other local jurisdictions, there was an agreedupon need to augment eviction prevention efforts given the impending expiration of the State eviction moratorium and a backlog in the processing of applications for relief that tenants and landlords submitted to the State. On April 12, 2022, Council authorized the allocation of $150,000 of the state funds be used to support eviction prevention efforts in alignment with the County’s commitment of $500,000. This funding expanded an existing contract with Community Action Board to provide assistance in to support legal education and mediation services to reduce potential evictions and prevent homelessness.

Benchlands Rehousing Focused Service Coordination
Earlier this year, Council provided staff direction to work toward closing the Benchlands to camping, and on April 12, 2022, the City Manager reported to Council that staff are working towards a closure. A separate staff report on this same Council agenda covers present operational plans and progress in the effort to close the Benchlands camp and restoration of the area to its intended use as a park that is utilized by the entire community.

Several factors that are critical to the success of this effort are already underway – including expansion of existing shelter capacity in the City, along with collaboration with the County to expand case management, service connections, and rehousing efforts for persons camping in the Benchlands in advance of the closure. City and County staff, along with community partners, are meeting weekly to coordinate, align, and augment services in the Benchlands. The County

19.1.5 has set up a mobile office for outreach workers behind the County building to serve the Benchlands, and a service schedule has been drafted by participating providers. City Outreach staff has been leading the effort to conduct a census of persons camping in the Benchlands and has entered the information into HMIS to facilitate engagement, coordination, and connection to rehousing supports and other services. The collective goal is to engage every person camping in the Benchlands and work with them to develop a rehousing/sheltering plan.

Related to this effort and as reported at the March 8, 2022 quarterly update, the County received a $2.3 million Encampment Resolution Grant from the State of California focusing on connecting persons living in encampments along the San Lorenzo River to permanent and stable housing. This new program will combine outreach and case management with flexible “housing scholarships” for 65 persons to help eliminate financial barriers to the services and supports they need to successfully transition to stable housing. This program is up and running, but it is not yet at full capacity due to labor supply issues in the region. In addition, the County’s Healing the Streets program is also providing outreach and connections to behavioral health services.

Santa Cruz County 2022 Point-in-time Homeless Count Findings The County’s Housing for Health Division (H4H) presented the initial results of the 2022 Point in Time (PIT) Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness Data to the Board of Supervisors on August 9, 2022. H4H staff in partnership with contractor Applied Survey Research (ASR) and community volunteers, including numerous City staff and Councilmembers, implemented the first step in an annual point-in-time count of households experiencing homelessness on February 28, 2022. The final, full 2022 report release, which includes geographic breakdowns by jurisdiction, is expected within one to two months. The initial 2022 PIT data indicate an overall increase in homelessness of 6% between 2019 and 2022 (from 2,167 people to 2,299 people) in Santa Cruz County. The unsheltered population increased by 4% (from 1,700 to 1,774). The findings provide point to some positive trends including:
 59% decrease in homelessness among families with children under 18.  94% decrease in unsheltered homelessness among families.  The count estimated only five families were unsheltered on the night of the count.  No unsheltered children under age 18 were identified in the count (a 51-person decrease from 2019).
 Homelessness among youth aged 18 to 24 years old declined by 61% overall and by a similar percentage among the unsheltered youth.

These positive findings were tempered by notable increases in homelessness among veterans, people with disabilities that have been homeless for a year or more, and people who have had multiple or long episodes of homelessness. The 2022 PIT count data, indicates the number of “chronically homeless” people increased by 129% from 403 in 2019 to 921 in 2022. The 2022 data also shows significant increases in the number of people with self-reported behavioral health and health problems experiencing homelessness.

Housing for Health Partnership
The regional Continuum of Care (CoC) organization “launched” under its new governance structure on April 20, 2022. Formerly the Homeless Action Partnership, the CoC is now called the Housing for Health Partnership (H4H). The City has two representatives on the 15-person Policy Board that is responsible for high level policy direction, planning and decision-making.

19.1.6 Staffing for the H4H Partnership continues to be provided by The County of Santa Cruz Human Services Agency, Housing for Health Division.

The most recent quarterly Policy Board meeting was on June 8, 2022. The H4H staff provided an update on the four Project Homekey applications submitted, including the news that one project received an award, the Veteran’s Village, for $6,435,000. The other applications are still pending decisions. The Policy Board also approved the transfer of two Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project (YHDP) HUD CoC rapid rehousing grants totaling $415,820 from their current grant recipients to Covenant House and authorized Housing for Health Division (H4H) staff to work with CSFC, Inc. and Covenant House to pursue Project Homekey and Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) funding for the creation of a new, 20-bed youth transitional house project at a former licensed children’s residential care site located at 2714/2716 Freedom Blvd. in an unincorporated area near Watsonville. The board also authorized the Housing for Health Division staff to submit a joint, collaborative Housing Homeless, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP)-3 Local Homelessness Action Plan and Application to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) requesting the Watsonville/Santa Cruz City & County CoC allocation of $3,243,331 and Santa Cruz County allocation of $3,027,108 with a minimum of 10% for services for unaccompanied youth between 12 and 24 years old. The next H4H Board meeting is August 17, 2022, which has not yet occurred as of the drafting of this report.

Camping Services & Standards Ordinance (CSSO), Safe Sleeping and Shelter Implementation of the CSSO calls for a 24/7 sanctioned sheltering location and/or available homeless persons’ storage, with 150 safe sleeping spaces identified as a minimum. The Homelessness Response Team has continued its work to stand up sanctioned sheltering locations as directed by Council. The need for safe sleeping capacity has taken on further urgency in recent months following the Countywide reductions of County shelter options due to the expiration of pandemic-related funding. The City is actively working in collaboration with the County to further expand capacity in the City and in other parts of the County.

National Guard Armory
The City Overlook program opened in mid-May 2022 in the area on the south side of the National Guard Armory building. This tent-based safe sleeping program operated by the Salvation Army has the capacity to serve 65 persons on a 24/7 basis and ten persons overnight.

The 24/7 program has been operating at near full capacity since late June 2022. In anticipation of the closure of the County’s shelter program inside the Armory building on June 30, 2022, City staff engaged The Salvation Army in discussions regarding operation of a City-funded program in this space. At the June 28, 2022 Council meeting, Council approved a contract with The Salvation Army to operate an expanded program with a total capacity of 135 persons at the Armory site for fiscal year 2022-2023. The Salvation Army is currently recruiting to fill the positions for the expanded program, and City Staff has been working with them to get the contract finalized and the expanded program up and running as soon as possible. The programming that The Salvation Army provides at the Armory includes two meals a day, and regular shuttle service from the site to central locations in the city. When necessary, the Salvation Army will also be working with local providers (e.g., Liftline and ParaCruz) regarding specialized transportation for persons with disabilities.

19.1.7 Transitional Community Camps
The City’s first Transitional Community Camp (TCC) has been open and operational since January 2022. It is located at the City-owned 1220 River St. property and has operated at full capacity of approximately 30 participants. This low barrier camp offers basic services such as showers and cooking facilities, with staff providing daily oversight and case management. A cohesive camp community and camp council has been established with participants working together to maintain the facilities and support one another in adhering to the rules and expectations.

Since its opening, the 1220 TCC has supported 43 individuals who have participated in weekly case management meetings with staff to identify goals and connect participants to services. All current 1220 TCC participants are enrolled into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), so services and outcomes can be tracked. All participants have been provided access to on-site County benefits specialists, and behavioral health support is onsite at least once per week.

Notable client outcomes since the last report include:
 2 people obtained housing.
 1 participant reunited with family and relocated out of the county.  10 people have vouchers and are seeking housing
 1 participant obtained full-time employment
 2 participants are actively seeking employment
There are plans to open a second TCC later this fiscal year. The preliminary plan for this TCC is to serve women and persons with mobility challenges and will therefore need to be placed in a location accessible to services. Funding for this additional TCC has been identified as part of the $14 million from the State, and efforts to open the site, including participant and neighborhood outreach, will begin as soon as staff capacity allows. The goal is to enroll a minimum of 15 participants in this new TCC, and potentially up to 30 if the location and site design can accommodate the greater numbers.

Shelter Expansion
In addition to plans for a second TCC, the City continues to pursue options for additional temporary shelter in the community. The following shelter options are currently being explored by City staff as well as regional partners:

Housing Matters’ Expansion
The City, the County, and Housing Matters continue to be working in collaboratively to expand shelter capacity at the Housing Matters campus on Coral Street. This expansion will utilize Pallet Shelters (or similar sleeping cabin structures) purchased by the City and will include the other necessary infrastructure to support the program. The program will be operated by Housing Matters through a contract with the County, and will support participants with access case management and housing navigation. The plan is to utilize the footprint of the City-owned River Street Shelter on the Housing Matters campus. The River Street Shelter is in poor condition, and it is not cost-effective to refurbish the building for shelter use. The two buildings will be demolished in the coming weeks, and the site will cleared and graded to accommodate temporary sleeping shelters. The Public Works department is providing project management for the demolition.

Temporary Housing

19.1.8 Using COVID-19 related funding, the County has funded temporary shelter operations in a number of hotels and motels throughout the County, including some in the City, for the past two plus years. Given the end of this funding, these temporary shelters have closed, and the overall temporary housing capacity in the County, and in Santa Cruz specifically, has declined significantly. Presently, the County is working with the Central California Alliance for Health to fund shelter capacity for the health care system with an anticipated 80-100 bed capacity over the next six months. As noted in its most recent report to the Board of Supervisors on August, 9, 2022, “the absence of stable public funding to support year-round, low-barrier, service-enriched temporary housing programs is the primary barrier to expanding capacity within the County.” The City and County continue to be in engaged in conversations about potential hotels or motels that could be used for such purposes. City staff have analyzed locations, surrounding land uses, number of rooms, transient occupancy tax revenues, and various other factors as a means to identify and assess various options. A number of potential properties have been considered, however, it is likely that only one of two would actually be used for such purposes. Further analysis will be needed as this potential approach is explored.

Oversized Vehicle Ordinance (OVO) & Safe Parking
The OVO was adopted by Council on November 9, 2021. Several key elements of the OVO include parking restrictions on City streets between midnight and 5 a.m., a new residential permit program, and the restriction of discharging sewage or greywater on streets or in storm drains.

The Council also directed staff to launch a three-tier safe parking program to allow oversized vehicles a legal, overnight parking option within the City limits.

Following an appeal to the Coastal Commission of the Council’s April 12, 2022 approval of the Coastal Permit to implement the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance in the Coastal Zone, the Coastal Commission had an initial hearing on the item on July 14, 2022. This initial hearing was for the Coastal Commission to decide if a “substantial issue” existed regarding the permit or not. The Commission staff initially recommended that “no substantial issue” be found. However, after reviewing the oversize vehicle parking limitations that apply 24/7 within 100 feet of intersections, the Commission staff revised their recommendation and called for the Commission to find “substantial issue.”
On July 14, the Commission found that a “substantial issue” does exist with the Coastal Permit, so they will take jurisdiction over the permit and will act upon it. That action will occur at a de novo hearing where the Commission will take public testimony from anyone interested in the matter, consider all the information presented before and at the hearing, and subsequently approve the permit, deny the permit, or approve the permit with modified conditions. The date for the hearing has not been set yet, but initial indications are that it could occur before the end of the year. City staff have met with the Coastal Commission staff to discuss the concerns they raised, and City staff will continue to coordinate with the Commission staff to provide any additional information that may assist them in their evaluation of the proposal and recommendation.

Despite the delay in the full implementation of the ordinance, the City remains committed to providing the three tiers of safe parking spaces for oversized vehicles.

Tier 1 Emergency Safe Parking (3 spaces total): Emergency, night-only parking spots and associated infrastructure continue to be available in the SCPD parking lot. SCPD is

19.1.9 administering the Tier 1 program on an as-needed basis when they encounter individuals in the field.

Tier 2 Multiple Safe Parking Sites (30 spaces total): The Tier 2 program is currently operational in a downtown City lot with a capacity for six vehicles. Presently, there are 3 participants enrolled in the Tier 2 program. Participants are able to stay overnight for up to 30 days as part of the initial pilot, with extensions having been granted thus far based on available capacity. The number of nights that participants can be continuously enrolled at a location will be evaluated as the full program is implemented. Program parking spots have designated signs and participants are given permits to display in their windshield. Trash facilities are provided on-site, and a portable restroom and hand-washing station is available. Outreach regarding the Tier 2 program is currently being done by parking and SCPD staff as well as through City and County outreach workers. The only requirement to participate in this program is that participants must sign the participant agreement and adhere to the rules of conduct to participate in the program. Staff have identified additional City-owned lots, so expansion to 30 Tier 2 spots can occur as program demand increases.

Tier 3 Operator Supported 24/7 Safe Parking Site (15-20 spaces total): The third tier of the Safe Parking Program is designed to provide more stability to participants through a 24/7 parking program that provides case management and wraparound support services. A nonprofit operator was selected through the City’s open Homeless and Housing Services Request for Qualifications process. On June 14, 2022, Council authorized a contract with Association of Faith Communities (AFC) and its partner The Free Guide, in the amount of $392,348 to operate a Tier 3 program for up to 24 vehicles. The contract has been finalized; AFC/The Free Guide have hired staff and are actively conducting outreach in order to begin operations by the end of August at the Armory site once site preparation is complete.

Homelessness Response Action Plan 3-Year Cost Projections At the last quarterly update on May 10, 2022, staff provided an expenditure plan for the costs related to implementation of the HRAP over the next three fiscal years, as well as a description of the of the various element and their associated costs. In recognition of the fact that the HRAP much be flexible a responsive to evolving needs in the community, the specific actions and projected costs for specific elements will be expected to shift over time, staff is therefore committed to providing regular updates on the modifications to the expenditure plan.

Since the last quarterly update some changes have been made to the expenditure plan. First, the $1.3 million for additional shelter at the Housing Matters campus has been reallocated to augment the contract with The Salvation Army to expand shelter capacity at the Armory building from 75 to 135 for one-year. The County has made a commitment to fund the program operations for expanded shelter capacity of 20-30 persons at Housing Matters. Also, the cost of the Housing Bay Remodel was appropriated from both American Rescue Plan Act funds ($1.9 million) and State of California funds ($1.7 million) due to timing issues to release the Request for Proposals. As noted earlier in this report, the contract was awarded for this work in the amount of $1,359,860 from ARPA funds, which is $540,140 under the projected cost for this work. In addition, this makes the $1.7 million in State of California funds available for other purposes. As detailed in a separate staff report for this meeting, staff is recommending a budget adjustment so that $1 million of the $1.7 million of the State of California funds dedicated to the Hygiene Bay Remodel can be utilized for the Benchlands Restoration Project. The final change

19.1.10 to note, is that $76,935 of ARPA funds allocated to the Hygiene Bay will be utilized to support infrastructure costs associated with the new Public Works Homeless Response Field Division.

Health in All Policies
HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars:
equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The actions and approaches discussed herein support the pillar of equity by providing services, such as shelter, safe sleeping, safe parking, and case management services that support individuals experiencing homelessness. They support public health by providing mental health, case management, and hygiene resources to those experiencing homelessness. The actions and approaches support sustainability by providing resource and land management staff, shelter, and hygiene resources, thereby decreasing the amount of litter, debris, and human waste that is disposed of improperly. Therefore, these actions and approaches are consistent with the three pillars of HiAP.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no net fiscal impact in the recommended action associated with this report. The HRAP implementation actions were included in the expenditure plan for the $14 million received from the State of California that was authorized on March 8, 2022, as well as the ARPA funds that were authorized on December 14, 2021. Specific contracts, agreements, and budget adjustments will be brought back to Council as needed, and in a manner consistent with City policies and procedures.

Due to extensive one-time state and federal funding for homelessness response, FY 2024 and beyond funding for ongoing services identified in the Homelessness Response Action Plan will need to be identified as part of future budget cycles.

Prepared By:

Larry Imwalle
Homelessness Response
Manager
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

None.

19.1.11 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Big Joe 77 <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 6:24 PM
To: City Council
Cc: dl_Dept Heads
Subject: How much do you really care?
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members,
At your next meeting, you will be receiving a quarterly update on the City's homeless response. Your typical head nodding and "thank you for that presentation" responses just aren't helpful.

If you really cared about the City you were elected to govern, you'd ask tough questions. Questions designed to nail down accountability. Questions like:
- the City Manager-
 As the City moves forward with the planned restoration of the upper San Lorenzo Park area, what steps are being taken to prevent further vandalism, theft, and harassment from occurring while work is being done? Your answer should include both while people are working and after hours.  What will be done to prevent further destruction of the upper park area once the restoration has been completed?
 As I understand it, the Benchlands slum area is to be “sectioned off” with metal fencing to provide outreach workers with smaller groups of transients to work with. Does this plan include ‘round the clock supervision of all entrance/egress points? If not, how do you plan on keeping the transients from relocating after hours?
 What are your plans to relocate the benchlands slum should the county’s navigation process run longer than anticipated and into the rainy season? Do you have a potential sight yet for this fallback location? Have you conducted any outreach to residents and businesses that may be impacted should this contingency become necessary?
- for Imwalle
 Is the County still directing transients from all over into the benchlands?  Other than the slum in San Lorenzo Park, how many other slums is the Homeless Response Office monitoring?
 In the Mayor’s article in the Sentinel over the weekend, she mentioned numerous fires caused by the transients living in your slum. I noted that the “Code of Conduct” clearly states that fires are forbidden.

Can you tell us exactly how many transients have been evicted from the benchlands slum for violating this code?
 I’d also like to know, approximately, just how many transients have been evicted from the benchlands slum for violating all the other rules listed in the “Code of Conduct,” and where they were directed to go.
 What are your plans on providing shelter to those who are resistant to shelter options? Any idea on how many transients fall into this category?
 This question is for the City Attorney- In reviewing the Judge’s Opinion from the Martin v Boise case, I understand that “sleeping is a human right,” but I am unable to locate the part where it says that transients may erect 24/7 encampments. Could you please show me where in that opinion it says that?

19.1.12 2
 - Can you please provide the community with an itemized expenditure list for your Homeless Action Plan to date? This should include expenses drawn from both the $14.6M in state aid and the City’s General Fund.
-SCFD Chief
 Is it still the policy of your Station Houses that they be accompanied by SCPD Patrol Officers when responding to calls for service in the benchlands slum?  Do you believe that there will be enough room to respond safely to the continued calls for service within these fenced off sections?
 To the best of your knowledge, are there any transients living in any of the City’s Open Spaces (Pogonip, Moore Creek, etc), and if so, are there any plans underway to evict them and close the off trail areas (as in years past)?
-SCPD Chief of Police
 In April-May, Parks workers collected nearly 700 syringes from the Levee Riverwalk, indicating rampant drug use along this public pathway. Are there any plans to curb this illegal, dangerous behavior in our parks and open spaces? If not, why not?
 When do you believe it’s time to activate your mobile command trailer and create a substation in the benchlands slum? Seems to me during the upper park restoration phase would be a good time. If not, why not?
 Now that the emergency bail order has been lifted throughout the county, on average, about how many more transients are being booked daily for drug offenses and property crimes? It's about time one or more of you began to oversee what has been a completely feckless response from City Hall to date. Be well,
--
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

19.1.13 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robert Norse <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Cc: Dylan Verner-Crist; Jessica of the Sentinel; Tristia of NLCHP; Peter of the ACLU; Reggie Meisler; Keith McHenry; Joy Schendledecker; Sophia Bassett; Julie Schaul; Carol Denney; Jonathan Gettleman; Herman Kalfen; [email protected]; Thomas Leavitt; John (!!!) Thielking; Wes White; Peggy (!) Lee Kennedy; Serg Kagno; [email protected]; City Council; Pat Colbe; Mel Nunez; Brent Adams
Subject: Public Speaking Time on Item 19.1 and Item 19.2 Sonja,
This is to advise you I will be attempting to speak representing HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) on item 19.1 and a second time on item 19.2 on the August 23rd agenda.

Creating an agenda where two different subjects are differently itemized, scheduled for different votes, and then allowed only one public comment period is a violation of the Brown Act. Please follow the law and allow the public proper access and input to a matter of widespread local concern. You can't perform legal sleight‐of‐hand and present two different items and debates and allow only one public comment period particularly on an item where you are severely limiting public comment. It makes it appear you are simply providing the form but not the substance of legal community access.

Additionally, artificially cramming the subject into a 30‐minute speaking time shows a profound contempt for all sides of the community.. You need to reverse this decision to squeeze out meaningful public input and to announce that change in advance. If the subject requires more time, you need to either extend the meeting or (as has been done historically) schedule a second meeting the next day or at a subsequent time.

Your failure to appear at real public forums where you can be directly questioned on these matters (such as the Benchlands discussions being held Mondays at 6 PM at the Resource Center for Non‐Violence‐‐or any other public venue for that matter) gives the impression you are unwilling to face the public in an accessible and transparent manner. The time, prior announcement, and restricted setting where token input is allowed at City Council heightens that impression.

Your failure to create a truly workable "Oversized Vehicle" law stems from similar problems. The fact that it was shut down by the Coastal Commission could have been readily predicted‐‐‐as a similar bigoted law was struck down as having "substantial issues" in 2016 when I appealed it. You need to pay attention to the history and the entire community in a time of budget crisis.

Since it's clear there are no spaces for the majority of Benchlands residents (to say nothing of the broader unhoused community), this latest attempt to "beautify" the park‐‐by transferring safe parking funds to bulldozing payoffs is particularly cynical and odious.

I note you did not respond to the invitation to meet with the Community last Monday. A third event is slated for next Monday the 22nd at the RCNV. Will you be there?

19.1.14 2
Stay well and housed‐‐unlike hundreds whose tent‐homes this Council is about to destroy.

Robert Norse

19.1.15 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robert Norse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Council
Subject: Suspect Procedures at City Council--Expanded Letter to Mayor Brunner Letter to Mayor Brunner on City Council's Latest Homeless Hayride by Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Monday Aug 22nd, 2022 9:12 AM
I wrote a letter to Mayor Brunner regarding the City's end run around human decency in the Benchlands. Item 19 is a double‐barreled blast at those outside‐‐showcasing an empty report that has no significant expansion of shelter for the planned Benchlands demolition. As well as a seizure of homeless funding‐‐using it as demolition money.

TO REVIEW THE EXPANDED LETTER TO MAYOR BRUNNER, GO TO
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2022/08/22/18851671.php

19.1.16 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Benchlands Closure and Restoration – Budget Adjustment and Refuse Disposal, Abatement, and Landscape Remediation Contract Approval (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2023 budget to transfer $1,000,000 from the Safe Sleeping Hygiene Bay Project c102205 to the Benchlands Restoration Project c102304; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute an emergency procurement agreement, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Santa Cruz and Clean Team Associates in the amount of $280,000 to remove encampment debris in the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands.

BACKGROUND: The Benchlands Camp, located in the area of lower San Lorenzo Park, began as an ultra-low barrier camp at the start of the pandemic. Over time, the camp has significantly increased in size, growing into an environmental crisis that presents a significant threat to public safety, health and welfare. Earlier this year, Council provided staff direction to work toward closing the Benchlands to camping and restoring it to its intended recreational use.

DISCUSSION: It is staff’s opinion that the Benchlands encampment presents a significant threat to public safety, health and welfare, despite the City’s significant efforts to maintain the area. Environmental degradation is occurring along the river, and encampment-related pollution is directly impacting adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat. This pollution includes used hypodermic needles, human waste, and trash. Rodents and other pests are now common in and around the Benchlands, and the camp has destroyed many of the trees, turf and plants that once existed in the park.

Despite Santa Cruz Police Department’s significant efforts, drug use and stolen property in the camp is widespread. The quality of life for neighbors, many of whom are seniors or low-income, has been significantly impacted. Many neighbors have expressed concern for their safety while walking in the area, and much of the park can no longer be used for its intended recreational purpose. Furthermore, City staff and contractors no longer feel safe working in the Benchlands without a police escort, placing an added burden on our Police Department already struggling with staffing shortages.

19.2.1 In its efforts to maintain the park, the City currently provides water, electricity, bathrooms, wash stations and refuse services, at a cost of approximately $66,000 a month, not including staff time.

Closure and restoration of San Lorenzo Park and the Benchlands will be a phased approach, with the closure of each segment contingent on the offer of alternative shelter options. In June of this year, the City Council authorized a contract with the Salvation Army to operate a shelter at the Armory. The City is waiting for the Salvation Army to execute the contract and begin operations in order to facilitate the closure of the Benchlands. The phased closure will start with the fencing and closure of the upper portion of the park. Following the closure of the upper park, additional limited fencing will be installed in the Benchlands, dividing it into segments. As each segment of the Benchlands is closed, shelter options will be offered to those affected within that segment.

The goal is to provide an alternative sheltering option to all occupants of the park who want shelter. Transportation to shelters will be provided, and the City is preparing to temporarily store personal effects that may be inadvertently left behind. The City will continue to provide outreach and life-safety services until all campers have relocated from the park. City and County outreach teams will continue to work with every individual in the camp to develop a rehousing plan for those interested in alternative shelter.

Restoration of the Benchlands will address the park’s degradation over the past two years and allow for additional refurbishment of the park.

The estimated cost to close and restore the park is as follows:

Staff is requesting authorization to execute a contract with Clean Team Associates in the amount of $280,000 to remove encampment debris in the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands c102304.

Section 3.08.160 of the Purchasing Ordinance allows the Purchasing Manager to award a contract without competition and to authorize others to make emergency procurement of supplies and services items when there exists a threat to public health, welfare, or safety.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funds from the State of California Aid $14.0 million (CA $14 million) were allocated in FY 2023 for Homelessness Response Programs, more specifically for the

19.2.2 installation of a new Hygiene Bay at the Housing Matters campus. The Hygiene Bay project will continue to be funded from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA), allowing for the availability of the CA $14 million funds to be used to close and restore the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands. This transfer will take place within the Capital Investment Program with no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Lisa Murphy
Deputy City Manager
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

19.2.3 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
3XUSRVH

ACCOUNT REVENUE EDEN ACCOUNT TITLE

TOTALREVENUE

ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE EDENACCOUNT TITLE

TOTAL EXPENDITURE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY

DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
&0)18VH2QO\

5HVR

%$5HI

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
)LVFDO<HDU

'DWH

&RXQFLO$SSURYDO
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
Clear Form
FY2023
08/23/2022
Amending the FY 2023 budget to transfer $1,000,000 from the Safe Sleeping Hygiene Bay Project c102205 to the Benchlands Restoration Project c102304, the funding source is the State of California Aid $14.0 million (CA $14 million) for Homelessness Response. 311-00-00-0000-49178 c102304-991-0-0 Transfer from CA14 HAP 1,000,000 311-00-00-0000-49178 c102205-991-0-0 Transfer from CA14 HAP -1,000,000 0 311-10-16-9981-57990 c102205-100-2020-105 Other Capital Outlay -1,000,000 Safe Sleeping Hygiene Bay Project
311-10-16-9980-57106 c102304-100-2020-0 Land Improvements 1,000,000 Benchlands Restoration Project
293-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP 1,000,000
293-00-00-0000-59103 To General CIP -1,000,000
0 0
Lisa
Murphy
Digitally signed by Lisa Murphy
DN: cn=Lisa Murphy, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Human
Resources,
[email protected]
om, c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 08:13:35 -07'00'
Laura
Schmidt
Digitally signed by Laura Schmidt
DN: cn=Laura Schmidt, o=City of Santa Cruz, ou=City
Manager's Office - Assitant City Manager,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.15 14:30:32 -07'00'
Nicholas
Gong
Digitally signed by Nicholas Gong
DN: cn=Nicholas Gong, o=City of
Santa Cruz, ou=Finance,
[email protected],
c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 07:11:49 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by Elizabeth Cabell
DN: cn=Elizabeth Cabell, o=City of Santa Cruz,
ou=Finance Department,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2022.08.16 07:13:40 -07'00'

19.2.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Robert Norse <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 8:13 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Cc: Dylan Verner-Crist; Jessica of the Sentinel; Tristia of NLCHP; Peter of the ACLU; Reggie Meisler; Keith McHenry; Joy Schendledecker; Sophia Bassett; Julie Schaul; Carol Denney; Jonathan Gettleman; Herman Kalfen; [email protected]; Thomas Leavitt; John (!!!) Thielking; Wes White; Peggy (!) Lee Kennedy; Serg Kagno; [email protected]; City Council; Pat Colbe; Mel Nunez; Brent Adams
Subject: Public Speaking Time on Item 19.1 and Item 19.2 Sonja,
This is to advise you I will be attempting to speak representing HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) on item 19.1 and a second time on item 19.2 on the August 23rd agenda.

I note you did not respond to the invitation to meet with the Community last Monday. A third event is slated for next Monday the 22nd at the RCNV. Will you be there?

19.2.5 2
Stay well and housed‐‐unlike hundreds whose tent‐homes this Council is about to destroy.

Robert Norse

19.2.6 San Lorenzo Park –
Benchlands
Closure and
Restoration
CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 23, 2022

19.2.7 Current
Situation
presents a
significant
threat to the
environment,
public safety,
health and
welfare
 Environmental Crisis: Environmental
degradation is occurring along the river
 Encampment related pollution is directly
impacting the river
 Significant threat to public safety, health
and welfare
 Despite SCPD significant efforts – drug
use and stolen property in the camp is
widespread
 Neighbors are concerned for their safety
 City staff and contractors no longer feel
safe without police escort
 Cost to maintain is $66,000/mo
 City Outreach Workers est. 225 +/-
campers

19.2.8 Benchlands Closure Process
Project is contingent upon the Salvation Army
opening the Shelter at the Armory
 Closure was targeted for July – however was delayed until shelter space at the Armory becomes available
 Council Approved Salvation Army contract in June
 Closure can not start until the Salvation Army executes the contract & employs additional staff (September)
 Phase 1: Fencing and closing the upper portion of the park. Started August 15 and will conclude the week of the 22nd. This will remain closed for the duration of the project.
 Phase 2: When the Armory is open, limited fencing will be installed in the lower Benchlands creating segments.
 Closure will be a phased approach with each segment closing contingent upon the offer of alternative shelter options

19.2.9 Benchlands Closure Process
The City & County will
continue to provide
outreach services to
connect individuals in the
camp to services and
develop a rehousing plan
for those interested in
alternative shelter.

Transportation services to
shelters will be provided
including those that need
additional assistance
Storage: Storage
facilities will be
provided for property
left behind by campers
Existing services in the
park will be maintained
until all campers have
relocated: trash,
portable toilets, running
water, wash stations,
electricity, and showers.

19.2.10 Budget Amendment
Funding is available from the CA $14. In December of 2021, the hygiene bay project at Housing Matters ($1.3M) was allocated in both ARPA & CA $14 as it was unknown at that time which funding source would be available at the time of the project.

One Time
On-going
(4 Months)
Fencing Upper & Lower Park 100,000
Water 4,000
Transportation 5,000
Storage 1,000
Additional Shelter 250,000
SMU Costs 60,000
Trash Abatement 85,000
Porta Potties/Wash Stations/Showers 100,000
Electrical Charges 1,200
Restoration Project 50,000
Miscellaneous supplies and services 16,500
Clean-up & Abatement 280,000
Total 686,000 19.2.11 266,700 952,700
Benchlands Closure
 The closure will shift the visibility of homelessness in the City. The ripple effect will be felt across the community
 The City will continue its efforts to attempt to prevent the establishment of large encampments, but more shelter is needed  Given the staffing levels and resources, encampment
enforcement efforts will be limited.
 Staff is working to stand up additional temporary shelter locations in the City

19.2.12 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/11/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/23/2022
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: Revised Fiscal Impact Report for the Empty Home Tax Initiative Petition (FN)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a revised fiscal impact report to that which was presented to Council at the June 28, 2022 meeting, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212, related to the Empty Home Tax initiative petition.

BACKGROUND: On October 7, 2021, proponents for an initiative petition entitled The Empty Homes Tax submitted a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition to amend the City’s Municipal Code to establish an Empty Home Tax, which is a parcel tax on vacant residential property.

At the time the Notice of Intent was submitted, proponents requested the City Attorney to provide a ballot title and summary, pursuant to California Elections Code 9203.

On October 22, 2021, the City Clerk provided the proponents with the City Attorney’s Title and Summary. The proponents published the Notice of Intent and the Title and Summary on October 26, 2021, and filed the Certificate of Publication with the City Clerk.

On April 21, 2022, the proponents submitted the petition to the City Clerk for a prima facie count. On that same date, the City Clerk determined there were more than the required number of actual signatures on the petition, and delivered the sections to the County Clerk to verify the validity of the signatures.

On May 24, 2022 Council ordered a fiscal impact report, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212, related to the Empty Home Tax initiative petition, with the report to come to Council at the June 28, 2022 meeting.

On June 3, 2022 The County Elections Department determined the minimum of 3,848 valid signatures has been met.

On June 28, 2022, the Fiscal Impact Report was presented to Council. Council directed staff to return to Council at the earliest possible meeting with a revised fiscal impact report based upon gathering additional information about potential costs to administer the program, with questions being asked in the following areas:
• Ongoing committee administration
• Costs for distributing tax funds

20.1 • Startup costs related to the online web portal
The Council also adopted a resolution ordering an election to be held on November 8, 2022 and consolidating the election for the purpose of adding two measures to the ballot: Empty Home Tax (Measure N) and Our Downtown, Our Future (Measure O).

DISCUSSION: The Finance Department furthered its research and analysis on the fiscal impact estimates as related to the Empty Home Tax citizen initiative by continuing discussions with City departments such as Finance, Information Technology, City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Planning and Community Development, Water, Housing and Economic Development, as well as with the Administrators of the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) Measure D Taxpayer Oversight Committee, the County, Eide Bailey, HdL, and SCI Consulting Group, the contractor for the City of Oakland’s Measure W Vacant Property Tax.

Ongoing costs for administration of the 9 member committee was revised to $106,000 from $126,000. Finance was able to connect with the administrators of the SCCRTC Measure D Taxpayer Oversight Committee to get a better understanding of their meeting schedule and standard topics. The 5 member committee usually meets twice a year for a minimum of two hours. Similar to the proposed EHT committee, the Measure D committee is responsible for an annual report. Currently, costs for administering the tax and the costs for administering the committee are not tracked separately by SCCRTC. SCCRTC did not complete a fiscal impact analysis for the measure before its approval. Finance separated out the estimated costs to administer the tax and the estimated costs for the committee because the proposed ordinance would require differentiation. With the revised estimates, the costs for 3 to 4 regular committee meetings and 1 to 2 community meetings have been separated out to help provide transparency to the methodology of how the estimates were calculated.

Ongoing costs for administration, aside from those of the committee, were revised to $344,000 from $296,000. The changes in this category stemmed from discussions with Planning, Code Enforcement, Housing, and Economic Development. After reviewing the original estimate of hours for answering customers questions and responding to public records act requests, staff hours were added to this process as Planning and Code Enforcement would be included in this process. In speaking with the Directors of Planning and Community Development, and Economic Development and Housing, an estimate of staff hours for EHT housing creation and project management was added to the estimate as this function was not addressed previously.

This important administrative function will aid the City in fulfilling the intended purpose of the use of tax revenues.

Startup costs related to the online web portal, revenue tracking, and website revisions were revised to $59,400 from $80,000. Even though there was an increase in Information Technology (IT) Department hours to assist in these functions, there was a net decrease result in this overall category due to reducing estimated legal hours due to review of data privacy impacts, legal compliance with the new tax, etc. IT cost estimates will increase if the custom development of an EHT application is required. Other changes to this category consisted of including an estimate for the costs of initial mailers calculated based off the hours it takes for current mailings and postage costs. The County corresponded that they do not allow inserts in general to go in the annual property tax bill envelope, and those bills are sent to all approximately 90,000 property owners in the County without the ability to direct mail. The overall estimated start-up cost category was revised to $534,000 from $607,000.

20.2 During the discussion at the June 28 meeting, there was comparison of the ongoing administration and start-up costs the City of Oakland included in their fiscal impact report versus what the City of Santa Cruz included. After speaking with SCI, it was clear that Oakland well exceeded the start-up cost estimate of $100,000 they submitted with the ballot measure, as they contracted SCI to develop a custom web application for a not to exceed amount of $850,000, that was to allow property owners to petition for exemptions of the vacant property tax (VPT) or to appeal the VPT assessment. SCI communicated that since this was a new type of tax, they had to create the structure and the process of the portal from the ground up. Oakland’s fiscal impact estimated that ongoing administration costs would be $452,000, dedicated to staffing positions to support the Commission, tax administration, collection, and enforcement fees. They contracted SCI for a not to exceed amount of $1,270,000 for a three-year period for ongoing administration and management. In further discussions with SCI, their scope of work does not cover all work needed to administer the tax, and the City of Oakland has dedicated staffing of approximately

1.5-2.0 FTEs for processing appeals and preparing for hearings. Oakland and Santa Cruz are different size cities, and the information provided is just for context, and to further accentuate that any fiscal impact estimate that has been provided are best estimates based on information known at the time.

No changes have been made to the revenue estimates.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Marisol Gomez
Assistant Director of Finance
Submitted By:

Elizabeth Cabell
Director of Finance
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. EMPTY HOME TAX - REVISED IMPACT REPORT.PDF

20.3 City of Santa Cruz
Impact Report for Empty Home Tax
Citizen Initiative
August 23, 2022
1 Background
The City of Santa Cruz City Council directed the Finance Department to report on the impacts of a citizen initiative ballot measure – Empty Home Tax in accordance with the provisions of California Elections Code Section 9212(a) at their May 24, 2022 Council meeting. The Empty Home Tax will be on the November 8, 2022 ballot for consideration by Santa Cruz voters. The proposed measure would amend the City of Santa Cruz municipal code to add Chapter 3.38 which establishes a special tax on residential parcels that are in use less than 120 days within a calendar year (“vacant parcels”).

The Code further indicates that this report must be presented to the City Council no later than 30 days after the election official certifies the sufficiency of the petition to the City. This report contains Finance Department’s analysis and identifies the resulting impacts we believe the City may experience if the proposed measure is approved by the voters.

Summary of Impacts
A summary of our analysis regarding the impacts the measure may have on the City is provided below.

Impacts under California Elections Code Section 9212(a)

1. Fiscal Impact
Based on factors such as property owner exemptions estimated to range from 34%-60%, the City’s Finance Department estimates annual revenue between $2.5 and $4 million1.

Tax collection expenses related to administration are capped at 15% of revenues collected, costs over the cap would be covered by the General Fund; costs from the 9 member Oversight Committee shall not count towards the 15%, and will be paid for by the special tax funds. The measure requires City staff to provide “clerical assistance, administrative support, and technical assistance” to a new Committee that is charged with “community oversight of the tax established by this Chapter, and to make recommendation to the City to improve zoning and land use designations to better support the creation of affordable housing as defined by this Chapter.” The Committee must meet at least once per year but may meet “more frequently as needed.” “The Committee may convene community meetings to solicit community testimony and other input to build trust between the community, neighborhood groups, and the City, and to address other similar and relevant subjects as determined by the Committee within its jurisdiction.” “The Committee may invite subject matter experts and individuals to provide informational presentations, 1 The range was calculated based upon data from the County of Santa Cruz’s absentee property lists, homeowner exemptions claimed, and long-term and short-term rental data.

20.4 City of Santa Cruz
Impact Report for Empty Home Tax
Citizen Initiative
August 23, 2022
2 including but not limited to” a wide range of groups listed in the measure. City staff “shall be present at the Committee meetings.”
The Finance Department estimates the annual cost to administer this Measure would be approximately $450,000 with dedicated staffing to support the Oversight Committee, tax administration, collection, and housing project management. In addition, one-time startup costs are estimated at $534,000 for financial database infrastructure, web development, ordinance implementation, legal counsel, committee establishment and mailing services.

2. Consistency with General Plan and Housing Element.

For example, affordable housing creation and promotion is included in the following policies:

The General Plan Guiding Principles include the following:
“Neighborhood integrity and housing. We will maintain the identity and vitality of our neighborhoods, actively pursuing affordable housing for a diversity of household and promoting compatible livability and high quality design in new buildings, major additions, and redevelopment.” The ballot measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used to create or sustain affordable housing, so consistent with this guiding principle, it would actively pursue affordable housing opportunities. “A balanced community. We will maintain the community’s longstanding commitment to shared social and environmental responsibility, fostering a balance between employment, housing affordable to persons of all income levels, transportation, and natural resources.” The ballot measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used to create or sustain affordable housing, so those funds could assist with fostering the balance called for in this principle. Thus, if funds are generated from the measure, it would be consistent with this principle.

The Housing Element contains the following goals:
“GOAL 1 An adequate diversity in housing types and affordability levels to accommodate present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.” The measure supports this goal if it results in a net surplus of revenue compared to implementation and staffing costs.
“GOAL 2 Increased and protected supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.” The ballot measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used to create or sustain affordable housing, so consistent with this goal, it could increase affordable housing opportunities.

20.5 City of Santa Cruz
Impact Report for Empty Home Tax
Citizen Initiative
August 23, 2022
3 “GOAL 3 Accessible housing and appropriate supportive services that provide equal housing opportunities for special needs populations.” The ballot measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used to create or sustain affordable housing, including supportive housing, so consistent with this goal, it could increase housing opportunities for special needs populations. The measure also states that “up to five (5) percent of the revenue deposited into the Fund in any single year may be used to provide sanitation, bathroom, and hygiene services for the unhoused community in the City.” “GOAL 4 Increased opportunities for low and moderate income residents to rent or purchase homes.” The ballot measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used to create or sustain affordable rental or ownership housing, so consistent with this goal, it could increase affordable housing opportunities.

The proposed measure would not directly conflict with Section 65008 of the Government Code or Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.

3. Land Use and Housing.

The measure has the potential to raise funds that can be used in the creation of additional affordable housing, which would promote various General Plan guiding principles and goals related to neighborhood vitality, a balanced community, and even economic development, since housing scarcity and costs are cited as a barrier to attraction and retention of employees. Should excess funds be generated through the tax, the funds could be used to stimulate the development of new affordable housing projects that would assist in meeting the City’s regional housing needs. However, it is unclear if the measure would result in a net positive benefit or not, as the total tax that will be collected and the total costs associated with the administration of the tax collection program and the costs associated with the staffing of and support for the Committee called for in the measure are unknown.

4. Impacts on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space.

Unlikely to have a direct impact here as the initiative refers to existing properties.

5. Business Attraction, Retention and Employment.

While the annual revenue from the proposed empty home tax and the full cost of administration and Committee support are unknown at this time, the fund, over time, could accumulate revenue that could aid in the development or preservation of affordable housing units in Santa Cruz. The creation and preservation of affordable housing is critical to the successful attraction and retention of employees for most, if not all, of businesses in

20.6 City of Santa Cruz
Impact Report for Empty Home Tax
Citizen Initiative
August 23, 2022
4 Santa Cruz. The ability to hire and retain employees is often predicated on the ability to secure affordable housing in the community, particularly for tourist-based economies like Santa Cruz. At a residential rental vacancy rate consistently between 1%-3% city-wide and considerable wait lists for the majority of multi-family affordable housing units in Santa Cruz, the community has long suffered from inadequate affordable housing to serve existing residents which has directly impacted the long-term success of local businesses and employers located in Santa Cruz. Ongoing revenue from the proposed empty home tax could positively impact the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment, if the revenues ultimately exceed the costs of administering the program and of staffing the Commission established by the measure.

6. Vacant Land.

The initiative will probably not have appreciable impacts of vacant parcels of land. Since the question on whether a unit is vacant or not does not have an impact on whether to develop undeveloped land.

7. Agricultural Lands, Open Space, Traffic Conditions, Business Districts and Revitalization Areas.

The initiative is unlikely to have an impact in this category as the ordinance is related to existing properties.

8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.

No other matters were requested.

Conclusion
Vacant or Empty Home Tax initiatives are not widely utilized among California cities at this time.

However the cities of San Francisco and Oakland have variations of a similar tax for commercial properties, undeveloped parcels and residential properties that have recently been implemented but partly delayed due to COVID-19. As such, analysis for impacts on this type of tax are largely estimates at this point in time. As a side note however, the City of Los Angeles, and more locally, the City of Capitola are having discussions on whether to add this type of tax to their November ballots.

20.7 Tax on Vacant Parcels ("Empty Homes Tax")
Estimate of Annual Revenue
# of
Properties
Total
Estimated
Revenue
SFR - $6,000 Multi - $6,000 Multi - $3,000
(1) Residential properties on absentee list 4,668
(2) Remove properties listed per addresses match query (268) (3) Homeowner's exemption claimed (401)
Potential empty units 3,999
(4) Used as long-term rental (assume 66%) (2,639)
(5) Registered in short-term rental program (291)
Estimate of empty units before other exemptions 1,069
(6) Exempt units 34% (bottom of range) (364)
Taxable empty units 705 $ 4,143,000 3,696,000 360,000 87,000 (7) Breakdown of units by Tier 616 60 29
(6) Exempt units 60% (top of range) (642)
Taxable empty units 427 $ 2,508,000 2,238,000 216,000 54,000 (7) Breakdown of units by Tier 373 36 18
(1) Information from HdL on 21/22 County of Santa Cruz absentee listing, property tax bill mailed to location other than situs (2) Addresses reviewed for duplication or abbreviation, address match (3) Units that receive the homeowner's exemption through County of Santa Cruz (4) Percentage based on current data from the City of Santa Cruz long-term rental program (5) Cross reference of addresses registered in the City's short term rental program (6) Estimate of exemption factor provided as a top and bottom range (7) Ratio based off of 21/22 Residential Summary Roll as provided by HdL Empty Home Tax Tiers

20.8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA
Tax on Vacant Parcels ("Empty Homes Tax")
REVISED Estimate of Annual Staff Time to Administer Program (in Hours) Finance
Director, Budget Purch, AP, PR
Revenue/
Accounting
Audits,
Collections Planning/Code Housing
Economic
Development Asst Director
Systems
Analyst
Program
Oversight
Clerk/Public
Information Legal
FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES $ 239 $ 267 $ 236 $ 202 $ 150 $ 109 $ 111 $ 120 $ 72 $ 269 $ 77 $ 318 Hrs Amount

STARTUP
Amend and test online system for collecting property data and remitting payment 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 5 $ 750 $ - $ - 60 $ 7,200 60 $ 4,320 $ - $ - $ - 185 $ 25,810 Tax collection module add-on* $ 5,000 0 $ 5,000
Establish internal revenue tracking 10 $ 2,390 $ - 10 $ 2,360 10 $ 2,020 $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 1,200 10 $ 720 $ - $ - $ - 50 $ 8,690 Establish mechanism for the 15% admin cost cap 25 $ 5,975 $ - 25 $ 5,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 25 $ 6,725 $ - 25 $ 7,950 100 $ 26,550 Adopt and implementing ordinance 25 $ 5,975 $ - 25 $ 5,900 25 $ 5,050 25 $ 3,750 25 $ 2,725 25 $ 2,775 $ - $ - 25 $ 6,725 25 $ 1,925 25 $ 7,950 225 $ 42,775 Initial mailers and outreach 4 $ 956 $ 4,000 25 $ 5,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 29 $ 10,856 Setup the empty home tax oversight committee with bylaws 10 $ 2,390 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 30 $ 8,070 30 $ 2,310 30 $ 9,540 100 $ 22,310 Committee members trainings (Robert's Rules etc.) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 15 $ 4,035 $ - 15 $ 4,770 30 $ 8,805 Develop annual vacancy declaration process 35 $ 8,365 $ - 35 $ 8,260 35 $ 7,070 35 $ 5,250 35 $ 3,815 35 $ 3,885 $ - $ - 35 $ 9,415 $ - 35 $ 11,130 280 $ 57,190 Develop annual audit process 35 $ 8,365 $ - 35 $ 8,260 35 $ 7,070 35 $ 5,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - 35 $ 9,415 $ - 35 $ 11,130 210 $ 49,490 Develop annual tax imposition process and transfer of levy authority to County 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 20 $ 6,360 80 $ 19,900 Develop process for administration and review of claimed exemptions 15 $ 3,585 $ - 15 $ 3,540 15 $ 3,030 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 15 $ 4,770 60 $ 14,925 Develop process for CPI annual increase 5 $ 1,195 5 $ 1,335 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 $ 1,590 15 $ 4,120 Develop process for vetting use of funds 15 $ 3,585 $ - $ - $ - 15 $ 2,250 15 $ 1,635 15 $ 1,665 $ - $ - 15 $ 4,035 $ - 15 $ 4,770 90 $ 17,940 Develop and adopt appeal process 10 $ 2,390 $ - 10 $ 2,360 10 $ 2,020 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 3,180 40 $ 9,950 Set up enforcement mechanisms 15 $ 3,585 $ - $ - $ - 15 $ 2,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - 15 $ 4,035 $ - 15 $ 4,770 60 $ 14,640 Budget for litigation response $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 0 $ 100,000 Retain independent Auditor 5 $ 1,195 5 $ 1,335 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 $ 1,345 $ - $ - 15 $ 3,875 Present to oversight committee all the above 10 $ 2,390 $ - 10 $ 2,360 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 2,690 $ - 10 $ 3,180 40 $ 10,620 Website revisions/additions for all the above 10 $ 2,390 $ - 10 $ 2,360 10 $ 2,020 10 $ 1,500 $ - $ - 30 $ 3,600 30 $ 2,160 10 $ 2,690 $ - 10 $ 3,180 120 $ 19,900 Policies and procedures and Training for all the above 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 20 $ 3,000 $ - $ - 20 $ 2,400 20 $ 1,440 20 $ 5,380 $ - 20 $ 6,360 160 $ 32,120 Forms and FAQs for all the above 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 20 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 20 $ 5,380 $ - 20 $ 6,360 120 $ 28,280 Subtotal 309 $ 73,851.00 10 $ 11,670.00 280 $ 66,080.00 220 $ 44,440.00 180 $ 27,000.00 75 $ 8,175.00 75 $ 8,325.00 120 $ 14,400.00 120 $ 8,640.00 260 $ 69,940.00 55 $ 4,235.00 305 $ 196,990.00 2009 $ 533,746 ONGOING Committee
Administration of EHTO Committee - agendas, meeting minutes, etc. 12 $ 2,868 $ - 12 $ 2,832 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 $ 216 $ - 12 $ 924 $ - 39 $ 6,840 Attend EHTO Committee meetings 3 to 4 a year - staff time, prep, logistics etc. 12 $ 2,868 $ - 12 $ 2,832 $ - 12 $ 1,800 12 $ 1,308 12 $ 1,332 $ - $ - 12 $ 3,228 $ - $ - 72 $ 13,368 Community meetings 1 to 2 a year - staff time, prep, outreach, logistics etc. 8 $ 1,912 $ - 8 $ 1,888 $ - 8 $ 1,200 8 $ 872 8 $ 888 $ - $ - 8 $ 2,152 $ - $ - 48 $ 8,912 Prepare ad-hoc reports and analysis for EHTO Committee 40 $ 9,560 $ - 40 $ 9,440 40 $ 8,080 40 $ 6,000 40 $ 4,360 40 $ 4,440 $ - $ - 40 $ 10,760 $ - $ - 280 $ 52,640 Annual Report 6 $ 1,434 $ - 6 $ 1,416 6 $ 1,212 6 $ 900 6 $ 654 6 $ 666 $ - $ - 6 $ 1,614 6 $ 462 $ - 48 $ 8,358 Legal counsel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 50 $ 15,900 50 $ 15,900 Subtotal 78 $ 18,642.00 0 $ - 78 $ 18,408.00 46 $ 9,292.00 66 $ 9,900.00 66 $ 7,194.00 66 $ 7,326.00 0 $ - 3 $ 216.00 66 $ 17,754.00 18 $ 1,386.00 50 $ 15,900.00 537 $ 106,018 ONGOING Administration Capped at 15%
Outreach to all property owners regarding self-reporting requirements $ - $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 20 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 20 $ 5,380 20 $ 1,540 $ - 100 $ 18,680 Answer customer questions and respond to Public Records Act requests 20 $ 4,780 $ - 100 $ 23,600 20 $ 4,040 30 $ 4,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 20 $ 1,540 20 $ 6,360 210 $ 44,820 Review/approve tax exemptions 30 $ 7,170 $ - 30 $ 7,080 30 $ 6,060 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 30 $ 9,540 120 $ 29,850 Review/follow up on non-respondents $ - $ - $ - 100 $ 20,200 40 $ 6,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 140 $ 26,200 Prepare annual billings $ - $ - 20 $ 4,720 20 $ 4,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 40 $ 8,760 Process payments both electronic and check $ - $ - 200 $ 47,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 200 $ 47,200 Negotiate payment arrangements/plans $ - $ - $ - 80 $ 16,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 80 $ 16,160 Adjust tax rate annually for CPI changes 5 $ 1,195 5 $ 1,335 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 $ 1,345 5 $ 385 5 $ 1,590 25 $ 5,850 Annual audits/inspections to verify vacancy status $ - $ - $ - 100 $ 20,200 100 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 200 $ 35,200 Independent Auditors report 5 $ 1,195 $ 2,500 5 $ 1,180 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 4,875 Issuing citations for non-compliance $ - $ - $ - 30 $ 6,060 100 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 130 $ 21,060 Program tax revenue for affordable housing 15 $ 3,585 $ - 15 $ 3,540 $ - $ - 15 $ 1,635 15 $ 1,665 $ - $ - 15 $ 4,035 15 $ 1,155 $ - 90 $ 15,615 EHT Housing Creation and Project Management $ - $ - $ - $ - 80 $ 12,000 200 $ 21,800 40 $ 4,440 $ - $ - 15 $ 4,035 15 $ 1,155 $ - 350 $ 43,430 Budgeting and analysis throughout the year 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 40 $ 9,500 Quantify administrative costs and perform accounting entries 20 $ 4,780 $ - 20 $ 4,720 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 40 $ 9,500 Maintenance of online reporting/payment system $ - $ 1,000 10 $ 2,360 10 $ 2,020 $ - $ - $ - 10 $ 1,200 10 $ 720 $ - $ - $ - 40 $ 7,300 Subtotal 115 $ 27,485.00 5 $ 4,835.00 440 $ 103,840.00 410 $ 82,820.00 370 $ 55,500.00 215 $ 23,435.00 55 $ 6,105.00 10 $ 1,200.00 10 $ 720.00 55 $ 14,795.00 75 $ 5,775.00 55 $ 17,490.00 1815 $ 344,000 Grand total 502 $ 119,978.00 15 $ 16,505.00 798 $ 188,328.00 676 $ 136,552.00 616 $ 92,400.00 356 $ 38,804.00 196 $ 21,756.00 130 $ 15,600.00 133 $ 9,576.00 381 $ 102,489.00 148 $ 11,396.00 410 $ 230,380.00 4361 $ 983,764 Grand total Start-up $ 533,746.00
Grand total Ongoing Committee $ 106,018.00
Grand total Ongoing Administrative $ 344,000.00
Grand total first year $ 758,755.00
Grand total ongoing $ 450,018.00
**I.T. costs assume there is a commercial off-the- shelf (COTS) application available to serve this tax collection process. I.T. costs estimates will increase if the custom development of an EHT application is required.

Finance Planning/ED IT City Manager Totals

20.9 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 12:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 8.23.22 Agenda Item # 20 Communist Empty Homes Tax

8.23.22 Agenda Item # 20 Communist Empty Homes Tax
NO ON Measure "N"
Dear Council,
I would point out Oakland has a very different occupancy figure of less than 50 days, not 120 days as in this nevertheless equally odious ballot measure.

I copy my July Sentinel letter to the editor here to save me typing it in all over again. "All to often the local radicals want to copy ordinances of "far left home office" cities like Oakland (Empty Home Tax) or San Francisco. According to a well conducted study by Wallethub using 36 weighted metrics vs total budget per capita of the 150 largest cities, it turns out San Francisco is the 2'nd and Oakland is the 7'th worst run city in America. The proposed "tax " is neither a sales, or use tax. It is a definition of crimes with large penalties, such as the crime of using private tax paid property as a week end get-a-way or the crime of an incorrect daily accounting for three years of past occupancy use. In nations where "housing is a right" (Russia), refusing housing is not a right. You live where told to live, for as long as the government says. Let's not copy that either." You might want to make it REAL CLEAR as far as financial impact that there is no assurance this won't cost more to administer forever than it brings in as people have a way of adjusting to the government imposing large fines and taxes, and only 15% of incoming money can be used to administer. REAL CLEAR.

Not unlike Measure M which the people hugely voted down, these anti-property rights , i.e. wanna be communists, are back at it again, no less with the backing of a council member (Brown) who also just doesn't get the meaning of a public NO when attacking property and privacy rights.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

20.10 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Richard Beach <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposed to Measure N
We oppose Measure N as an encroachment on private property rights. There seems to be a group of people in Santa Cruz and in the city government opposed to private property rights and using their positions to chip away at private property rights.

In addition, the structure of Measure N. Requiring 10,000+ owners to submit forms each year is an expensive and necessary bureaucratic expense when the number of vacant properties is small. You already have a database showing vacant properties.

Richard and Susan Beach
674 High St.

Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
--
Best Regards,
Richard Beach
[email protected]

20.11 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Katherine Paterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Comments Measure N

KATHERINE AND GORON PATERSON AND

THE ROBERT MASSA FAMILY OPPOSE MEASURE N
PLEASE SEE ARGUMENTS BELOW:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST MEASURE N
- Property owners impacted by Measure N already pay nearly highest property tax rate in California and contribute significantly to County funds. - Property owners impacted by Measure N as of February 16, 2022 are subject to Prop 19 property reassessments significantly raising property tax bills. - Many Property owners impacted by Measure N acquired their property decades ago with modest incomes. Owners worked hard to save for purchase - Measure N penalizes hard working tax paying families
- It is unethical for UCSC plan a 9000 student increase in enrollment by 2040 and claim a housing shortage and crisis. Geographically the surrounding area can not provide housing UCSC’s increase in enrollment and will result in over building in the City of Santa Cruz. - If housing has become unaffordable then one is seeking housing in a market which they don’t have the means to live in. The solution is to find away to acquire the means or seek housing in another market.
- If Santa Cruz has shortage of housing, there are more people desiring to live in Santa Cruz than the geographic area has capacity for. It is false that fees assessed by Measure N can raise enough funding for low income housing.
- Funding for housing for the homeless is in place as well as existing shelters. - Historically low unemployment and under employment does not support that homelessness is not economic issue but a mental health and drug crisis neither of which can be resolved by low income housing.

WE RESPECTFULLY,

20.12 2

KATHERINE AND GORDON PATERSON AND THE ROBERT MASSA FAMILY

20.13 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder
Cc: Bonnie Bush; City Council
Subject: Item 20: Empty Home Tax Fiscal Impact Report Request for More Time and Comments for the Public Record for August 23, 2022 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting Importance: High
Good morning Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers:

I would like to thank you for your unanimous vote at the June 28th City Council meeting directing staff to refine the administrative costs for the Empty Home Tax now known as Measure N. I am happy to see a Revised Fiscal Impact Report scheduled for Item 20 at your August 23, 2022 meeting and would like to request additional time to speak on that item. Also thank you to staff for the additional work although the broad coalition of residents supporting Measure N believe there still remains some misinterpretations of the intent of the proposed ordinance and some included costs that are not warranted.

First and foremost we want to again emphasize your staff estimates that $2.5 ‐ $4 million will be raised annually to create affordable housing our community desperately needs and that this is a revenue positive program that WILL NOT dip into the general fund.

Under Section 3 of the report staff states that costs for administration and staffing are unknown. Although exact numbers are not available, staff produced a range of costs that when compared to projected revenue show a net positive program and this should be clearly stated in the report. By design, the Empty Home Tax used great care with the advice of a well‐ qualified tax lawyer to ensure there are minimal administration requirements written into the ordinance. This allows the City Council with the advice of staff to adopt procedures that are effective, efficient and keep costs low. Outside of minimal one time startup costs to build on the existing web infrastructure for tax collection and creation of procedures for notification and collection of the tax the level of administrative burden can be adjusted to match the revenue generated. Meaning, if revenue is low the city can choose to scale back enforcement and staff time accordingly to ensure this program is a net positive gain for the city’s budget. This fact should be clearly stated in the report.

There is no indication that the Empty Home Tax Ordinance increases the city’s risk of legal action. The $100,000 line item in the startup costs for “litigation response” should be removed.

20.14 2
The scope of work of Empty Home Tax Oversight Committee (Committee) as defined are to meet once a year, publish an annual report and review financial and operational reports produced by staff. This is identical to existing committees overseeing school parcel taxes and 2016 Measure D. All other potential actions of the proposed Committee are preceded by the word “may” which make them optional and not a requirement of the ordinance. Including these potential actions as costs is not appropriate and should be removed from the report.

Section 3.38.070. Empty Home Tax Oversight Committee.

A. The Empty Home Tax Oversight Committee is hereby established for community oversight of the Tax established by this Chapter, and to make recommendations to the City to improve zoning and land use designations to better support the creation of affordable housing as defined by this Chapter.

B. The Committee shall meet at least one (1) time per calendar year and more frequently as needed. The first meeting of the Committee each year shall be held within three (3) months of the release of the annual audit. A majority of Committee members may request in writing that the City Council approve the Committee meeting more than once per year.

According to the City’s legal staff Tony Condotti via an email exchange , “As far as possible future amendments, Section 7 authorizes the City Council to amend to Ch. 3.38 “in any manner that does not decrease or increase the tax rates, or otherwise constitute a tax increase for which voter approval is required by…” Prop. 218. “ The following clarifications could be adopted by the City Council to make clear that the Committee does not have the ability to direct staff or meet more frequently than once a year without a majority of the City Council’s approval which was the intent of this section.

Section 3.38.070(B) says “shall meet” the City Council could clarify the scope of the annual work of the Committee simply by amending that section to read B. The Committee shall meet at least one (1) time per calendar year and more frequently as needed as requested by the majority of the Committee and approved by the majority of the City Council. The first meeting of the Committee each year shall be held within three (3) months of the release of the annual audit. A majority of Committee members may request in writing that the City Council approve the Committee meeting more than once per year.

I. The City Manager or designee shall provide clerical assistance, administrative support and technical assistance to the Committee for the required annual meeting and as directed by the City Council and shall be present at the Committee meetings.

The budget for the Committee should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the requirements in the ordinance

20.15 3
Making the requested adjustments to the budget prior to accepting the Fiscal Impact report will provide voters with the most accurate information available. The data supported requested adjustments to the budget presented bring the totals to:

Startup costs = $433.736
Annual Committee costs for one public meeting and associated administrative support = $15,094
Yearly administrative costs = $344,000
It should be clearly stated that the estimated yearly administration costs are below the 15% reimbursement cap in the ordinance for the low end estimate of revenue generation ($2,500,000 * .15 = $375,000).

Thank you for your attention to this important matter and your willingness to step up to ensure voters have accurate information to inform their vote in November.

We look forward to continuing to connect with Santa Cruzans and add to the thousands of residents who already support Measure N and are ready to take action to create more affordable housing in our community.

Regards,
Cyndi Dawson
Yes on Measure N
Cyndi Dawson
Campaign Manager
Fund Affordable Housing
emptyhometax.org
@emptyhometax
831-200-3878
Donate Now

20.16 4

20.17 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 20: Fiscal Impact Analysis - EHT
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council
I appreciate Staff's EHT Impact Analysis and due to the many unknowns, the difficulties of accurately forecasting both the costs and the revenues. I also appreciate Council Member Brown's desire for Staff to take a second look at the cost side.

I am puzzled and disappointed that staff did not take a deeper dive into the revenue side. Though I readily acknowledge the uncertainties, I think staff significantly overestimated the number of homes that would be subject to the EHT.

After estimating the number of empty homes, staff arbitrarily guessed that property owners EHT exemptions would "range from 34%-60%.." However, exemptions apply to houses that don't meet the EHT "In Use" 120 day minimum occupancy requirement. In Use houses do not require exemptions - they are simply not subject to the Tax. Of Staff's estimated 1,069 vacant homes, many of them are likely to be In Use and subject to the Tax at all.

Please consider the following:

Property Tax Mailing Address different from Property Address: That's a good place to start. However, there are many folks who live at the property but have their tax bills sent to a different address. For example, I had a neighbor who lived at his property but had his bills sent to his accountant. Also, some elderly folks and others who are simply not good with bills and have their tax and other bills handled by friends or relatives. I have another neighbor who does this. A third neighboring house is used by an extended family and while none of them live full time at the home, it is collectively used well beyond the EHT 120 day/yr minimum.

Residential Rental Inspection Program: Marisol repeatedly referred to the Long Term Rental Program. I assume that she meant the RRIP. Eliminating all properties in the RRIP is an obvious first step. However, there are many occupied homes not in the RRIP that should also be accounted for.  Properties lived in by friends and family of the owner. They are not rented, but also not owner occupied
 Rented properties not in the RRIP - rentals that have avoided/evaded registering with the RRIP will not qualify as vacant under the EHT. These properties still exist. For SFRs Planning largely relies on owners to sign up for the RRIP. If they don't register on their own, there's a good chance they won't be registered in the program.
 Exemptions: - Marisol used RRIP exemptions to estimate EHT exemptions. I don't think this is a good comparison. There are very few RRIP exemptions while there are many EHT exemptions and the nature of the programs' exemptions and requirements are quite different. Furthermore, to avoid the EHT, a house only has to be in use 120 days/year, which is likely to eliminate many properties that at first glance appear unoccupied. They are not used as full time residences, but are "in use" by the EHT's definition.

20.18 2
Homeowner's Exemption: Some folks who qualify for it, don't take it. It's not a reliable way to determine occupancy.

Abandoned and Derelict Homes: These might qualify for the EHT tax, but they will be extremely hard to collect the tax on. There are a number of them around town. Many of them have serious and longstanding Code Complaints against them. You could cross reference with Code Compliance to find some of these.

Evasion and Enforcement: Enforcement will be difficult. Many property owners whose homes might qualify for the EHT will either not fill out the annual affidavit or falsely claim that their property was "in use" for 120 days. It will be very costly and difficult for the City to prove otherwise.

Changed Usage: If the EHT does pass, the number of vacant units will decrease.  RRIP - after the RRIP was put in place, many (estimates are hundreds) rental units 'self-abated' (i.e., disappeared).
 Vancouver example: Prior to its implementation, the city estimated 21,000 vacant units. In it's most recent reporting, 1,627 registered - only 7.6% of the City's initial estimate and that number has declined yearly. (see attached)
American Community Survey 5-year data vs. Census: EHT proponents claim that 9% of all homes are vacant, citing The US Census or California Department of Finance figures (the latter is based on Census data.) This is not a valid metric because

1. The Census is a point in time count and does not measure year round occupancy of individual units.

2. The Census' definition of vacancy is much broader than the EHT's and includes some homes that are occupied and others that are under construction.

3. The 2020 Census was taken during the height of the lockdown when UCSC went remote and almost 20,000 students left the City.

In contrast the ACS from 2016-2020 shows a homeowner vacancy rate of 1.2% and a rental vacancy rate of

0.9%. See attachments for detail.

Vancouver: Vancouver, a major international destination with a population of 630,000 has only 1,627 registered vacant homes. It is reasonable to assume that Santa Cruz would not have a higher per capita rate of vacant homes than Vancouver, putting the EHT proponents' estimate of 2,000 taxable homes in the realm of fantasy. (See attached Vancouver City report)
Vancouver also had 900 complaints/appeals - the risk to Santa Cruz of litigation is indeed real.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,
-Eric Grodberg
See
https://noeht.org/data for more details and citations.

20.19 3

20.20 4

20.21 5

20.22 6

20.23 Review of the EHT
Impact Report
City of Santa Cruz – Finance Department
August 23, 2022
1 20.24
Agenda
• Background
• Recap of Council and Public
Concerns
• Revised Fiscal Impact Report
2 20.25
What is Empty Homes Tax?
• Parcel tax on vacant homes
• Vacant = In use < 120 days per year
• Revenue used to support affordable
housing initiatives
3 20.26
Fiscal Impact Report – 6/28/2022
• Concerns
o Start-up Costs
o Website Costs
o Legal Costs
o Committee Costs
o Use of SCMU Utility Data
o Revenue Estimates
o Data Collection
4 20.27
IT Start-up and Website Costs
• City of Oakland estimated $100K
• Actual costs were $850K
• May require a new database, SQL license,
virtual server, additional staff
• IT project scope will include prepare,
design, build, test, deploy, sustain
5 20.28
Litigation Costs
• Reviewed hours and cost estimate
• Difficult to predict costs
• Recent 4 month bench trial - $150K
6 20.29
Committee Costs
• Estimate 3 – 4 regular committee
meetings per year
• Estimate 1 – 2 community meetings
per year
• Separated costs for regular and
community meetings
7 20.30
Revenue Estimates
• Exemption estimates and analysis
reviewed with County
8 SCMU Data
• Consumption data is private
• Zero consumption does not indicate
vacancy

20.31 Declaration Process
• Property owner must declare vacancy
status by April 15
• Owner exemptions verified by the City
• City may audit property annually
9 20.32
Summary of Cost Changes
10 Original
Estimate
6/28/2022
Revised
Estimate
8/23/2022
Total Startup $607,480 $533,746
Total Ongoing Committee $126,374 $106,018
Total Ongoing Administrative $296,070 $344,000
Total First Year (Start-up + ½ Ongoing) $818,702 $758,755 Total Ongoing (Committee and Administrative) $422,444 $450,018

20.33 Thank you!
City of Santa Cruz – Finance Department
August 23, 2022
11 20.34

City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 8/17/2022
AGENDA OF:

DEPARTMENT:
8/23/2022
Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Amendments to Municipal Code Titles 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24 Related to Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family Housing, New Mixed Use Zoning Districts, Development Review Process Changes, Street Trees, Right-of-Way Improvements, and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Associated Updates to the Zoning Map; and Establish In-Lieu Fees for Street Tree Removals (File No. FP20-0002) and Additional Modifications to Municipal Code Title 24 to Clarify and Update Various Code Sections, Remove Obsolete Sections and References, Streamline Application Processes, and Bring the Zoning Ordinance into Conformity with State Law (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22-0003) (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections not included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections that are included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
3) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the proposed amendments to the zoning map, as stated in the ordinance and as shown in the associated map exhibit; and 4) Adopt a resolution establishing a new in-lieu fee requirement for street tree removals.

BACKGROUND: The City’s General Plan has allowed different development intensities than the Zoning Ordinance from its adoption by City Council in 2012. Staff have been working on an effort to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan into alignment with one another in various ways since then. The initial effort to correct the mismatch was known as the Corridors Plan and was focused on developing a plan for the four major transportation corridors through

21.1 the City: Mission Street, Ocean Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue. This work was paused in 2017 and then officially halted by the City Council in August of 2019 due to concern over the level of housing intensity included in the adopted General Plan. The General Plan and City Zoning Code have been out of sync since the adoption of the 2030 General Plan in 2012.

Recent legislative changes have direct implications for situations where the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are not in alignment. With AB 3194 (Daly), the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and other changes to the Housing Accountability Act, the misalignment between the City’s land use regulating policies means that a greater development capacity allowed based on the land use designation in the General Plan must be allowed on a property regardless of any limitations based on the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, any action to reduce the amount of housing that can be built on a parcel of land must be accompanied by a simultaneous action to increase the amount of housing that may be built elsewhere within the jurisdiction’s boundaries. As described above, the City currently falls into this situation of having General Plan and Zoning out of alignment in the areas designated for Mixed-Use development along the four primary transportation corridors, and the City Council directed staff to address the existing inconsistency through amendments to the Zoning Ordinance only and make no changes to the development intensities included in the adopted 2030 General Plan at this time.

The changes to the Housing Accountability Act further limit the discretion of local agencies by prohibiting the denial or conditioning of a development proposal in a manner that reduces the amount of housing on the site based on subjective design or development standards. Subjective standards may only be applied to development proposals in a manner that “facilitate[s] and accommodate[s] development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development” (CA Gov. Code 65589.5(f)(1)). The City currently has many objective standards in its Zoning Code and General Plan that have long been part of the development review process.

However, the City has also been able to use subjective standards and findings to regulate new development as well. Given the changes in State law, it benefits the City to transform many subjective standards and findings into objective ones and to consider new standards that will add more certainty to the development review process.

Project Goals and Scope
This work is all part of the Objective Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing (“project”). It has involved the project team working with the community to develop and refine objective design and development standards to supplement and quantify existing standards found in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Simultaneous efforts in the Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Department have resulted in proposed standards for utility undergrounding, refuse receptacles, sidewalk widths, street lighting, roadway improvements, and standards for planting and maintaining street trees. The project also seeks to create new zone districts that can be applied to sites identified for mixed-use in the adopted 2030 General Plan.

This project includes a complete set of zoning standards that will allow development proposals to achieve the development capacities identified in the General Plan, as required.

In addition to the objective standards project, the proposed ordinance includes amendments to improve the functionality of the Zoning Ordinance and bring it up to date with State law. The objective standards and Zoning Ordinance updates were originally processed as two separate

21.2 ordinance amendments, but because they propose to amend some of the same Zoning Ordinance sections (24.04 and 24.12), they could create overwriting issues with updating the Ordinance if processed separately. To prevent confusion and ensure that the intended revisions are made for both projects, the revisions of the two projects have been combined into one ordinance, with a separate ordinance for Municipal Code sections that are not part of the Local Coastal Program.

This report will briefly address the six topical areas of the ordinance amendments, discuss the rezoning proposal, and will direct readers to attachments for additional detail on any of the topics addressed. The project includes Design and Development Standards for Multifamily housing, Amendments to existing zones and permit processing to incorporate the Design and Development Standards, amendments relating to Public Works, amendments relating to and supporting street trees, and other miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance changes, as well as the proposed rezoning of 387 parcels of property to implement the new mixed-use zone districts.

The six topics covered by the proposed amendments are:

1. Design and Development Standards for Multifamily Housing,

2. Development Review Process Changes,

3. New Mixed Use Zones,

4. Public Works Standards,

5. Street Tree Standards, and

6. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Updates
Community Engagement
A goal of this project has been broad community engagement and ensuring that a representative segment of Santa Cruz residents and workers are providing feedback and insight about the most important features of site and building design. As discussed in the attached Community Engagement memo presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council in December 2020, the project team focused on reaching historically marginalized demographic groups such as low-income households, the Latinx community, and students. Further, this process included efforts to reach new voices and residents who have not previously participated in a public outreach campaign like this one regardless of their demographic identities.

The project team, including City staff and consultants, conducted community outreach in four primary phases designed to bring in new voices and provide the context for community members to participate in meaningful ways. The process began in the spring of 2021 with an outreach event focused on introducing the project and explaining some of the history of land use regulation and the inequities that have resulted from past zoning practices. Following this event in the Summer of 2021, the largest phase, a Community Survey on Design, garnered over 600 responses, including 40+ responses in Spanish language and providing a solid foundation for the project team to understand the values and priorities of the community. Following the survey, the project team drafted design standards, and worked with Focus Groups to refine and adjust the standards to be sure that a broad range of perspectives were represented. Six focus groups including Students, East Side Residents, Latinx/Chicanx Residents, Low-Income Households, Young Adults 25-35, and Renters provided the specificity and nuance needed to refine the draft standards before releasing them for public review in the Fall of 2021. The final round of public review and comment on the draft standards allowed for some additional clarifications, edits, and

21.3 adjustments to the draft design standards. A comprehensive list of responses to these public comments is included with the materials for the Planning Commission Agenda of June 2, 2022.

Test-Fits
In addition to the input from the Santa Cruz community, the project team conducted technical analyses to evaluate the City’s existing General Plan and Zoning standards to identify areas of incompatibility as well as financial infeasibility. Testing the existing development standards with a hypothetical development helped to illustrate where existing standards are effective and where they started to break down. A Feasibility Calculator Tool was developed using multiple financial inputs to help determine if a project could be financially viable. In looking at the hypothetical projects, these “test-fits” provided an unbiased look at the way the existing regulations work to shape the built environment and evaluated how the regulations work on different types of sites.

The project team looked at one large site and one smaller site in the Mixed-Use High Density (MXHD) General Plan Land Use Designation, as well as one Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) site, and one Multiple Residence - Low Density Zoning District (R-L) multifamily site to perform these tests of hypothetical housing developments. The full details of these tests are included with the Planning Commission Staff Report of January 7, 2021 attachment. While the analysis gets quite detailed, the main take away points were these:
 Small sites are challenging because of the relative challenges of smaller projects (efficiences of scale like fewer square feet to spread costs and development standards such as setbacks and parking that take up a greater percentage of the project site).  2.75 floor area ratio (FAR) can be reached on MXHD sites, but the project would likely need at least a four-story height limit.
 Not all sites may be economically feasible for mixed-use.  Parking requirement for retail is high
o Ground floor retail on larger developments typically required an extra level of structured parking, but
o Retail parking pushed the development over the FAR limits, and o Retail parking is difficult on small sites due to the parking requirements.  If mixed-use continues to be a priority for the City, the standards could:
o Reduce parking requirements for retail in certain areas or in mixed projects, o Exclude parking from FAR calculation (undesirable), or o Eliminate the parking requirement for retail on small sites under 10k sf (or similar)
 Reduced intensity is likely to slow housing development.  Residential-only development is more economically feasible than mixed-use.  Even when development is deemed feasible, the profit margins are tight, indicating a housing market sensitive to cost increases.

DISCUSSION: Over the past two years staff have worked with the consultant team at Urban Planning Partners to design and execute an equitable and effective planning process that can serve the goals of fully implementing the City’s 2030 General Plan and creating design and development standards for multifamily housing through an engaging public process. Achieving these goals helps ensure that new residential development in Santa Cruz contributes positively to the built environment and enhances residents’ and visitors’ sense of place while meeting the

21.4 needs of current and future residents for a full range of housing options. Concurrently, staff in other City departments have been working to ensure that their own standards are sufficiently objective so that they can be applied in a predictable manner to development proposals. The proposed changes by the Public Works Department seek to address the level of objectivity in standards relating to public realm and street right-of-way improvements, and the Parks and Recreation Department proposes standards for ensuring installation of new street trees and has taken the opportunity to make several amendments aimed at modernizing and updating the regulations about street trees and other vegetation in the public right-of-way. Lastly, as mentioned above, this item has also been combined with a Zoning Ordinance amendment package addressing conformance with various state laws, adjustments to fencing and accessory structure regulations, and other minor amendments.

Design and Development Standards for Multifamily Housing The proposed design and development standards apply to the entire City except for the Downtown Plan area, which has its own objective design standards. The standards will apply to all new housing that is built except for new single-family homes and new accessory dwelling units. All other housing will be required to meet these standards to qualify for a streamlined project review process. The standards are proposed as a new section within Chapter 24.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code relating to Community Design, and will ultimately also be produced as a standalone document for developers, the public, and decision-makers to reference. Both documents will contain the same language, with some minor changes to the way cross-references are made in each.

When reviewing the proposed standards, please note that each subsection includes a title and a goal indicating intent of the standard and note that some standards will apply to all development proposals while others apply only to certain zone districts or only along major transportation corridors. The maps of “Residential Zones,” “Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones,” and “Parcels on Corridors” included with the attachments show the parcels where the various standards will apply based on zoning and location.

Public Review Comments
A public review draft was released in November 2021 to allow time for the community, local designers, developers, and staff to review the standards and fine-tune them. Several refinements have been made that reflect this input. The strikeout version of the standalone document included with the attached Planning Commission item of June 2, 2022, shows the changes that were made following the release of the public review draft. Most of the changes shown are additions to add clarity and specificity to the standards as drafted, and some address specific situations that were not called out explicitly in the Public Review draft, such as how standards for public frontage apply on lots with multiple frontages. A few of the standards did change significantly: the draft standard for Upper-Level Taper was replaced with a standard for a Neighborhood Transition Plane, and the draft standard requiring Live-Work units on the ground floor of residential buildings in commercial zones was re-worked to create an allowance for these units rather than a requirement, coupled with additional standards for commercial uses in those buildings.

The structured feedback collected through the online engagement platform led to a change in the proposed standards for tapering at roof tops of building over three stories in height, and that

21.5 standard has been replaced by a standard requiring a transition to neighboring residential areas by incorporating stepbacks and landscaped buffer strips. (See standards I. D(3), I. E(2) for buffering, and II. A. for neighborhood transitions.)
Several community members submitted suggestions for additional standards. Examples of standards that were added to the proposed draft objective design standards include requirements for dark sky best practices for lighting, landscape buffers in most areas with neighborhood transitions, full shielding of headlights from parking structures, options for open space amenities for project residents, and setting standards to buffer rooftop activity and lighting from adjacent residential uses. A full list of the community comments staff received is included with the Planning Commission Item of June 2, 2022 as the Community Suggested Standards attachment and is organized by comment author’s name. The document also includes a staff response to each suggestion indicating whether a community comment was incorporated or addressed in the proposed standards, is already sufficiently addressed through other existing state or local regulations, is prohibited by existing regulations, or is not recommended due to staff concerns regarding policy choices or implementation.

These changes to the standards are discussed in more detail in the attached Planning Commission Agenda Report dated June 2, 2022.

Development Review Process Changes
Streamlining of the development review process is proposed because additional objective design standards will create more development certainty and State law has fundamentally altered the amount of discretion available to local jurisdictions. Given the requirement to approve housing development proposals that conform to the objective standards, the proposed amendments seek to reduce the number of development applications that will require a public hearing before either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission.

Because the objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing are new and limited to features of site and building design, staff and the consultant team understand the possibility that development proposals may need or desire to vary from one or more of the standards to some degree. For example, the standards for building articulation require that a building be articulated (in one of three ways) at least once for every 30 feet of frontage. A situation could arise where a site would require four such articulations based on a strict application of the standards, but the developer is proposing a design that includes only three articulations due to construction constraints. Staff is interested in supporting housing development and also faithfully implementing the standards that have been drafted through extensive community participation. To this end, the proposed ordinance would allow for alternative designs only when a public hearing is held and only when the hearing body can make certain findings. At a public hearing, the hearing body will consider the merits of the proposed alternative design relative to the goal established for each of the standards from which they are proposing to vary. Other entitlement solutions providing opportunities to vary from development standards (Variance, Planned Development Permit and Density Bonus) will continue to require a public hearing.

21.6 These proposed new procedures are implemented in code Sections 24.04.090, 24.04.130, and

24.08.400 et seq, and they are discussed in further detail in the attached Planning Commission Agenda materials of June 30, 2022.

The proposed review process would maintain the existing requirement for a Design Permit for all new multifamily or mixed-use development proposals. The proposed process would lower the threshold for triggering that permit from three units or more to two units or more to fully comply with the definition of multifamily housing in the Housing Accountability Act. By requiring a Design Permit, the City ensures that the right to appeal a project approval is maintained, even if a public hearing is not required as part of the initial action, and that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will continue to apply. Importantly, the City’s Community Outreach Policy will remain unchanged for multifamily development proposals regardless of the level of review, creating an opportunity for nearby residents to be notified of new development proposals and to participate in a discussion with the project developer about the proposal prior to the completion of the review by City staff.

New Mixed-Use Zone Districts
Six new zone districts are proposed to be added to Chapter 24.10 to implement the vision and land use pattern established in the City’s 2030 General Plan and the Ocean Street Area Plan (OSAP). These zones will implement the three mixed-use General Plan land use designations that have been in place in Santa Cruz since the 2030 General Plan was adopted in 2012, as well as the height ranges adopted in the OSAP in 2014. The six new zones consist of four zones along Ocean Street, one zone along Mission Street, and one zone along Soquel Avenue/Branciforte Avenue/Water Street/Morrissey Boulevard. The locations of these new zones are shown in the attached Zoning Map Amendments exhibit to the attached Zoning Map Ordinance. The zone districts and the purpose of each is listed below. A summary of the site standards for each zone is included as an attachment.

The six new zoning districts proposed are:

1. 24.10.800 Mixed-Use, Medium Density (MU-M): located along Mission Street.

2. 24.10.810 Mixed-Use, High Density (MU-H): located along portions of Soquel Avenue, Water Street, Branciforte Avenue, and Morrissey Boulevard.

3. 24.10.820 Mixed-Use, Ocean Medium Density (MU-OM): located on Ocean Street.

4. 24.10.830 Mixed-Use, Ocean High Density (MU-OH): located on Ocean Street.

5. 24.10.840 Mixed-Use, Visitor-Serving High Density (MU-VH): located on Ocean Street.

6. 24.10.850 Mixed-Use, Visitor Additional Height (MU-VA): located on Ocean Street.

The proposed new zoning districts allow the Zoning Ordinance to align with the 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan uses Floor Area Ratio (FAR: ratio of floor area square footage within a building to the square footage of a parcel) to set the amount of development allowed on a given site. In the Mixed-Use High Density (MXHD) and Mixed-Use Visitor Commercial (MXVC), the FAR in the General Plan is 2.75. The FAR is 1.75 for the Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation. The current zoning standards do not allow for these General Plan

21.7 development intensities, so changes to standards such as height, setbacks, and open space requirements are necessary to comply with state law.

The MU-H zone district implements the MXHD General Plan designation, the MU-VH and MUVA zone districts implement the MXVC General Plan designation, and the MU-M, MU-OM, and MU-OH zone districts implement the MXMD General Plan designation.

Staff determined the degree of the mismatch between the FAR and the development standards of the current zoning code through the test-fit analyses discussed above. These test-fits were previously presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council on January 7, 2021, and March 9, 2021, respectively. In these new zones, additional stories of height are proposed to address the discrepancies identified through that analysis. For example, properties in the proposed MU-H zone will have an allowed height of five stories and 60 feet of height, rather than the three stories and 40 feet of height currently allowed in the Community Commercial zone.

Increasing the height in these districts is necessary, because since the beginning of 2019, state law has required that local municipalities allow full build out of the planned development capacity on any parcel where housing is an allowed use, based either on the General Plan or zoning allowance. The law allows existing zoning to be waived if it cannot accommodate a General Plan development capacity, allowing instead zoning standards that accommodate the full development capacity. To that end, these amendments to the zoning ordinance do not change development capacity that is already possible and only seek to create more transparency and consistency for all users of the document including the general public, staff, developers, and decision makers.

Rezonings/Amendments to Zoning Map
The action to amend the zoning map to include six new mixed-use zone districts and to rezone the parcels as identified on the attached maps will create a zoning map that fully implements the land use pattern and designations established in the 2030 General Plan. The land use pattern creates residential and commercial intensity in areas with access to public transit, bike lanes, and a critical mass of retail and service uses to support households and create employment opportunities. Focusing new development into these areas represents the current best practices for zoning and supports the community by creating new opportunities for both residential and commercial development within the existing infrastructure of the City. The required finding was made by the Planning Commission based upon the uses, site standards, and other regulations of the six mixed-use zone districts, and maps showing the parcels to be rezoned fully implement the provisions of their General Plan land use designation. A total of 387 properties are proposed for rezoning to one of the proposed six new zone districts. The zoning map changes are made through an ordinance, so a draft ordinance reflecting those changes is attached.

Planning Commission Review
The portions of this project that fall within the City’s zoning code, Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, were reviewed by the Planning Commission as two parts due to the size and scale of the item. The Planning Commission reviewed the objective design and development standards on June 2, 2022 and reviewed the rezoning and development review processes first on

21.8 June 30, 2022 and then again on July 21, 2022.The zoning ordinance update amendment package was part of a separate action by the Planning Commission and is discussed in a another section below.

Action on Design and Development Standards
On June 2, 2022, the Planning Commission received a report from the project team addressing the final package of the objective standards. A draft package had previously been presented to and discussed by the Planning Commission in late 2021. The project team addressed the overall scope of the proposed standards, focusing on the adjustments and edits that had been made in response to public comments (a comprehensive list of responses to public comments received via email is included with the agenda report for the item). The Commission received public comment on the proposal and then deliberated on the proposed amendments.

The Planning Commission supported all of the staff-recommended objective standards and sought to add several other standards by way of motion. First, on a vote of 6-1, the Commission recommended that two conditions be added to the proposed objective development standards:
first, that no vinyl windows be permitted on street-facing building facades, and second, that developments of fifty units or more provide bus passes to tenants at their request. Second, on a vote of 4-3, the Commission recommended that the inclusionary housing requirements of the Municipal code be adjusted to require that development proposals of more than 50 units meet an inclusionary standard of 25% and that proposals of more than 100 units meet an inclusionary standard of 30%.

For the first motion regarding vinyl windows, staff has considered these recommendations and has adjusted the staff-recommended ordinance as follows:
 Vinyl windows are not permitted on building faces oriented toward streets, other than alleys, for buildings up to three stories in height.
 Vinyl windows are not permitted on any building face of buildings over three stories in height.

Staff agrees the Commission’s idea of not permitting vinyl windows in certain circumstances and seeks to further improve upon the idea with the above recommendations. Staff is concerned that taller buildings can be especially visible on all four sides, including from adjacent neighborhoods, so high-quality window materials should be used consistently around the building at four stories or more in height. At three stories in height or fewer, the Planning Commission recommendation would remain unchanged.

Additionally, while staff generally supports a standard relating to increased mandatory Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as part of new rental housing development, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to consider such a measure as part of the more comprehensive transportation demand management and parking requirements policy work that will be part of the implementation of the forthcoming Climate Action Plan. Currently, providing bus passes is one of the options developers can use to reduce their overall parking requirement for a project based on the City’s Parking Reduction Worksheet, and there are other options available that provide a larger reduction in trips based on our local conditions. Policy makers will want to evaluate the pros and cons of requiring a specific TDM measure as part of

21.9 the Objective Standards project. The location of the project will be relevant, as not all areas of the City are equally well-served by transit, and currently Metro does not have an established program for purchasing bulk passes.. An alternative could allow developers to select TDM strategies from the existing worksheet that could total a set amount of reduction in required parking, and such flexibility could be preferable in some, most, or all circumstances based on the size, location, and type of housing development project. Staff and decision-makers will also want to consider how monitoring of this type of requirement would take place over time, and what the consequences would be if transit service shifted significantly. City staff may want to discuss with Metro what the best options are before creating a standard like this.

If providing bus passes is the preferred option, other considerations should be: rationale for including only projects of over fifty units, whether the passes should be provided (via a homeowners’ association) to both renters and property owners residing within ownership projects, and whether passes should be provided only upon request or to all residents (as a measure to potentially induce ridership and to increase funding for Metro), how compliance monitoring would take place and what the enforcement mechanism would be for noncompliance. In order to allow for consideration of these and potentially other relevant topics, staff recommends that this topic be considered at a later time with the various implementation actions as part of the forthcoming adoption of the new Climate Action Plan.

With regard to the two provisions relating to the City’s affordable housing inclusionary rate recommended by the Planning Commission, staff has not included these measures in the staffrecommended ordinance amendments for a number of reasons. Staff is concerned that there is no evidence in the record to support this recommendation. No financial feasibility analysis has been conducted on the implications for such a change on whether housing development would occur or not. As part of the upcoming Housing Element process, such analysis would be needed to assess the City’s governmental constraints on housing. Additionally, due to the cost associated with producing and operating deed-restricted housing units affordable to low-income households, rental rates or sales prices for market-rate units are increased to cover those costs.

The test-fit analysis and Feasibility Calculator Tool created as part of the Objective Standards project showed that as little as a 2% shift in profit margin is sufficient to move a project from “likely” to be built to “not likely” to be built. A slowdown in housing production will have negative consequences for not only city residents seeking housing units, but for City administration and planning entitlement processes, as required by state law and enforced by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (for example, see discussion below of SB 35).

Staff has looked for examples of inclusionary housing rates similar to the ones recommended by the Planning Commission and found none that were established without a supporting nexus study. Recently, the City of San Francisco saw housing production fall by as much as 50% in the wake of increasing inclusionary rates above 20%1. While many factors could contribute to that decrease, staff is concerned that the increase in inclusionary rates and its associated increase in development costs did play a role given the timing of the slowdown, and staff is concerned that 1 “San Francisco housing development has slowed to a crawl, with no uptick in sight: ‘The costs are simply too high’”, San Francisco Chronicle. June 27, 2022

21.10 Santa Cruz could experience similar reductions in housing production if increases to the inclusionary requirements such as those recommended by Planning Commission were adopted.

Should a higher inclusionary rate lead to a slowdown in housing production, it could lead to fewer affordable units being built than under the current inclusionary rate. For example, if 500 housing units were applied for in the past 12 months, a 50% slow-down would reduce that to 250 housing units. Setting aside the potential for density bonus units, applying the current inclusionary rate of 20% would yield 100 affordable housing units out of the 500, compared with the recommended inclusionary rate of 25-30%, which would yield between 63 and 75 affordable housing units if the pace of housing production slowed to 250 units. In this scenario, the higher inclusionary rate results in both fewer market rate housing units and fewer affordable housing units, both of which are undesirable outcomes.

Should a slowdown in housing production occur, the City would not meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target. If that were the case, the City’s exposure under SB 35 permit streamlining would also be increased, with most, if not all, development proposals eligible for the streamlined SB 35 development approval process. This situation would limit community input in the development review process and would eliminate the City’s authority to apply CEQA to new housing developments, both of which are important pieces of the entitlement process. Making “adequate progress” toward the RHNA obligation is defined in the state law as both: 1) meeting the RHNA requirements for every income category by the end of the 8-year RHNA period; and, 2) issued permits for at least half of the Above-Moderate (market rate) income category obligation at the midpoint of the 8-year cycle. The State requirements push for a production in affordable and market rate housing. For market rate, the City will need to issue permits for at least 803 market rate housing units between mid-2023 and the end of 2027 to meet the RHNA target. For comparison, the City issued permits for only 356 such units over the past four years, through the end of 2021.

Regarding the Density Bonus, since the adjustment to the City’s inclusionary rate from the historic rate of 15% to the current 20% rate citywide, all but three of the sixteen development proposals subject to that higher rate that are considered “significant” under the City’s Community Outreach Policy have been Density Bonus applications. Of those three, two are proposing development that is not subject to a density cap (one in the Downtown Plan Area and one as a single-room occupancy (SRO) proposal), and one is utilizing a Planned Development Permit process to seek variation from existing standards in exchange for a public benefit.

Utilizing the State Density Bonus Law often has the effect of reducing the effective affordability rate to 15% or less overall – which is similar to the previously established inclusionary requirement supported by the 2018 analysis by the City’s economic consultant Keyser-Marston.

Based on these facts, staff does not recommend increasing the inclusionary rate without substantially more evidence showing that such a move will not have a cooling effect on housing production. There is currently no such evidence in the record. Slowing production of market rate housing through increased inclusionary requirements will also slow the production of needed affordable, inclusionary units The resulting production slowdown has the potential to increase all housing costs at a faster pace than would be the case if more housing is produced, and a housing production slowdown does not support the interests of any of the City’s current residents

21.11 other than those that currently own property. Development of new affordable housing units will be more successfully addressed by supporting market rate housing production and through the creation of new or increased federal, state, and local funding sources that can fund the construction or acquisition of housing that can be deed restricted to remain affordable over the long term.

Action on proposed Mixed-Use zones and Permit Review processes On June 30, 2022, the Planning Commission heard the proposal to rezone properties into six new mixed-use zone districts and their associated development standards and heard the proposed changes to the permit review process. There were several motions in deliberation but due to the absence of one Commissioner, all motions proposed yielded tied 3-3-1 votes, and the item was continued to the hearing on July 21, 2022.

At the meeting on July 21, the Commission passed a motion to recommend that Council approve the staff recommendation and further add a development standard that an inclusionary rate of 25% be applied to the base units of a project seeking a 35% Density Bonus and that an inclusionary rate of 30% be applied to the base units of a project seeking a 50% Density Bonus.

Increasing the inclusionary rate in this manner would have the effect of yielding an overall affordability rate of 18.5% and 20% respectively for the described scenarios. Staff has received a preliminary opinion from the City Attorney’s office that such an approach, with differing inclusionary requirements for Density Bonus and non-Density Bonus projects could potentially be crafted in a way that it does not conflict with the existing Density Bonus Law or the Latinos Unidos vs. County of Napa decision. However, there are no examples of other jurisdictions that have pursued such an action. For the same reasons detailed above, staff does not recommend the addition of this type of standard, primarily due to the strong possibility that it would slow housing production and result in fewer affordable and market-rate housing units, thereby hindering the City in making adequate progress toward upcoming RHNA obligations. These issues are discussed in further detail in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report on the continued Objective Standards item from July 21, 2022.

Public Works Standards
The proposed Public Works Municipal Code revisions incorporated into the municipal code amendments create objective standards for the Public Works elements that apply to all new multi-family and mixed-use residential projects. The proposed amendments include: Sections

6.12 (refuse container storage), 12.60 (underground utility districts and overhead wires), 15.15 (public realm design), 15.20 (sidewalk standards), and 24.12 (required loading spaces, underground utilities/fiber optic conduit, and driveway sight distances). All proposed revisions work together to create objective standards consistent with the City’s General Plan, Area Plans, and Zoning Codes, and to help ensure that new development contributes positively to the urban environment by incorporating appropriate public improvements and necessary safety features.

These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Transportation and Public Works Commission on May 16, 2022 and received a recommendation for approval by the City Council.

Agenda Report materials and minutes from that meeting are attached.

21.12 Street Tree Standards
The proposed standards for multifamily housing in Section 24.12.186 create a requirement for street trees to be planted adjacent to new housing development. The revisions proposed to Chapter 13.30 include objective standards that improve the clarity, usefulness, and consistency in the Municipal Code.

The proposed revisions to the Tree Ordinance also follow the recommendations of the Street Tree Master Plan, which was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission in March 2021 and approved by City Council in April 2021. Among the objectives in the Urban Forest Policy and Regulation focus area of the plan (Goal 11) is to “explore revising and amending municipal code to promote the protection of community trees.” Specifically, the plan recommends higher professional standards for contractors and conformance with current industry standards so that street trees are planted and maintained in a manner that will lead to their long-term success. The proposed revisions will also improve the City’s legal protections and ability to recover costs associated with street tree planting and maintenance.

These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 11 and June 13, 2022, and they were recommended for approval by the City Council. Agenda materials and minutes from those hearings are attached.

Street Tree In-lieu Fee Resolution
Staff are proposing the establishment of an in-lieu fee for street trees. In the City of Santa Cruz, in-lieu fees are currently assessed for permitted removal of a heritage tree when no tree can be replanted on site. Funds received go into the Street Tree Fund (Fund #125) and are used to support the acquisition and planting of trees on public lands throughout the City. Currently no inlieu fee is assessed for non-heritage-size street trees that are removed and cannot be replaced on site.

The proposed language in Chapter 13.30.100 is that in circumstances where replacement of a removed street tree is not feasible due to conflicts with planned or existing public infrastructure, including other street trees, or existing private infrastructure, the Parks Department director may in his or her sole discretion, authorize the payment of an in-lieu fee. This fee shall be set by City Council resolution.

Staff propose to assess in-lieu fees based on the cost for the City to purchase, install, water for two years, and perform an initial structural pruning on a replacement tree. For removed street trees greater than seven inches in diameter, the fee would be based on the planting of a 24” box tree. For removed street trees less than or equal to 7” in diameter, the fee would be based on the planting of a #15 container size tree. Our current calculations and proposed fees for inclusion in the master fee schedule are $1,705 for trees greater than seven inches in diameter and $1,510 for trees less than or equal to seven inches in diameter. These fees are in line with those assessed by other municipalities surveyed. The P&R Commission voted in their August 8, 2022 meeting to support the establishment of a street tree mitigation fee, and a resolution that would effectuate that is included as an attachment and recommended action.

Establishing an in-lieu fee for street trees should support Santa Cruz’s urban forest in two ways.

One, fees such as these proposed may incentivize property owners to replant on site. Two, these

21.13 fees should increase funding for City-supported tree planting and maintenance throughout Santa Cruz. For the above-noted reasons, staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution to establish this fee at this time.

Further detail on this item can be found in the attached agenda materials for the Parks and Recreation Commission agenda of August 8, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended this resolution for adoption by the City Council.

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Changes
The proposed miscellaneous revisions that update the Zoning Ordinance fall into several categories: amendments for internal consistency, process streamlining, conforming with State law, updating existing standards, and other minor corrections and revisions. Amendments that would provide internal consistency in the Zoning Ordinance include updating the list of permit types in Chapter 24.04 – Administration. Amendments to streamline processes include removing the public hearing requirement for a restaurant to serve alcohol (Low Risk Alcohol Permit) and changing the setbacks for 6-foot exterior side yard fences adjacent to streets. Amendments for conformance with State law include updating the regulations related to family daycare homes and relocation assistance. Amendments that update existing standards include changes to

24.12.140 – Accessory Buildings and Structures. Several other minor corrections and revisions would add the Planning Director to those allowed to initiate zoning map and code text amendments and remove references the Redevelopment Agency. More detail on the proposed Zoning Ordinance updates can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report from July 21, 2022.

Community Outreach
A community meeting was held for the ordinance update item on May 12, 2022. One member of the public had questions about the amendment, specifically asking for examples of when the Planning Director might initiate a zoning map or code text amendment and expressing concern about the proposed change of the maximum fence height. While Zoning Ordinance updates are generally included in the Advance Planning Division’s Three-Year Work Plan, which is approved by City Council, there are occasions when changes to State law go into effect rapidly and ordinances to adjust to such changes may not be included in the Work Plan, necessitating the Planning Director to initiate the text amendment. It should also be noted that after the community meeting, the proposed amendment related to fence heights was moved from the Ordinance Update project to the Objective Standards as it fit in with other related changes proposed in that project.

In addition to the community meeting, staff reached out personally to a property owner, Kindred Sparks, with a non-compliant accessory building in her front yard about which the City had received complaints and which is subject to a Code Enforcement case. Ms. Sparks was informed about the community meeting and of the public hearing schedule for the ordinance amendments, and staff discussed the draft code revisions with her.

Staff also received comments and suggestions related to changes to the fence ordinance after the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff made minor clarifications based on this input to

21.14 make clear that the fence ordinance also applies to hedges and to further clarify the openness of the portion of fences over six feet.

Planning Commission
The Zoning Ordinance update project was presented to the Planning Commission on July 21, 2022. One letter was received by the Planning Commission that brought up three topics related to the amendment package item and the Objective Standards item. The letter asked about when the Planning Director would initiate zoning map and text amendments (Ordinance Update), it discussed the issue of light pollution and glare (Objective Standards), and it expressed concern about the proposed change in fence height (originally in Ordinance Update, now in Objective Standards).

The change in fence height would allow a fence to be up to 8 feet height if the section of fence between six feet and eight feet in height is at least 50% transparent. Applications for this type of fence are commonly received by the City, and there is generally no community opposition to these projects. For the sake of permit streamlining and reduction of process requirements for staff and the public, staff believes the proposed changes to the fence height requirements are reasonable. Notably, whereas most provisions in the objective standards section apply to developments of two or more units, these expanded fencing allowances would also apply to single-family residences.

Ms. Sparks, the owner of the nonconforming accessory building in her front yard, was the only member of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on this item. She said she had researched whether treehouses needed permits and upon finding that they do not, she had allowed her son to build what she described as a treehouse in the front yard. As the building is not supported by the tree and is a free-standing building supported by posts built adjacent to the tree, the City does not consider it to be a treehouse. It has at least two solid walls and a roof, so it is considered an accessory building.

The existing accessory building regulations do not allow accessory buildings in the front or exterior side yard setbacks. Staff initially proposed amendments to the Planning Commission to modify the current prohibition to allow accessory buildings that are no more than 5 feet in height and 30 square feet in area within the front and exterior side setbacks. This proposed change was intended to allow a children’s playhouse to be in the front yard while prohibiting other larger buildings such as storage sheds and still seeking to maintain visibility between public streets and homes. In addition, the proposed ordinance would allow accessory structures such as gazebos and pergolas in the front and exterior yard setbacks if they are not higher than 8 feet and are at least 90 percent transparent. The intent is to allow such structures but to ensure visibility both to the main building from the sidewalk/street and from the main building to the sidewalk/street, providing both opportunities for neighborly interchanges and eyes on the street as a safety measure. In addition, the height limitation is intended to prevent such structures from dominating the front setback, keeping the residential structure as the main feature of the property.

After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted six to zero with one member absent to recommend that the City Council approve the staff-recommended Zoning Ordinance Update amendments with one modification: that children’s play structures be exempt from the ordinance

21.15 if they are less than fifty square feet in plan area, less than fourteen feet in height, have a minimum setback of three feet from the front property line, and would not create a traffic safety hazard. While the ordinance as proposed defines a building as having a roof and walls, as opposed to structures, which are more open, it is Staff’s interpretation that the Planning Commission did not make this distinction and intended this modification to include both structures and buildings that are designed and used by and for children. Staff has some concerns about visibility issues that may occur due to this modification, where views between the main residence and street/sidewalk are obstructed, but staff recommends acceptance of this modification due to the generally temporary nature of children’s play structures and their infrequent placement in the front setback. With this modification, the originally proposed exception for accessory buildings in front and exterior side yard no more than 5 feet in height and 30 square feet in area becomes obsolete and is replaced by the Planning Commission modification. Notably, staff has confirmed that the Planning Commission’s recommendation, which staff has carried forward into the proposed ordinance, would allow for Ms. Sparks’ play structure to remain in place, should Council ultimately adopt such code changes.

Local Coastal Program Consistency
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the tool used by the City and the Coastal Commission to effectively regulate development activities within the Coastal Zone.

Because the objective design standards will apply to all new multi-family and mixed-use housing developed in the City, the standards constitute amendments to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. City staff consulted with Coastal Commission Staff this past winter to review the draft standards for potential concerns.

The Coastal Commission identified the previously-proposed reduction to required open space in residential zone districts as a potential concern for coastal resources, and as a result, staff has removed this reduction and is proposing to maintain existing requirements for total square footage of open space per dwelling unit for residential zone districts. As the proposed standards are facilitating allowed existing development capacities rather than increasing those capacities, which are already permitted by the LCP, staff concludes that the remainder of the proposed ordinance will have no physical effect on the size or type of development permitted within the Coastal Zone.

The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would implement several Policies and Programs in the City’s LCP. The following are the LCP provisions that are supported by the actions included in this package of amendments:

Policy CD 1.1: “Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services.” Program CD 1.1.2: “Develop design criteria to ensure compatibility of infill development with existing neighborhoods and proposed development patterns.”

21.16 Policy CD 3.6: “In pedestrian areas, require building design to be responsive to the pedestrian environment. These areas include but are not limited to Downtown, South of Laurel, the Beach, wharf, shoreline, and commercial shopping areas.”
Policy CD 3.7: “Require development to incorporate features to promote pedestrian use including new linkages to the pedestrian system.”
Program L 2.1.2: “Maximize land intensity or densities in areas unconstrained by resources or hazards and having adequate service capabilities.”
Program L 2.6.4.3: “Allow and encourage residential development in non-residential districts and develop appropriate design guidelines and incentives for this type of development.” Program L 2.9.1: “Identify areas where mixed-use development opportunities exist and develop appropriate guidelines and incentives to encourage that type of development.” Program L 5.3: “Provide for high-density development and mixed uses, where appropriate, as well as transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use patterns to reduce dependence on the automobile and support the use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes.” Program C 5.9.7 “Where possible underground utilities along the City’s roads and prioritize utility undergrounding on streets scheduled for reconstruction.” Staff believes that this list demonstrates the conformance of the proposed amendment package with the goals, policies and programs of the LCP, and by extension the California Coastal Act.

Next Steps
Following action by the City Council, if the project is approved, a second reading will take place on the next available agenda, and then the municipal code amendments will take effect outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after the second reading. Staff will prepare a submittal to the California Coastal Commission for review of the sections of the proposed ordinance that are part of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (LCP IP) and will work with Coastal Commission staff to process the amendments in a reasonable timeline. The amendments will not take effect inside the Coastal Zone until they are approved by the Coastal Commission.

Staff will begin implementation of the ordinances in accordance with the dates and locations where they take effect and will begin processing development applications with the new process and objective standards later this year.

Additionally, there are a few follow up items that will require public hearings later this year or early next: first, at a prior Council meeting, we highlighted the need for a clean-up General Plan text amendment to remove and clarify text that is no longer enforceable under the current state law. This item was inadvertently missed in the effort to pull all the components of the Objective Standards project together for hearings and will be processed soon. Additionally, the Ocean Street Area Plan (OSAP) requires an amendment to increase the height limit on 15 parcels between Soquel Avenue and Water Street, and west of the intersection of Water and Ocean

21.17 Streets that are currently identified in that plan for a 3-story height limit, but which are identified in the General Plan with a 2.75 FAR limit. These two restrictions are incompatible, and planning staff will need to run a community outreach process to work on raising the heights to allow full development of the allowances in the General Plan, and then those sites will need to be rezoned into the appropriate mixed-use zone.

Environmental Review
The project seeks to fully implement what is already allowed in the General Plan and covered by the General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report adopted in June 2012. The project also seeks to draft additional objective standards to better define development proposals and ensure the City’s goals, as expressed in the 2030 General Plan for active transportation, maintaining the urban forest, promoting high-quality materials and design in new development, and supporting local economic activity and quality of life for residents can be met. Per State of California law, these standards are only to be used so long as they do not impede the allowed development capacities in the General Plan. Given that the amendments do not increase already studied and allowed development intensity, that they largely affect aesthetics, and that they further goals and policies evaluated as part of the General Plan, pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required.

Regarding the amendments relating to accessory structures and children’s play equipment, the proposed amendments do not change the level of impact these structures would have on the natural environment, and due to their small size, largely temporary nature (in the case of children’s play structures), and ancillary use compared to the primary residential uses on a property, with the intensity of the primary use not being affected by the proposed amendments, such structures are unlikely to create significant environmental impacts. These proposed amendments are therefor exempt from CEQA review under Sectoin 15061(b)(3).

Health in All Policies
The items relating to the creation of objective standards that are currently before Council are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainabilty in that they were developed through equitable outreach to a broad population (including those historically underrepresented) and create development standards that may encourage the construction of needed housing, particularly multi-family housing units that serve a broad range of the community and that incorporates sustainable design outcomes.

The proposed amendments to public right-of-way improvements are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health and sustainability in their promotion of wider access to high-speed internet through requirements for fiber optic conduit, their support of walkable neighborhoods by increasing the width of sidewalks in many neighborhoods to make walking a safer and more accessible mode of transit.

The standards requiring street trees in Title 24, the changes to the Tree Ordinance, and the Street Tree In-lieu Fee Resolution support the Health in All Policies sustainability pillar and the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) goal of Healthy Environments by insuring that the multiple environmental benefits brought by trees are included in development projects, that industry standard care is given to street trees, and that street tree replacement is prioritized.

21.18 The items relating to the miscellaneous Zoning changes are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainabilty in that they improve the usability of the Zoning Ordinance for all people. The proposed amendments, while relatively minor in nature, will help bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance with State law, streamline processing of specific permits, more clearly define certain processes and standards, and remove obsolete phrases and sections.

FISCAL IMPACT: The project itself had a minimal direct fiscal impact, as the vast majority of consultant costs were covered by grant funds. The draft objective standards seek to align the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan standards while also adding transparency to the development review process. Streamlining of conforming projects is also proposed. This may incentivize and induce new mixed-use and multi-family housing development proposals, so the City could receive greater permit fees and impact fees associated with new development. New residents would also result in additional sales tax revenues associated with those residents’ spending. However, new residents also bring additional service demands, so any new revenues could come with new service delivery costs.

The establishment of a Street Tree In-lieu Fee will lead to additional funding for planting and establishment of trees on public lands in the City.

Prepared by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Submitted by:

Lee Butler
Planning and Community
Development Director
Approved by:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Non-Coastal Clean Proposed Amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Coastal Clean Proposed Amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Non-Coastal, Redline Proposed Amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Coastal, Redline Ordinance Amending Zoning Map and Exhibit with Amended Zoning Map Resolution Establishing Fees for Street Tree Removals
Objective Standards Community Engagement Memo
Maps of Residential and Commercial/Mixed Use Zones, and Parcels with Corridor Frontage PC Staff Report, Objective Standards, January 7, 2021
PC Staff Report and Minutes, Objective Standards, June 2, 2022 PC Staff Report and Minutes, Objective Standards, June 30, 2022 PC Staff Report and Minutes, Continued Objective Standards, July 21, 2022 PC Staff Report and Minutes, Zoning Update, July 21, 2022 TPWC Staff Report and Minutes, Objective Standards, May 16, 2022 PRC Staff Report and Minutes, Street Tree Ordinance, April 11, June 13, 2022 PRC Staff Report and Minutes, Tree In-lieu Fee Resolution, August 8, 2022 Summary of new Mixed Use zone districts
Public Correspondence

21.19 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTERS 6.12 – SOLID WASTE; 12.60 – UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS; 13.30 – TREES; 15.20 – DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS; 16.16 – WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE; SECTION 24.06.020 – INITIATION OF CHAPTER 24.06; PART 14: RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION/CONVERSION AUTHORIZATION PERMITS OF CHAPTER 24.08 LAND USE PERMITS AND FINDINGS; SECTION 24.10.160 – HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS; PART 10: COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE ZONE OF CHAPTER 24.10 – LAND USE DISTRICTS; SECTION 24.10.2301 – USES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART 8: UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS OF CHAPTER 24.12 – COMMUNITY DESIGN; SECTION 24.12.1108 –

MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; SECTION 24.14.030 – SLOPE REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 24.16 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS; CHAPTER 24.22 – DEFINITIONS; DELETING PART 23 OF CHAPTER 24.08 – CONDITIONAL DRIVEWAY PERMIT; CREATING SECTIONS 15.15 – PUBLIC REALM DESIGN FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS; AND PARTS 9A, 9D, AND 9E OF CHAPTER 24.10 – LAND

USE DISTRICTS OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH

OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, CREATE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS, REGULATE STREET TREES, REQUIRE RIGHT-OFWAY IMPROVEMENTS, AND UPDATE THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE; AND TO INCORPORATE MODIFICATIONS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 24 TO CLARIFY AND UPDATE VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS, REMOVE OBSOLETE

SECTIONS AND REFERENCES, STREAMLINE APPLICATION PROCESSES, AND

BRING THE ZONING ORDINANCE INTO CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAW BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 6.12.050 – Storage of Receptacles of Chapter 6.12 – Solid Waste of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

6.12.050 STORAGE OF RECEPTACLES
Containers or receptacles must be stored in a manner which facilitates a safe and sanitary condition and which does not impose a barrier to efficient and physically safe collection by city collection crews as determined by the director of public works. All receptacles or containers shall be stored in a manner as to prevent their contents from being scattered or carried by wind or water in a fashion which causes the accumulation of litter or an unsightly, unsafe or unsanitary condition to exist.

All containers or receptacles containing acceptable wastes or recyclables produced by any commercial or industrial establishment shall be placed for collection at a convenient and accessible place on the premises of the producer, unless special permission is obtained from the director of public works to place the containers or receptacles on public property.

21.20 Development permit applications for all industrial, institutional, commercial, professional office and residential developments having more than two units in each structure shall be reviewed by the director of public works to assure that sufficient space is provided in accordance with this section.

In all cases of dispute or complaints concerning the place where refuse or receptacles shall be placed while awaiting the removal of their contents and the same is not specifically fixed by this chapter, the director of public works shall forthwith designate the place and such decision shall be final.

Refuse Container Storage Facility Design Standards – Refuse container enclosures are required of all new multi-family and mixed-use residential projects with 3 or more housing units or any commercial development as set forth in the City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works Refuse Container Storage Facility Design Standards that are current at the time of design review available from the Public Works Department.

Section 2. Section 12.60.010 – Definitions of Chapter 12.60 – Underground Utility Districts, Division II of Title 12 – Local Improvements of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

12.60.010 DEFINITIONS.

Whenever in this chapter or in chapter 24.12.700 the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions:
(1) “City” means the city of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation of the state of California.
(2) “Commission” means the Public Utilities Commission of the state of California. (3) “Communications Service” means any service offering a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications most typically via subatomic particles or the electromagnetic spectrum, including but not explicitly, those under jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission such as cable, cellular, telephone, radio, fiber-optic, or internet.
(4) “Council” means the city council of the city.
(5) “Dark Conduit” means unused or empty conduit and any associated infrastructure, such as but not exclusively, junction boxes, termini, and access panels, for the installation or expansion of electrical or communications services and lines by others or at a future date, all as specified by Public Works.
(6) “Underground utility district” or “district” means an area in the city within which poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures are prohibited by a resolution adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 12.60.020. (7) “Person” means and includes individuals, firms, corporations, copartnerships, and their agents and employees.
(8) “Poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures” mean poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, cross-arms, braces, transformers,

21.21 insulators, cut-outs, switches, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances located above ground upon, along, across or over the streets, alleys and ways of the city and used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service.
(9) “Utility” includes all persons or entities supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service by means of electrical materials or devices.

Section 3. Section 12.60.040 – Overhead Wires – Exception by Special Permission of Chapter

12.60 – Underground Utility Districts, Division II of Title 12 – Local Improvements of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

12.60.040 OVERHEAD WIRES – EXCEPTION BY SPECIAL PERMISSION.

The council may grant special permission, on such terms as the council may deem appropriate, in cases of emergency or unusual circumstances, without discrimination as to any person or utility, to erect, construct, install, maintain, use or operate poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures, notwithstanding any other provisions of this part.

The City Engineer, may also grant special permission for a period not to exceed three (3) years, on such terms as the Department may deem appropriate, in cases of emergency or unusual circumstances, without discrimination as to any person or utility, to erect, construct, install, maintain, use or operate temporary poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures, notwithstanding any other provisions of this part.

Section 4. Chapter 13.30 – Trees of Title 13 – Parks and Recreation of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 13.30 - TREES
Sections:

13.30.010 Short title.

13.30.020 Purpose.

13.30.030 Definitions.

13.30.040 Parks and recreation director – Powers and duties.

13.30.050 Parks and recreation commission – Powers and duties.

13.30.060 Property owner maintenance responsibilities – Duties and liabilities.

13.30.065 Damaging street trees forbidden.

13.30.067 House moving.

13.30.070 Duties of public utilities.

13.30.080 Approved street tree list.

13.30.090 Street tree planting plan.

13.30.100 Permits required.

13.30.110 Prohibited vegetation – Nuisance.

13.30.120 Abatement of public nuisances.

13.30. 130 Recovery of damages for loss of street trees.

13.30.140 Infraction.

21.22 13.30.150 Legal Remedies/Penalties and Fines.

13.30.160 Right of appeal.

13.30.170 Where to file appeal.

13.30.180 Procedure for appeals.

13.30.190 Stay, pending appeal.

13.30.200 Hearing on appeal.

13.30.210 Liability.

13.30.220 Severability.

13.30.010 SHORT TITLE.

This chapter shall be known as the “Street Tree and Nuisance Vegetation Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz.”

13.30.020 PURPOSE.

The city council finds that planting and preserving trees enhances the natural beauty of Santa Cruz, promotes the city’s ecological balance, and is in the public interest. The purpose of this Street Tree and Nuisance Vegetation Ordinance is to provide a set of standards and regulations for the protection, maintenance, and planting of street trees and other vegetation within the city of Santa Cruz. For any street trees that are also heritage trees, the provisions of chapter 9.56 shall be applied in addition to the provisions of this chapter 13.30.

13.30.030 DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words have the meaning given in this section:
(a) “Approved Street Tree List” means a list prepared and maintained by the Parks & Recreation Department of the city of Santa Cruz of tree species approved for use in the city’s public right-of-way.
(b) “Clear Vision Area” means the twenty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of any streets improved for vehicular traffic as diagrammed below. (c) “Damage” means any action undertaken which may be harmful or detrimental to the health of any tree or other vegetation regulated by this chapter. This shall include, but is not limited to, the cutting, topping, girdling, or poisoning of any street tree or vegetation, any trenching or excavating near any street tree or vegetation, or any action which may cause death, destruction or injury to any street tree or vegetation, or which places any street tree or vegetation in a hazardous condition or in an irreversible state of decline.

21.23 (d) “Director” shall mean the director of parks and recreation of the city of Santa Cruz, or his/her designee.
(e) “Discretionary review” shall mean any review by the city requiring the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a permit or project.
(f) “Median area” means a planting area lying within a traffic median or traffic island in the public right-of-way.
(g) “Owner” or “property owner” means the owner of real property as shown on the most recent county assessor’s roll.
(h) “Parkway” means that portion of the public right-of-way between the curb and the sidewalk. (i) “Planting strip” means that portion of the sidewalk area which is not reserved for sidewalks, either existing or proposed.
(j) “Prune” means the cutting, trimming, detaching, separating or removing of any part of a street tree or vegetation.
(k) “Public right-of-way” means the whole or any part of the width of land, a road, street, way, alley, or highway reserved for public use whether or not such entire area is actually used for road, street or highway purposes.
(l) “Roadway” means the paved, improved or proper driving portion of the street, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.
(m) “Sidewalk area” means that portion of property between the street roadway or curb line and the edge of the public right-of-way, or, if no right-of-way exists, the adjacent property line as defined in Section 15.08.010 of the Municipal Code. The sidewalk area includes the curb, gutter, and planting strips as specified in Section 15.20.210.
(n) “State Tree Care License” means either a specialty license for performing tree maintenance on trees over fifteen feet tall, or a landscape contractor’s license, both issued by the state of California.
(o) “Street” means for purposes of this chapter any street, roadway, alley, drive, or lane within the city of Santa Cruz.
(p) “Street tree” means any woody perennial in the public right-of-way capable of reaching ten feet or more in height.
(q) “Street Tree Planting Details” means the street tree planting details developed by the city of Santa Cruz so street trees are properly planted, staked, reinforced, and irrigated. All street trees must be inspected and approved by the city’s urban forester before and after they are planted. (r) “Traffic Diverter” means any planter containing vegetation and/or street tree located adjacent to the outside curb of a street.
(s) “Tree Sidewalk Program Policy” means the requirements developed by the city of Santa Cruz public works department intended for any property owners seeking to participate in the Parks and Recreation Street Tree Sidewalk Program.
(t) “Utility” means a public utility or private utility and includes any pipeline corporation, gas corporation, electrical corporation, telephone, telegraph or other communications corporation, water corporation, sewer system or heat corporation the services of which are performed for, or the commodity delivered to, the general public or any portion thereof.

21.24 13.30.040 PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR – POWERS AND DUTIES. (a) The director of parks and recreation shall be responsible for administering and enforcing this chapter. The director of parks and recreation shall have the following powers and duties in addition to those created elsewhere in this chapter:
(1) Issue permits pursuant to Section 13.30.100;
(2) Maintain the city’s Approved Street Tree List
(3) Abate public nuisances as hereinafter provided, and in an emergency situation to protect public health, safety, and welfare;
(4) Order removal of dead or diseased trees on private property or within the public rightof-way when found to pose a threat to public safety, property or other trees in the vicinity. (b) The director shall have the power to perform the following services to aid landowners with compliance of any maintenance obligations as required by this chapter and, in his or her discretion, take any measures necessary to prevent or eliminate hazards when said maintenance has not been performed:
(1) Provide technical assistance and information to assist landowners in maintaining street trees;
(2) Inspect and maintain street trees and make recommendations regarding street trees to city staff and the public;
(3) Assist in the maintenance, removal and replacement of street trees in the public rightof-way; (4) Prune street tree limbs or roots causing or threatening to cause a hazard to public safety or property or damage to street improvements, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sewers or other public improvements, or interfering with their use; (5) Require street tree planting and replacement, inspection, pruning, root pruning, spraying, or other of any street tree planted pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. (6) No maintenance service shall be provided by the city to any tree standing on private property beyond the parkway or public right-of-way.
(c) Any action taken by the director pursuant to this section or any other section of this code to maintain the parkways and the public right-of-way, or any street trees or vegetation thereon is discretionary. Neither this section nor any other section of this code shall be construed as creating a duty or obligation on behalf of the city to maintain parkways, street trees, and/or vegetation in the public right-of-way, or relieve the property owner of the duty to maintain as required in the city’s Municipal Code. The city shall not incur any liability, either to the adjacent landowner or to the public, arising out of its alleged failure to maintain, or failure to properly maintain, parkways, street trees and/or vegetation in the public right-of-way. The city reserves its legal remedies including the right to recover legal fees and costs associated with the city administering and enforcing this chapter, and as set forth in Title 4 of the Municipal Code.

13.30.050 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION – POWERS AND DUTIES.

The parks and recreation commission shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) Hear appeals pursuant to Section 13.30.170 and 13.30.180, from persons aggrieved by any decision of the director of parks and recreation taken under the provisions of this chapter. (b) Make recommendations to the city council concerning policies, programs and decisions relating to street trees.

21.25 13.30.060 PROPERTY OWNER MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES – DUTIES AND LIABILITIES.
(a) A property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance (as further described in subsection (b) below) of all street trees and other vegetation located on adjacent parkways and in adjacent sidewalk areas per Section 15.20.210 (including but not limited to street trees or other vegetation contained in planters located on adjacent parkways and in traffic diverters adjacent to parkways). The property owner shall also be responsible for the maintenance of all trees and other vegetation on their property causing or threatening damage to or obstructing adjacent sidewalk areas as specified by Section 15.20.210 and 15.20.220. (b) Maintenance required under this Section 13.30.060 shall include, but not be limited to the following acts:
(1) Watering as necessary;
(2) Removing any material which would be harmful to street trees, such as wire, rope, and signs;
(3) Notifying the director of any diseased street tree or hazard posed by to street trees or vegetation;
(4) Maintaining trees or vegetation so that there is adequate vertical pedestrian clearance from the top of the sidewalk and adequate vertical vehicular clearance from the top of the curb, to any part of a street tree;
(5) Pest control and fertilizing, as needed;
(6) Pruning trees, shrubs and other vegetation to allow for adequate visibility of and clearance of street signs, traffic-control devices, utility lines and other stationary equipment;
(7) Pruning any trees, shrubs, hedges, ground cover, vegetation, or any of their respective roots, causing or threatening to cause damage to street improvements, sidewalks, sidewalk areas, curbs, gutters, sewers or other public improvements, or any part of the public rightof-way; (8) Pruning any street trees, shrubs, tree roots, hedges, ground cover, and vegetation, as well as weeding, clearing and otherwise maintaining the parkway as needed or as requested by the director so as to avoid any damage to public health, safety and welfare, to standards set by the city;
(9) Planting and replacing street trees pursuant to the Street Tree Master Plan and Approved Street Tree List as provided in Section 13.30.090. (c) Before any street tree is planted, pruned, root pruned, removed, or replaced under this section, all permits required by Section 13.30.100 of this code must first be obtained. All permits shall be displayed at the worksite.
(d) All maintenance activities on street trees contemplated by this section shall be performed in conformity with:
(1) the most recent American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards and International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices, as may be updated, amended, or superseded; and
(2) all city of Santa Cruz policies, standards, and regulations including but not limited to the Street Tree Planting Details and the Tree Sidewalk Program Policy. (e) The adjacent property owner shall bear all costs of planting, replacement, or any other maintenance responsibilities or requirements provided in this Section 13.30.060, and shall restore

21.26 the public right-of-way and any improvements therein if either are disturbed in the course of such planting, replacement, or other maintenance.

13.30.065 DAMAGING STREET TREES FORBIDDEN.

No person shall damage, or allow to exist any condition, which may damage, any street tree, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Pruning a street tree to expose business signs or buildings or for any other purpose except as otherwise permitted herein;
(b) Exposing the street tree to deleterious materials and substances; (c) Allowing fire to burn so near a street tree as to cause damage to a street tree or that may be detrimental to the health of the street tree;
(d) Allowing wires to constrict any part of a street tree; (e) Constructing, altering, or repairing a sidewalk or other improvement in a manner which may be detrimental to the health of a street tree;
(f) Disfiguring a street tree by any means of physical injury or graffiti; (g) Nailing or tacking a sign, poster, or similar device into a street tree; (h) Driving stakes into the street tree for any purpose other than supporting the street tree.

13.30.067 HOUSE MOVING.

Where a structure is to be moved over a route which may entail damage to street trees, the city may require the person moving the structure to post a bond or other security to cover the cost of anticipated damage to street trees.

13.30.070 DUTIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

It shall be the duty and responsibility of any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wire or underground pipes or conduit in the vicinity of a parkway strip, to obtain permission from the director before performing any maintenance on said wires, pipes or conduits, which would cause injury to street trees. Such public utilities shall in no way injure, cut roots, deface, prune, or scar any street tree until their plans and procedures have been approved by the director.

13.30.080 APPROVED STREET TREE LIST.
(a) The director of parks and recreation shall prepare and maintain the Approved Street Tree List enumerating the species of shade and ornamental trees permitted to be planted in the public right-of-way. Any amendments to the Approved Street Tree List shall be presented to the parks and recreation commission for discussion, with a final recommendation to the director of parks and recreation. The Approved Street Tree List shall be made available to the public through the department of parks and recreation.
(b) Newly planted street trees must comply with the Approved Street Tree List or applicable area plan unless a permit is obtained from the director of parks and recreation to plant a tree that does not appear on the Approved Street Tree List, or to plant a tree in a location that is contrary to the list.
(c) All street trees shall conform with any applicable city policies including but not limited to the Street Tree Planting Details and the Tree Sidewalk Program Policy.

21.27 13.30.090 PLANTING STREET TREES.
(a) The director shall prepare a Street Tree Master Plan for the city, which shall include but not be limited to, an inventory of street trees in the public right-of-way, as well as any city goals for managing existing street trees and planting future street trees. The plan shall be submitted to the parks and recreation commission for recommendation to the city council. When approved by the city council, the plan shall be made available to the public through the parks and recreation department and the department of planning and community development. (b) Objective Standards for Planting Street Trees. The following objective standards shall apply to the planting of any street trees:
(1) Any street trees installed shall be a minimum container size #15 and of adequate quality as specified in the current edition of American National Standards Institute Z60 Nursery Stock.
(2) Tree species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List, unless a permit is obtained from the director of parks and recreation to plant a tree that does not appear on the list, or to plant a tree in a location that is contrary to the list. (3) The street trees shall conform to all city of Santa Cruz policies including but not limited to the Street Tree Planting Details and the Tree Sidewalk Program Policy. (4) The property owner shall check for the presence of utilities in the area of a proposed plantings and shall be solely responsible in avoiding interference with or damage to public or private infrastructure.

13.30.100 PERMITS REQUIRED.
(a) Permit for Planting Street Trees. A tree permit shall be obtained from the director by any person proposing to plant or set out any street tree.
(1) The application required in this subsection (a) shall state the number of trees to be planted or set out the location, size, and variety of each tree, the method of planting, and such other information as the director may require.
(2) The director may issue the permit upon finding that the proposed species, location, and method of planting are consistent with the requirements of this chapter and will not be injurious to the curbs, gutters and sidewalks, or to the surrounding neighborhood. (b) Permit for Pruning and Removal. A tree permit shall be obtained from the director by any person proposing to root prune, transplant or remove any tree within the public right-of-way. A permit shall also be obtained from the director by any person proposing to prune or trim, cut off, or perform any work on a single occasion or cumulatively over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any tree within the public right-of-way. (1) The application required in this subsection (b) shall state the number of trees affected, the location, size and variety of each tree, the work proposed, and such further information as the director may require.
(2) The director may issue the permit upon finding that the proposed action is necessary to protect the curb, gutter, sidewalk or any other part of the public right-of-way, or to protect the public health and safety, and that the proposed method is satisfactory. The director may issue the permit if the proposed removal or pruning is found to be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The director may condition any permit for removal of a street tree, granted pursuant to this section, so as to require the permittee to replace the street tree.

21.28 i. In circumstances where replacement of the removed street tree is not feasible due to conflicts with planned or existing public infrastructure, including other street trees, or existing private infrastructure, the director may in his or her sole discretion, authorize the payment of an in lieu fee. This fee shall be set by city council resolution. (c) All persons requesting a permit pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) above shall submit a permit application, together with the appropriate fee as set forth by city council resolution, to the parks and recreation department prior to performing any work requiring a permit as set forth in this section.
(d) Time of Performance. All work performed on street trees pursuant to a permit issued by the director under this section shall be done within thirty days from the issuance of said permit, or within such longer period as the director shall specify. (e) The permit requirement proposed by this section may not apply to street tree planting or removal associated with development projects that are reviewed by another city of Santa Cruz advisory body or city department under Title 24 or pursuant to applicable state or federal law, that include a discretionary review process, and to which the relevant advisory body or city department has applied the standards of this Chapter 13.30 in consultation with the city’s urban forester.
(f) The director may invalidate any permit issued under this section at any time upon finding that the terms and conditions of such permit have been violated. (g) The director may issue permits to public utilities not to exceed one year for work undertaken by the utility pursuant to a comprehensive program of related activities approved by the director.

13.30.105 STATE TREE CARE LICENSE REQUIRED.
(a) Except as set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and in addition to any permit required pursuant to Section 13.30.100 above, a valid State Tree Care License issued by the State of California shall be obtained by any person proposing to perform any pruning, maintenance, care or removal of any street tree for hire within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz. (b) Any person who is the property owner adjacent to the street tree needing pruning, maintenance, care, or removal shall be exempted from the requirements of this section requiring a State Tree Care License if said property owner intends to personally perform, and subsequently does personally perform, himself or herself said needed pruning, maintenance, care or removal of said street tree. Said owner shall comply with all other provisions of this chapter.

13.30.110 PROHIBITED VEGETATION – NUISANCE.

No person shall allow to exist, on property either owned by that person or property for which the person is responsible, as specified by Chapters 13.30 and 15.20 of this code, any nuisance condition, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Any tree, shrub, or other vegetation on a sidewalk area, street, planting strip, as defined in Chapter 15.08, or parkway as defined herein, or on any private property immediately adjacent to any street, which is impairing or otherwise interfering with any street improvements, sidewalk areas, curbs, approved street trees, gutters, sewers, or other public improvement; (b) Within a Clear Vision Area, any tree limb, shrub, or plant reaching a height more than thirty inches above the curb grade adjacent thereto, except tree trunks having no limbs lower than eight feet above curb grade;

21.29 (c) Vines or climbing vegetation growing into or over any street trees, or any public hydrant, pole, electrolier or sidewalk area;
(d) Existence of any tree within the city limits that is irretrievably damaged, declining, infested, or infected with disease, pests, fungus or growth injurious to plant material, or dead; (e) The existence of any branches or foliage which interfere with visibility on, or use of, or access to, any portion of any street improved for vehicular or pedestrian travel; (f) Hedges, trees, shrubs, vegetation, and plants interfering with any street improvements or sidewalk areas within the public right-of-way.
(g) Any condition of a tree, shrub, or other vegetation that poses or constitutes a threat or hazard to public health, safety, or welfare as determined by the director.

13.30.120 ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES.
(a) When any public nuisance as defined herein exists, the owner or occupant shall be served with an abatement notice in accordance with Title 4 and Section 4.03.010 of this code, describing the condition, stating the work necessary to correct the condition, and the time within which such work must be completed. The notice shall also state that the required work will be performed by the city forces or by others under the city’s supervision if it has not been performed within the period stated in the notice. The notice shall state further that any cost incurred by the city will be billed to the person subject to the notice and payable to the city. (b) A public nuisance may be abated by the city without prior notice to the property owner in an emergency situation, where there is a threat of personal injury or property damage due to the hazardous or dangerous condition of a tree, shrub, or vegetation located in the public right-ofway. Notice to the property owner or occupant shall be served within a reasonable time from the emergency situation, with a description of the work performed by the city, and including any cost incurred by the city to be payable to the city.
(c) Any failure to pay the city for the costs and fees incurred by the city may constitute a charge against the real property of the person subject to the notice to be collected in accordance with the provisions for liens and special assessments on real property in chapter 4.24 of the city’s Municipal Code.

13.30.130 RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF STREET TREES.

Any person who damages or destroys a street tree is liable to the city for any costs related to the repair or replacement of such street tree.
(a) The director shall determine if and when replacement of a street tree is warranted and specify the replacement size and species, which shall be chosen from the Approved Street Tree List.
(b) For heritage trees as defined in chapter 9.56, monetary damages may be assessed as specified by the director which may include a tree appraisal in accordance with current tree appraisal methods prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture.

13.30.140 INFRACTION.

Any person who violates the provisions of Section 13.30.100 shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of the maximum amount permitted by law. Each such person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any such violation is committed, continued or permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly.

21.30 13.30.150 LEGAL REMEDIES/PENALTIES AND FINES
(a) Remedies. The city may enforce the provisions of this chapter through all available administrative remedies, including as set forth in Title 4, and as otherwise expressly stated in this chapter.
(b) Civil Penalties and Fines. Any violation of this chapter may also be subject to administrative civil penalties and fines in accordance with a fee schedule adopted by the city council, a decision of an enforcement official or administrative hearing officer, or by a state statute.
(c) Recovery of Costs. The city may seek recovery from the property owner of all costs of enforcing this chapter, including but not limited to monitoring, inspection, emergency response, correction, repair, hearing and appeal fees, legal fees and costs. (d) Continuing Violations. Each day on which a violation occurs or continues to occur shall be a separate and distinct offense.
(e) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Nothing set forth in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the city from seeking civil or criminal judicial relief in connection with the administrative enforcement of this chapter pursuant to Title 4 or pursuant to any other statutory or common law right to such relief.

13.30.160 RIGHT OF APPEAL.

Any person who considers an action taken under the provision of this chapter by any official or advisory body to have been improper, may appeal such action or decision.

13.30.170 WHERE TO FILE APPEAL.
(a) Appeals from the decision of the director, or any other administrative office in taking any actions authorized by this chapter shall be made to the city parks and recreation commission pursuant to the procedures provided in Section 13.30.180 below. (b) Appeals from the decision of the parks and recreation commission in taking any actions authorized by this chapter shall be made to the city council. through the city clerk All such appeals shall be made pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code. The city council’s decision shall be final.

13.30.180 PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
(a) All appeals, together with the appropriate appeal fee as set by city council resolution, shall be made in writing to the parks and recreation commission. The appellant shall state the basis for the appeal and shall specifically cite the provision of this chapter which is relied upon to appeal the action or decision.
(b) Such appeals, to be effective, must be received by the secretary to the parks and recreation commission not less than ten calendar days following the date of the decision or action from which such appeal is being taken. If the final day for filing an appeal occurs on a weekend day or holiday, the final filing date shall be extended to the next following business day.

21.31 13.30.190 STAY, PENDING APPEAL.

The receipt of a written appeal shall stay all actions, or put in abeyance all approvals or permits which may have been granted, pending the decision of the parks and recreation commission or of the city council on such appeal.

13.30.200 HEARING ON APPEAL.
(a) Appeals for consideration by the parks and recreation commission shall be scheduled at the earliest next regular meeting, consistent with agenda preparation procedures and schedules for parks and recreation commission meetings. Appeals for consideration by the city council shall be scheduled pursuant to chapter 1.16
(b) The parks and recreation commission shall consider the appeal de novo. The appellant shall bear the burden of proof to establish the basis for seeking a reversal of the action or decision. (c) The parks and recreation commission shall make findings of fact on which it bases its action.

The commission may grant the appeal, including requiring conditions, mitigations, or modifications to a permit, or deny the appeal; or issue other appropriate decision or relief. (d) The decision of the parks and recreation commission shall be final unless appealed to the city council by the appellant under chapter 1.16.

13.30.210 LIABILITY.

Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city of Santa Cruz, or any of its officers, agents, or employees, nor to relieve the property owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep their private property, sidewalks, and parkway strip on such private property in a safe condition so as not to be hazardous to public use.

13.30.220 SEVERABILITY.

Should any section, subpart, clause, provision or any part of this chapter be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, beyond the authority of the city or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or portions of the chapter.

Section 5. Chapter 15.15 – Public Realm Design for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Residential Projects is hereby added to Title 15 – Streets and Sidewalks of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code as follows:

15.15 PUBLIC REALM DESIGN FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.

The purpose of this regulation is to establish objective standards for development of multi-family and mixed-use residential projects to maintain and enhance the desirable character of neighborhoods, to lessen traffic congestion, to facilitate adequate transportation facilities, and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community in accordance with the Santa Cruz General Plan.

Sections:

15.15.010 Transportation Study Requirements

15.15.015 Traffic Control Devices

21.32 15.15.020 Bicycle Facilities

15.15.025 Sidewalk Facilities

15.15.030 Transit Facilities

15.15.035 Streetlights

15.15.010 TRANSPORTATION STUDY REQUIREMENTS
Projects shall develop a Transportation Study if existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit circulation will be disrupted or if the project is estimated to generate 50 or more vehicle trips during the P.M. peak hour. The Transportation Study will determine the extent of the impact of the new development or redevelopment on the city transportation infrastructure and the associated requirements for project development. Transportation Study requirements are set forth in the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Transportation Study Requirements for Developers document that are current at the time of design review and available from the Public Works Department.

15.15.015 Traffic Control Devices
Projects shall be required to install traffic control devices based on the results of the Transportation Study. Installation of traffic control devices (such as traffic signals, lane markings, signage) shall be installed in accordance with the traffic engineering and safety standards set forth in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and consistent with Area Plans and NACTO Urban Street Design Guide.

15.15.020 Bicycle Facilities
Projects shall be required to install bicycle facilities based on the results of the Transportation Study and consistent with the City of Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan. Installation of bicycle facilities will be based on the Area Plans, AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (both the required and recommended elements).

15.15.025 Sidewalk Facilities –

1. Existing public connections:

In all areas of the city, where a project site includes or is adjacent to an existing public street, alley, path, staircase, or pedestrian way, this public connection will be maintained or relocated within or adjacent to the project site. Unless otherwise dictated by an Area Plan, the sidewalk widths for corridors and other roadways are defined in Section 15.20.060. a. Decorative sidewalks may be required based on the Area Plans. b. Installation of sidewalks will be based on the Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk standard details that are current at the time of design review and available from the Public Works Department.
c. The total number of connections through the site shall not be reduced.

2. New public connections:
a. Projects shall be required to install new sidewalks along the frontage in accordance with the Area Plans. Unless otherwise dictated by an Area Plan, the sidewalk widths for corridors and other roadways are defined in Section 15.20.060. b. Decorative sidewalks may be required based on the Area Plans.

21.33 c. Installation of sidewalks will be based on the Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk standard details that are current at the time of design review and available from the Public Works Department.

15.15.030 Transit Facilities
Residential projects of 5 or more units, and commercial/office projects greater than 10,000 square feet that are proposed for a parcel that has an existing METRO bus stop located on its street frontage and include work within the street right-of-way (e.g. sidewalk construction; curb cut addition or relocation) shall be required to upgrade the bus stop to full ADA compliance, including a 5’ x 8’ boarding and alighting area and an accessible route to/from the bus stop.

Projects shall be required to install new transit facilities, either on the project’s street frontage, or within 300 feet of the property line, when the City identifies transit as a mitigation measure for significant impacts identified by the Transportation Study. Transit facilities will be installed in accordance with Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) design standards that are current at the time of design review available from METRO.

15.15.035 Streetlights
Projects (with exception of ADUs) shall be required to install or replace streetlights based on the following:

1. A development of 3 or more housing units on one lot shall require the installation of a City Standard street light(s).

2. A development of 3 or more housing units on multiple lots shall require the installation of a City Standard street light(s).

3. Any new commercial development shall require the installation of a City Standard street light(s).

4. Installation or replacement of streetlights will be based on the City of Santa Cruz streetlight standard detail (Electrolier or Decorative Streetlight) current at the time of design review and available from the Public Works Department and consistent with the Area Plans.

5. Coordination with PG&E is the applicant’s responsibility. The type of streetlight the city requires will be a standard Electrolier (Type 1) unless a decorative streetlight is specified in the Area Plans or matches existing City streetlights in the area.

Section 6. Section 15.20.060 – Size and Number of Chapter 15.20 –Driveways and Sidewalks of Title 15 – Streets and Sidewalks of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

15.20.060 SIZE AND NUMBER
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the total width of any driveway, or driveways, constructed to any parcel of land from any public street shall not exceed thirty feet, including the wings or returns, the measurement being made at the curbline. (b) Except as may otherwise be required by the Americans With Disabilities Act or similar statutes, the total width of all driveways, including wings or returns, for any one ownership on any one street in any commercial or any industrial zone shall not exceed fifty percent of the frontage of the ownership along that street measured at the curbline of the street.

21.34 (c) Except as may otherwise be required by the Americans With Disabilities Act or similar statutes, the total width of all driveways, including wings or returns, for any one ownership on any one street in any residential zone shall not exceed forty percent of the frontage of the ownership along that street measured at the curbline of the street. (d) Unless specified in the Area Plans, the following are the minimum widths for sidewalks (excluding the curb width) for all new multifamily (with exception of ADUs) or mixed use residential projects with 3 or more residential units or any commercial development– Corridors
Ocean – San Lorenzo Blvd to Soquel Avenue – 8 feet minimum Ocean – Soquel Ave to Water St – 15 feet minimum
Ocean - Water St to Pryce St/Plymouth St – 12 feet minimum Mission St –Community Commercial District as defined in the Mission Street Urban Design Plan (Swift St to just east of Laurel St) – 12 feet minimum Mission St – Professional and Administrative District (just east of Laurel St to Chestnut St Ext.) – 8 feet minimum
Soquel Ave – East Soquel Zone as defined in the Eastside Improvement Plan (Trevethan Ave to Morrissey Blvd ) – 10 feet minimum
Soquel Ave – Triangle Zone as defined in the Eastside Improvement Plan (Morrissey Blvd to Poplar Ave) – 10 feet minimum
Soquel Ave – Main Street Zone as defined in the Eastside Improvement Plan (Poplar Ave to Branciforte Ave) – 10 feet minimum
Soquel Ave - (Ocean St to Branciforte Ave) – 8 feet minimum Soquel Ave - (Dakota Ave to Ocean St) – 10 feet minimum Water St – Front St to River St – 12 feet minimum
Water St – River St to Ocean St – 8 feet minimum
Water St - Ocean St to Branciforte Ave – 8 feet minimum Water St - Branciforte Ave to Soquel Ave – 10 feet minimum Other Arterials and Collectors
Branciforte Drive - Broadway Ave to Soquel Ave – 8 feet minimum Branciforte Drive - Soquel Ave to Water St – 8 feet minimum Branciforte Drive - north of Water St – 8 feet minimum
Morrissey Blvd from Soquel Ave to Fairmount Ave – 8 feet minimum Broadway Ave – San Lorenzo Blvd to Ocean View Ave – 8 feet minimum Broadway Ave –Ocean View Ave to Frederick St – 8 feet minimum Seabright Ave – Murray Ave to Logan St – 8 feet minimum Seabright Ave – Logan St to Gault St – 8 feet minimum
Seabright Ave – Gault Ave to Soquel Ave – 8 feet minimum Front St – Pacific Ave to Laurel St – 8 feet minimum
Front St –Laurel St to Water St – 10 feet minimum
Laurel St – River St to Chestnut Ave – 10 feet minimum
Laurel St – Chestnut Ave to Mission St – 8 feet minimum Cedar St – Laurel St to Center St – 10 feet
Bay St – West Cliff to Mission St – 8 feet minimum
Bay Drive – Mission St to High St – 8 feet minimum

21.35 Delaware Ave – Bay Ave to Swift St – 8 feet minimum Delaware Ave – Swift St to Shaffer Rd – 8 feet minimum
All Other Roadways
Unless specified in an Area Plan, sidewalk widths along all other roadways for all new multifamily and mixed use residential with 3 or more residential units or any commercial development shall be a minimum of 8 feet.

Section 7. Chapter 16.16 – Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance of Title 16 – Water, Sewers and Other Public Services of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

16.16.010 PURPOSE.

The purposes of this chapter are to promote efficient water use, to manage peak season water demand, and to preserve water storage in order to ensure a reliable and adequate public water supply by regulating landscape design, construction, and maintenance. It is also the purpose of this chapter to comply with California Government Code Section 65591 et seq., the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act.

16.16.020 DEFINITIONS.

For the purpose of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below:
(a) “Anti-drain check valve” means a valve located under a sprinkler head, or other location in the irrigation system, to hold water in the system to prevent drainage from the sprinkler head when the sprinkler is off.
(b) “Applied water” means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape.
(c) “Automatic irrigation controller” means an automatic timing device used to remotely control valves that operate an irrigation system. Automatic irrigation controllers schedule irrigation events using either evapotranspiration (weather-based) or soil moisture data. (d) “Backflow prevention device” means a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system. (e) “CCF” means one hundred cubic feet, a common billing unit used by water agencies for basing charges for water service. One hundred cubic feet equals seven hundred forty-eight gallons.
(f) “Certified irrigation designer” means a person certified to design irrigation systems by an accredited academic institution, a professional trade organization, or other program such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense irrigation designer certification program and Irrigation Association’s certified irrigation designer program. (g) “Certified landscape irrigation auditor” means a person certified to perform landscape irrigation audits by an accredited academic institution, a professional trade organization or other program such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense irrigation auditor certification program and Irrigation Association’s certified landscape irrigation auditor program. (h) “Common area” means those areas in a residential development that are owned, shared, and available for use by all residents, and managed by either the homeowner’s association or governing board.

21.36 (i) “Community garden” means a plot of land used by a community group and open to the public for the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, edible plants, or fruit. (j) “Conversion factor (0.00083)” means the number that converts acre-inch per acre per year to CCF per square foot per year.
(k) “Director” means the director of the water department of the city of Santa Cruz, or the director’s authorized representative.
(l) “Drip irrigation” means any nonspray low volume irrigation system utilizing emission devices with a flow rate measured in gallons per hour. Low volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants. (m) “Establishment period” means the first year after installing the plant in the landscape or the first two years if irrigation will be terminated after establishment. Typically, most plants are established after one or two years of growth.
(n) “ET adjustment factor” means a factor of 0.55 for residential areas and 0.45 for nonresidential areas, that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape.
(o) “Expanded service” means an additional water meter or larger capacity meter is required to serve the proposed development, as determined by the water agency. (p) “Evapotranspiration rate” means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces and transpired by plants during a specified time. (q) “Flow rate” means the rate at which water flows through pipes, valves and emission devices, measured in gallons per minute, gallons per hour, or cubic feet per second. (r) “Flow sensor” means an inline device installed at the supply point of the irrigation system that produces a repeatable signal proportional to flow rate for the purpose of reporting high flow conditions due to broken pipes or popped sprinkler heads. Flow sensors must be connected to an automatic irrigation controller or flow monitor capable of receiving flow signals and operating master valves.
(s) “Friable” means a soil condition that is easily crumbled or loosely compacted down to a minimum depth per planting material requirements, whereby the root structure of the newly planted material will be allowed to spread unimpeded.
(t) “Graywater” means untreated waste water that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge and has not been affected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthful bodily wastes and does not present a threat from contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing or operating wastes. Graywater includes, but is not limited to, wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs, but does include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers.
(u) “Hydrozone” means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs. A hydrozone may be irrigated or nonirrigated.
(v) “Irrigation audit” means an in-depth evaluation of the performance of an irrigation system.

An irrigation audit includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity, reporting overspray or runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. (w) “Irrigation efficiency” means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices.

21.37 (x) “Irrigation survey” means an evaluation of an irrigation system that is less detailed than an irrigation audit. An irrigation survey includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system test, and written recommendations to improve performance of the irrigation system. (y) “Irrigation water use analysis” means an analysis of water use data based on meter readings and billing data.
(z) “Landscape architect” means a person who holds a license to practice landscape architecture in California as further defined by the California Business and Professions Code, Section 5615.
(aa) “Landscape area” means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan subject to the landscape water budget calculation. The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or nonpervious hardscapes, other nonirrigated areas designated for nondevelopment (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation), agricultural uses, commercial nurseries and sod farms.
(bb) “Landscape water budget” means the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area. It is based on the region’s reference evapotranspiration, type of plant material, and landscape area as specified in Section 16.16.070(b). (cc) “Landscape contractor” means a person licensed by the state of California to construct, maintain, repair, install, or subcontract the development of landscape systems. (dd) “Lateral line” means the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from the valve.
(ee) "Living Wall” means an exterior building face covered with plants growing in containers or on special material integrated into and attached to the building exterior. The plants root in a structural support which is fastened to the wall itself, rather than in the ground. The plants receive water and nutrients from within the vertical support or container. (ff) “Living Wall Irrigation System” means an irrigation system supporting a living wall, as defined, and relying exclusively on either drip irrigation or wicking technology to deliver water and soluble nutrients to plants in the living wall. Where drip irrigation is utilized, the living wall irrigation system must include a system for recirculated water. (gg) “Local agency” means a city or county, including a charter city or charter county, or water agency that is responsible for adopting and implementing this chapter. The local agency is also responsible for the enforcement of this chapter, including, but not limited to, in the case of a city or county, approval of a permit and plan check or design review of a project and, in the case of a water agency, approval of a new or expanded water service application. (hh) “Low volume irrigation” means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low volume emitters such as drip, drip lines, and bubblers. (ii) “Low water use plant” means a plant species whose water needs are compatible with local climate and soil conditions. Species classified as “very low water use” and “low water use” by WUCOLS, having a regionally adjusted plant factor of 0.0 through 0.3, shall be considered low water use plants.
(jj) “Model water-efficient landscape ordinance” means the regulations developed by the California Department of Water Resources required by the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act and contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.

21.38 (kk) “Modified service” means a substantial change in the water use characteristics of an existing service connection (for example, converting from a single-family residential service to multiple residential service, or from a residential use to a commercial use). (ll) “Mulch” means any organic material such as leaves, bark, straw, compost, or inorganic mineral materials such as rocks, gravel, and decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purposes of reducing evaporation, suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil erosion.
(mm) “Native plant” means a plant indigenous to a specific area of consideration. For the purposes of these guidelines, the term shall refer to plants indigenous to the coastal ranges of central and northern California, and more specifically to such plants that are suited to the ecology of the present or historic natural community(ies) of the project’s vicinity. (nn) “New construction” means the construction of a new building or structure containing a landscape or other new land improvement, such as a park, playground, or greenbelt without an associated building.
(oo) “Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems” means systems that deliver water through the air (e.g., spray heads and rotors).
(pp) “Overspray” means the irrigation water which is delivered beyond the target area. (qq) “Pervious” means any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil.
(rr) “Plant factor” or “plant water use factor” is a factor, when multiplied by ETo, that estimates the amount of water needed by plants.
(ss) “Precipitation rate” means the rate of application of water measured in inches per hour. (tt) “Project applicant” means the individual or entity submitting a landscape plan required under Section 16.16.030, in connection with a building permit application or design review from the local land use agency or requesting new, modified or increased water service from the water agency. A project applicant may be the property owner or his or her designee. (uu) “Rain sensor” or “rain-sensing shutoff device” means a component which automatically suspends an irrigation event when it rains.
(vv) “Recreational area” means areas dedicated to active play such as parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and golf courses where turf provides a playing surface. (ww) “Reference evapotranspiration” or “ETo” means a standard measurement of environmental parameters which affect the water use of plants. (xx) “Rehabilitated landscape” means any project that is required to modify its existing landscape as a condition of a land use approval or a discretionary permit or any relandscaping project that requires a permit, plan check, design review, or requires a new or expanded water service application.
(yy) “Runoff” means water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the landscape onto other areas.
(zz) “Soil moisture-sensing device” or “soil moisture sensor” means a device that measures the amount of water in the soil. The device may also suspend or initiate an irrigation event. (aaa) “Sprinkler head” means a device which delivers water through a nozzle. (bbb) “Static water pressure” means the municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing. It is measured at the nearest fire hydrant to the landscape site. (ccc) “Station” means an area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operate simultaneously.

21.39 (ddd) “Swing joint” means an irrigation component that provides a flexible, leak-free connection between the emission device and lateral pipeline to allow movement in any direction and to prevent equipment damage from pedestrian traffic. (eee) “Submeter” means a private metering device to measure water applied to the landscape that is installed after the primary utility water meter. (fff) “Turf” means a ground cover surface of mowed grass that requires frequent watering during the growing season. Annual bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, red fescue, and tall fescue are cool-season grasses. Bermuda grass, kikuyu grass, seashore paspalum, St. Augustine grass, zoysia grass, and buffalo grass are warm-season grasses. (ggg) “Valve” means a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system. (hhh) “Water feature” means a design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming pools (where water is artificially supplied). (iii) “WUCOLS” means the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species published by the University of California Cooperative Extension, the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, and any subsequent revisions.

16.16.030 APPLICABILITY.

The director shall be responsible for assuring that all applicants for new, increased, or modified water service shall comply with the standards set forth in this chapter wherever water service is provided by the city as a condition of receiving water service. (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all of the following landscape projects:
(1) New commercial, industrial, and public development projects requiring a building permit, land use approval/design review or requiring a new, expanded, or modified water service.
(2) Existing commercial, industrial, and public development that is required to rehabilitate or modify their landscape as part of a land use approval/design review process shall also be required to comply with the provisions of this chapter in the relandscaped area.
(3) Developer-installed landscaping. New single- and multiple-family residential development projects resulting in three or more dwelling units with a total irrigated landscape area which is installed by the developer equal to or greater than one thousand five hundred square feet.
(4) Single-family and two-unit residences. New single-family and two-unit residential development projects on a parcel of land less than ten thousand square feet shall be required to meet only provisions listed in Section 16.16.070(j). (5) New single-family and two-unit residential development projects on a parcel of land equal to or greater than ten thousand square feet shall be required to meet all standards set forth below.
(6) New recreation areas. New parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and golf courses are subject to all the provisions of this chapter except the turf area limits set forth in Section 16.16.070(c)(1).
(b) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Remodels/additions to existing one- and two-unit homes. (2) Existing landscapes of less than one acre in size.
(3) Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system.

21.40 (4) Community gardens.
(5) Registered local, state, or federal historical sites where landscaping establishes an historical landscape style, as determined by a public board or commission responsible for architectural review or historic preservation.
(6) Enclosed, private yards and patios in multifamily residential developments. (c) Preexisting landscapes over one acre in size. Existing large landscapes, including existing cemeteries, shall be subject only to the provisions for existing landscapes listed in Section 16.16.110.

16.16.040 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED.

No person shall install landscaping for a project subject to this chapter without the review and approval required by this chapter.
(a) Design Review. For projects requiring design review or a discretionary land use approval, the applicant shall submit a landscape concept plan. The landscape concept plan shall include general representation of the site features, existing and proposed buildings, proposed planting areas, and the proposed method and type of irrigation.
(b) Building Permit/Plan Check. A complete landscape plan must be submitted and found to satisfy the requirements of this chapter before the local agency can approve a building permit application, or the director can approve an application for water service and the installation of a new water meter, or authorize a change in water service. The city shall notify the applicant in writing if plans are found to be incomplete or inconsistent with the standards and indicate where such additions or revisions are necessary.
(c) Plan Review Fee. A landscape plan review fee set by resolution of the city council shall accompany each such application to cover the city’s cost to review the landscape plan.

16.16.050 PERSONS QUALIFIED TO PREPARE LANDSCAPE PLANS.

Landscape plans for all projects, except a single-family or two-unit residence, shall be prepared by, and bear the signature of, a certified irrigation designer, a certified landscape irrigation auditor, a licensed landscape architect, a licensed landscape contractor, a licensed professional engineer, or any other person authorized by the state to do this work.

16.16.060 CONTENTS OF PLANS.

Landscape plans shall consist of separate planting, irrigation, and grading plans, all drawn at the same size and scale, and shall accurately and clearly include the following information:
(a) Project Information.
(1) Project applicant/contact person;
(2) Address;
(3) Parcel number(s);
(4) Total landscape area, in square feet;
(5) Source and type of water supply (potable/recycled/other alternative, including graywater), including number and size of service connections. (b) Planting Plan. Planting plans shall identify and locate the following:
(1) New and existing trees, shrubs, groundcover, and turf areas within the developed landscape area;
(2) Planting legend indicating all plant species by botanical name and common name, spacing, and quantities of each type of plant by container size;

21.41 (3) Water use classification (high, moderate, low, or very low) for each plant material specified, according to WUCOLS;
(4) Each hydrozone (including high, medium, and low water uses) delineated and labeled, including the square footage for each area;
(5) Property lines, streets, and street names;
(6) Building locations, driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, and other hardscape features;
(7) Appropriate scale and north arrow;
(8) Planting specifications and details.
(9) Location and solar orientation of any Living Walls. (c) Irrigation Plan. Irrigation plans shall identify and locate the following:
(1) Irrigation point of connection (POC) to water system; (2) Static water pressure at POC;
(3) Location and size of water meter(s);
(4) Backflow prevention devices as may be required by the water supply agency; (5) Manual shut off valves;
(6) Location, size, and type of all components of the irrigation system, including automatic controllers, main and lateral lines, valves, sprinkler heads and nozzles, riser protection equipment, soil moisture sensors, pressure regulator, drip and low volume irrigation equipment;
(7) Flow rate (gallons per minute or gallons per hour), precipitation rate (inches per hour) and design operating pressure (psi) for each irrigation circuit; (8) Irrigation legend with the manufacturer name, model number, and general description for all specified equipment, separate symbols for all irrigation equipment with different spray patterns, spray radius, and precipitation rates;
(9) Irrigation system specifications, including any living wall irrigation systems, and details for assembly and installation;
(10) Recommended irrigation schedule for each month, including number of irrigation days per week, number of start times (cycles) per day and minutes of run time per cycle required for each irrigation event designed to avoid runoff, and estimated amount of applied irrigation water expressed in gallons per month and gallons per year, for the established landscape;
(11) The parameters used for programming the weather-based irrigation system controller schedule for the established landscape, including: soil type, slope, plant type, and type of irrigation nozzle/emitter used for each circuit;
(12) Calculation of landscape water budget;
(13) Stormwater management/rainwater collection features and facilities. (d) Grading Plan (not required when landscaped slopes on the site are less than ten percent). (1) Finish grades, contours, and spot elevations;
(2) Grading volume (cubic yards);
(3) Elevations of building floors, parking lots, and streets; (4) Location and height of retaining walls;
(5) Drainage patterns and drainage control facilities.
(e) Specifications.

21.42 (1) In addition to planting, irrigation, and grading plans, any written specifications prepared for a project that are applicable to the landscape improvements shall be submitted for review.

16.16.070 LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION STANDARDS.
(a) Dedicated Landscape Water Meter.
(1) Separate water service meters shall be required for all new landscaping, except a single-family or two-unit residence, which equals or exceeds five thousand square feet in area, and for renovated landscape sites that result in expansion of the total landscaped area equal to or more than five thousand square feet.
(2) For all new nonresidential landscapes not required to have a separate water service meter, a private irrigation submeter shall be installed between the point of connection on the domestic water service and first irrigation valve. The submeter shall register water use in cubic feet.
(b) Landscape Water Budget.
(1) The landscape water budget for new residential landscapes shall be no more than fifty-five percent of reference evapotranspiration per square foot of landscaped area, and the water budget for nonresidential landscapes shall be no more than forty-five percent of reference evapotranspiration per square foot of landscaped area. The landscape water budget shall be calculated using the equation below:

Landscape Water Budget = (0.55 or 0.45)
(ETo) (0.00083) (LA), where:

Water
Budget
= Annual upper limit of irrigation
water allowed (CCF/year)

0.55 or

0.45 = ET adjustment factor
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration
(inches per year)

0.00083 = Conversion factor to CCF
LA = Landscape area (square feet)
(2) New landscapes that include a recreation area or are irrigated with recycled water are allowed one hundred percent of reference evapotranspiration per square foot. (3) The estimated annual water use, calculated by adding the amount of water recommended in the irrigation schedule, or by another method approved by the water agency, shall not exceed the annual landscape water budget. (4) The landscape water budget assigned for a given irrigation account shall not be increased unless review of subsequent landscape plans has occurred and approval of said plans has been obtained by the land use or water agency. (c) Turf Limits.
(1) The combined size of turf and areas devoted to high water use plants, decorative pools, fountains, water features and swimming pools for residential projects shall be limited to no more than twenty-five percent of the total developed landscape area. Turf is

21.43 not permitted in new nonresidential landscape projects. These limits do not apply to recreation areas requiring large turf areas for their primary function. However, recreation areas shall be designed to limit turf in any portion of the landscaped area not essential for the operation of the recreational facility.
(2) Any Living Wall design element that is composed of primarily plant species classified as high water use by the WUCOLS rating system will be limited to a total vertical square footage equal to no more than twenty-five percent of the total landscape area. (3) Except when required as a stormwater best management practice, turf and other high water use plants shall not be planted in the following conditions:
(a) Planting areas less than ten feet wide in any direction; (b) On slopes greater than five percent;
(c) In street medians, traffic islands, planter strips, and parking lot islands. (4) Turf varieties shall be water-conserving species, such as tall and hard fescues. (d) Landscape Design.
(1) Except for areas designated for turf or high water use plants, all plants shall be composed of very low to moderate water use plants, as identified in Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS Guide) or other species, including native plants that are well adapted to the climate of the region, and require minimal water once established.
(2) Plants having similar water requirements shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones, and where irrigation is required, the distinct hydrozones shall be irrigated with separate valves.
(3) Planting of trees and the protection and preservation of existing native species and natural areas is encouraged.
(4) Water in decorative pools and fountains, and in living walls relying on drip irrigation systems, must be recirculated.
(e) Irrigation Design.
(1) All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid runoff, overspray, low-head drainage and other similar conditions where water flows off site onto adjacent property, nonirrigated area, walks, roadways, or structures.
(2) Areas less than ten feet wide must be irrigated with subsurface or low volume irrigation.
(3) Point source irrigation is required where plant height maturity will affect the uniformity of an overhead system.
(4) All overhead spray nozzles shall have a precipitation rate of no more than one inch per hour.
(5) Overhead sprinkler systems shall not be permitted for any living walls, or within twenty-four inches of any nonpermeable surface, including driveways and sidewalks. The setback area may be planted or unplanted. Allowable irrigation within the setback may include drip, subsurface, or other low volume, nonspray irrigation technology. (6) Plants that require different amounts of water shall be irrigated using separate irrigation circuits and valves.
(7) Trees shall be watered using separate irrigation circuits. (8) Where available, recycled water shall be used to irrigate landscapes and living walls. (9) Living wall irrigation systems designs shall be a distinct component of any irrigation design.

21.44 (f) Irrigation Equipment.
(1) A pressure regulator shall be installed if pressure at the water meter exceeds eighty psi. Additional pressure regulation devices are required if the water pressure exceeds the recommended pressure of the specified irrigation devices. (2) Weather-based or other sensor-based, self-adjusting irrigation controllers shall be required, where feasible.
(3) Irrigation systems shall be equipped with rain-sensing devices to prevent irrigation during rainy weather.
(4) Sprinkler heads shall have matched precipitation rates within each control circuit valve and shall be selected for proper coverage and precipitation rate, thereby minimizing overspray and runoff.
(5) Anti-drain check valves shall be installed at strategic points to minimize or prevent low-head drainage.
(6) Swing joints or other riser protection components are required on all risers located in high traffic areas.
(7) The irrigation system shall provide for the installation of a manual shutoff valve installed as close as possible to the point of connection to minimize water loss in case of an emergency or routine repair. Additional manual shutoff valves shall be installed as necessary.
(8) Flow sensors that detect and report high flow conditions due to broken pipes and/or broken sprinkler heads are required on all landscapes of five thousand square feet or larger. (g) Soil Management, Preparation, and Mulching.
(1) Prior to planting of any materials, compacted soils shall be transformed into a friable condition. Soil shall be prepared for planting by ripping and incorporating an organic amendment at the rate of six cubic yards per one thousand square feet into the top six inches, or amended with organic material as recommended by a landscape architect or soil laboratory report.
(2) All exposed soil surfaces of nonturf areas within the developed landscape area must be mulched with a minimum three-inch layer of organic material. (3) A laboratory analysis and soil management report shall be completed and submitted for projects over five thousand square feet of landscape area and for projects where significant mass grading is planned and the recommendations incorporated into the landscape plans. For landscapes with multiple landscape installations, a soil sampling rate of one in seven lots or approximately fifteen percent shall satisfy this requirement. (h) Stormwater Management.
(1) All planting areas are required to have friable soil to maximize water retention and infiltration. Implementing stormwater best management practices to minimize runoff and increase on-site retention and infiltration is strongly encouraged. (2) Project applicants should refer to the local public works agency for information on any applicable stormwater requirements.
(i) Alternative Water Sources.
(1) Irrigating with alternative water sources such as recycled water, graywater, or rainwater is encouraged where available on site and permitted. All graywater systems shall conform to the California Plumbing Code (Title 24, Part 5, Chapter 16) and any applicable local ordinance standards. All recycled water irrigation systems shall be designed and

21.45 operated in accordance with applicable local and state laws. The water budget for landscapes using only recycled water sources shall be one hundred percent. (j) Landscape Water Conservation Standards for Single-Family and Two-Unit Residences on Lots Less Than Ten Thousand Square Feet.
(1) Install climate-adapted plants that require little or no summer water for seventy-five percent of the landscaped area (excluding area devoted to edible plants). (2) Apply a three-inch layer of mulch on all exposed soil surfaces. (3) Turf Limits.
(a) The combined size of turf and areas devoted to high water use plants, decorative pools, fountains, water features and swimming pools for residential projects shall be limited to no more than twenty-five percent of the total developed landscape area. (b) Turf shall not be planted on slopes greater than five percent. (c) Turf is prohibited in areas less than ten feet wide in any direction. (4) Irrigation Equipment.
(a) All overhead spray nozzles shall have a precipitation rate of no more than one inch per hour.
(b) Areas less than ten feet in any direction shall be irrigated with low volume or subsurface irrigation that produces no runoff or overspray. (c) Overhead sprinkler systems shall not be permitted within twenty-four inches of any nonpermeable surface, including driveways and sidewalks. The setback area may be planted or unplanted. Allowable irrigation within the setback may include drip, subsurface, or other low volume, nonspray irrigation technology.

16.16.080 ALTERNATIVE TO TURF LIMITATIONS.

The project applicant, in lieu of the requirement that the portion of the landscape devoted to turf, high water use plants, water features, and swimming pools be limited to no more than twentyfive percent of the total landscape area, may elect to complete the water-efficient landscape equations and worksheets contained in Appendix B of the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In such cases, selected plant materials and overall landscape design shall not cause the estimated total water use to exceed the landscape water budget.

16.16.090 FINAL INSPECTION/WATER AUDIT.

The director shall have the right to enter upon any premises to make an inspection at any time before, during, and after irrigation system and landscape installation for the purpose of enforcing this chapter.
(a) Upon installation and completion of the landscape, the city shall make a final inspection or require a certified landscape irrigation auditor assigned by the city to conduct a water audit at the applicant’s expense to verify that the landscape improvements were completed in accordance with approved plans. The final inspection or water audit shall verify that:
(1) The installed irrigation system is in a leak-free condition. (2) The installed irrigation system is functioning as designed, specified, and approved. (3) The irrigation system does not cause water waste due to runoff, low head drainage, overspray or other similar condition where water flows onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, structures, walkways, roadways or other paved areas. (4) The person responsible for long-term landscape maintenance and irrigation management at the property has received the recommended irrigation schedule.

21.46 (b) The project must pass inspection or audit before the building permit can be signed off and approved for occupancy.
(c) Water Audit Required for Large Turf Areas. Properties with turf areas over five thousand square feet, upon completing the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system, shall be required to have an irrigation audit performed by a certified landscape irrigation auditor prior to the final field inspection.

16.16.100 IRRIGATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE. (a) Maintenance. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted to the applicant by the landscape designer or installer at the time of completion of the landscape installation and prior to final sign-off. Landscape shall be maintained in good working condition and properly adjusted to ensure water efficiency. Any broken or malfunctioning equipment, including but not limited to main and lateral lines or control valves shall be repaired promptly with identical equipment to maintain the original design integrity.
(b) Irrigation System Inspections. Irrigation system shall be inspected regularly to correct misaligned, clogged or broken heads, missing heads and risers, stuck valves, and leaks. The irrigation meter shall be read periodically to check consumption and detect any leakage. (c) Watering Schedule. Watering schedules shall be adjusted periodically to reflect seasonal variations in plant water requirements. Whenever possible, irrigation management shall incorporate the use of real-time, ETo data from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) or similar weather-based irrigation scheduling system. (d) Irrigation Operation. Irrigation shall be scheduled between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. when daily temperature and wind conditions are at a minimum.

16.16.110 PROVISION FOR EXISTING LANDSCAPING OVER ONE ACRE IN SIZE.

The city will assign a landscape water budget to each existing landscape with a dedicated irrigation account over one acre in size based on seventy percent of reference evapotranspiration, or one hundred percent of reference evapotranspiration for recreation areas. When evaluation of these properties shows that annual water use exceeds the landscape water budget, the customer will be required to have a certified irrigation auditor perform a water audit and make recommendations as necessary to reduce water consumption consistent with the landscape water budget.

16.16.120 EXCEPTIONS.

The purpose of this chapter is to make optimum use of the water resources available to the city water department service area and to manage peak season water demands. As technology changes and more information is available regarding plant materials, irrigation equipment and techniques, and maintenance techniques that enhance water conservation, the director may allow the substitution of well-designed conservation alternatives or innovations which equally reduce water consumption and meet the intent of this chapter.

16.16.130 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT.

In addition to any other remedy provided by the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, any provision of this chapter may be enforced by an administrative order issued pursuant to any one of the administrative processes set forth in Title 4 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. The water

21.47 commission shall serve as the administrative enforcement hearing officer for the purpose of considering appeals.

16.16.140 LIMIT OF CITY RESPONSIBILITY.

The city of Santa Cruz has limited water resources that are vulnerable to shortage in drought conditions. Residential, commercial and irrigation accounts in the water department service area are therefore subject to water restrictions or mandatory rationing during a declared water shortage emergency. Compliance with this chapter does not guarantee the survival of landscape plants or the availability of water for landscape irrigation based on this chapter. Irrigation shall be scheduled according to any water shortage regulations or restrictions in effect.

Section 8. Section 24.06.020 – Initiation of Chapter 24.06 – Zoning Map and Text Amendments of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.06.020 INITIATION.

Amendments can be initiated by the city council, the planning commission,. or the Planning Director. In the case of the zoning map, amendments can also be initiated by the owner, or authorized agent of the owner of the property included in said proposed change.

Section 9. Part 14: Residential Demolition/Conversion Authorization Permits of Chapter 24.08 – Land Use Permits and Findings of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.08.1310 PURPOSE.

In recognition of the need to maintain affordable housing opportunities and protect low- and moderate-income tenants when demolition or conversion of their living units is proposed, this permit provides for orderly change and replacement housing, where possible.

24.08.1320 GENERAL PROVISIONS.

California State law includes strict standards for the demolition of housing in an effort to ensure that existing density is not reduced and that housing that is currently rented to lower income tenants is maintained as affordable housing within new development. Housing demolition and housing development projects must comply with the requirements of this section as well as those contained in California state law governing relocation assistance and replacement housing units, including but not limited to Government Code Sections 65589.5 and 66300, as amended. For each provision of the regulations, when both this Code and the California Government Code apply, whichever requires the higher number of replacement units, bedrooms, and/or relocation assistance shall take precedence. No demolition permit shall be issued for any residential dwelling unit or single-room occupancy living unit unless a residential demolition/conversion authorization permit has been issued pursuant to this part.

21.48 24.08.1325 BUILDING DEMOLITION – OFFER TO MOVE.

1. Whenever any residential building is sought to be demolished, and if city regulations provide for demolition, the applicant for demolition shall be required to offer the building to interested parties to be moved, if it is determined by the building official that the building is feasible for relocation off site and capable of being moved without damage to significant trees and/or landscaping. The building shall be offered at no cost, or nominal cost, and be moved at the taker’s expense, unless any discretionary permit requires otherwise.

2. The applicant shall place a minimum of two advertisements, two weeks apart, in a daily newspaper of local circulation, in a form approved by the zoning administrator. The advertisement shall contain an offer to the public stating that the building is being made available to any member of the public free of charge or for a nominal cost based on upon the building’s salvage value. The offer contained in the advertisement shall remain outstanding for a period of sixty days from the date of the publication of the first advertisement. Any such offer shall be conditioned upon the acceptor’s agreement to remove the building in its entirety and any associated debris from the site no later than ninety days from the date of publication of the first advertisement; however, nothing contained herein shall preclude the offeror and acceptor from mutually agreeing to a longer time period for removal of the building and associated debris.

24.08.1330 DEMOLITION OR CONVERSION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OR DUPLEX UNITS.

The zoning administrator may issue a demolition/conversion authorization permit for the demolition or conversion of a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit, or duplex upon finding that:

1. The building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition Permits) of this chapter, or that the demolition or conversion has been approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 11; and

2. The project which will replace the demolished or converted unit(s) has been approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been issued; unless no building permit is required or some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this finding inappropriate; and

3. The building is not in the coastal zone, or, if it is in the coastal zone, is being replaced by a residential use or a nonresidential coastal-dependent use as defined by Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code; and

4. Relocation assistance has been provided to eligible tenants consistent with Section 24.08.1350; or

5. The building which is in the coastal zone and is being replaced by a nonresidential use which is not coastal-dependent as defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code, is located where residential use is no longer feasible, but will not be issued a demolition permit or building permit in connection with the conversion until the applicant has entered into an agreement to provide relocation assistance and replacement housing or in-lieu fees consistent with Section 24.08.1350 and the applicable portions of Sections 24.08.1360 and 24.08.1370 of this chapter.

21.49 24.08.1340 DEMOLITION OR CONVERSION OF DWELLING GROUPS, MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY LIVING UNITS.

The zoning board may issue a demolition/conversion authorization permit for the demolition or conversion of a multifamily structure, dwelling groups, multiple dwellings and single-room occupancy living units upon holding a public hearing and finding that:

1. The project to replace the demolished or converted units has been approved and an appropriate building permit has been issued; unless a hardship can be documented rendering this finding inappropriate;

2. The proposed demolition or conversion of use will not have a substantial adverse impact on housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households; or

3. If the proposed demolition or conversion of use will have a substantial adverse impact on housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, adequate mitigation measures will be undertaken. Such mitigation measures include relocation assistance, and may include construction of replacement housing, in-lieu fees, other measures, or a combination of the above as provided by council resolution. For purposes of this section, a residential dwelling unit shall be occupied by a person or family of low or moderate income, if a low or moderate-income household currently occupies or had occupied the dwelling unit within one year prior to the date of submission of the application for the demolition/conversion permit; or, in addition, if substantial evidence exists that a low- or moderate-income household had occupied the unit within two years of the date of the submission of the application for the demolition/conversion authorization permit and had been evicted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this section.

24.08.1345 ESTABLISHING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME OCCUPANCY.

1. Low- and moderate-income occupancy is established as follows:
a. Occupied Units:
(1) At the time of application, the applicant shall file a list of names and unit numbers of the tenants who occupied the units during the previous year. (2) The applicant shall arrange to have the Public Housing Authority (PHA) verify income of tenants for the purpose of establishing low- and moderate-income tenancy. (3) In the event that a tenant’s income is not verified, the assumption shall be made that the unit is occupied by a low- and moderate-income household. (4) Mitigation measures for demolition or conversion of use of low- and-moderate income housing units shall be based upon the number of units occupied by low- and moderate-income households.
b. Vacant Units:
(1) The application shall supply the names and addresses of the last tenants of each vacant unit.
(2) The applicant shall arrange to have the Public Housing Authority (PHA) verify the income of said tenants for the purpose of establishing low- and moderate-income housing units.
(3) In the event that the most recent tenant cannot be located or identified, the assumption shall be made that the unit was occupied by a low- and/or moderateincome household.

21.50 (4) Mitigation measures for demolition or conversion of use of low- and moderateincome housing units shall be based upon the number of units determined to be lowand moderate-income housing units. c. Notwithstanding subsections (1)(a) and (b), the applicant may stipulate that one or more of the units are or have been occupied by low- or moderate-income households.

24.08.1350 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.

All low- or moderate-income households displaced by demolition or conversion of use shall receive relocation assistance. For purposes of this section, a residential dwelling unit shall be occupied by a person or family of low or moderate income if a low- or moderate-income household currently occupies or had occupied the dwelling unit within two years prior to the date of submission of the application for the demolition/conversion permit.

Relocation assistance shall be defined as two months’ rent. Other arrangements agreeable to the tenant, as evidenced by a written agreement between the tenant and the demolition/conversion authorization permit applicant may be allowed; however, in no case shall the agreement allow for no relocation assistance to be provided, nor can the permit applicant influence or threaten the tenant in any manner to agree to any alternative arrangement that would be less favorable to the tenant than the assistance that is legally required. Payment of relocation assistance or other agreed-upon assistance shall be made by the applicant to eligible tenants prior to submittal of the building permit for the replacement project or use, or at the time of notification of termination of tenancy, whichever occurs first.

24.08.1360 REPLACEMENT HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

Housing development projects must comply with the requirements of this section as well as those contained in California state law governing replacement housing units, including but not limited to Government Code Sections 65589.5 and 66300. For each provision of the regulations, when both this Code and the California Government Code apply, the stricter of the two provisions shall be applied to the project.

1. Replacement housing must be provided by the applicant when demolition or conversion of use of three or more dwelling units or single-room occupancy living units occupied by households of low or moderate income occurs. Replacement requirements shall be based on the total number of bedrooms contained within all low- or moderate-income units to be demolished or converted.
a. The basic requirement is that fifty percent of all low- or moderate-income bedrooms demolished or converted shall be replaced either on site, or elsewhere in the city of Santa Cruz, or a combination of both.
b. Inclusionary rental units located on the same site may also be counted as replacement units, utilizing the more restrictive income and rent requirements for these units. Off-site rental or ownership inclusionary units shall not be used to fulfill replacement unit requirements.
c. In the R-T Districts, one hundred percent of all low- or moderate-income bedrooms demolished or converted shall be replaced either on site, or elsewhere in the city of Santa Cruz, or a combination of both.

21.51 d. In the commercial C Districts, one hundred percent of all low- or moderate-income bedrooms demolished or converted shall be replaced either on site, or elsewhere in the city of Santa Cruz, or a combination of both.
e. The basic fifty percent bedroom replacement requirement represents a determination of financial feasibility: that being, a greater percentage would render most projects economically infeasible. In the R-T Districts, however, due to greater allowable densities, the one hundred percent bedroom replacement requirement is determined to be feasible. In the C Districts, due to greater allowable use intensities resulting from the possibility to do both commercial and residential development without one reducing the other, the one hundred percent bedroom replacement requirement is determined to be feasible.

24.08.1362 ADVANCE REPLACEMENT HOUSING PROPOSAL.

Replacement housing as required in Section 24.08.1360 may be provided in advance of actual demolition of a structure. Conditions for the advance replacement shall be set forth in an advance replacement housing proposal approved as part of a demolition/authorization permit or separate development agreement. Conditions for advance replacement shall address:

1. Procedure to notify and offer advance housing to existing tenants of the structure to be demolished or converted.

2. Project timetable and identification of future project(s) that that advance replacement housing will be credited toward.

24.08.1370 IN-LIEU FEES.

1. As an alternative to fulfilling the replacement housing requirements of Sections 24.08.1330 or 24.08.1360, in-lieu fees can be paid for up to twenty-five percent in the R-T Districts and up to fifty percent in other districts of the total number of low- or moderateincome bedrooms to be provided to meet the replacement housing requirement. The remaining seventy-five percent or fifty percent bedroom replacement requirement shall be actually constructed or caused to be constructed by the applicant. However, where replacement housing is being required due to the provisions of Section 24.08.1330(5), pertaining to demolition or conversion of single-family and duplex units, in-lieu fees may be paid to meet one hundred percent of the replacement housing requirement.

2. The in-lieu fees shall be applied to programs that would add to the affordable housing stock through the construction of new housing units or the rehabilitation of existing housing units that were previously substandard and uninhabited or occupied by above-moderate income households. In-lieu fees shall not be used for administration of such programs.

3. Replacement housing in-lieu fees shall be determined in the same manner as inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. For purposes of determining unit sizes, the average number of bedrooms per unit shall be used. For purposes of determining the average number of square feet in a unit, the average square footage for those units shall be used up to a maximum square footage as follows:
six hundred fifty square feet for a single room occupancy unit, studio, or one-bedroom unit; nine hundred square feet for a two-bedroom unit; one thousand four hundred square feet for a threeto eight-bedroom unit.

4. Replacement housing built with in-lieu fees shall, in aggregate, provide the same level of housing as would otherwise have been required, and shall be provided and available for use within three years from the date upon which work commenced on the conversion or demolition,

21.52 or if no new or rehabilitated units are available within three years, units shall be provided in the first available affordable housing project that is constructed in the city.

24.08.1380 EXCEPTION.

This part shall not apply to any building when the building official or fire marshal determines that the building is dangerous to the health and safety of the building occupants, neighbors, or the public, and that the demolition of the building is required because of such health and safety concerns. The building official or the fire marshal shall set forth in writing the reasons for their determination that the building is dangerous to the health and safety of the building occupants, neighbors, or the public. However, this exception shall not apply if the dangerous health and safety condition(s) are the result of lack of maintenance of the building. This section has no impact on the relocation assistance requirements stipulated in Title 21.

Section 10. Part 23: Conditional Driveway Permit of Chapter 24.08 – Land Use Permits and Findings of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby deleted.

Section 11. Section 24.10.160 – Home Occupation Regulations of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.160 HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS.

1. Intent. The discretionary approval of a home occupation is intended to allow for home enterprises that are clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit and compatible with surrounding residential uses. A home occupation allows for the gainful employment in the home by any occupant of a dwelling so long as the enterprise does not require frequent customer access or have associated characteristics which would reduce the surrounding residents’ enjoyment of their neighborhood.

2. General. A home occupation shall be operated and maintained only by a resident of the dwelling unit in which it occurs; shall employ no more than one person at the residence or the property other than the members of the resident family or household; shall not change the residential character of the dwelling units; and shall not generate a vehicular traffic increase of more than eight round trips per day, including deliveries and clients. Residents who are performing job duties at home for a company or other entity located elsewhere are not considered to have a home occupation unless they are classified by their employer(s) as independent contractors.

3. Restrictions. A home occupation shall not involve:
a. The use of an area greater than four hundred square feet; b. The use of any required front or exterior side yard area or setback area, nor the use of any required covered or uncovered on-site parking space; c. Storage or use of hazardous or unsanitary materials; d. Creation of noise levels exceeding the standards of this title and/or other nuisance factors inconsistent with Chapter 24.14, Part 2: Performance Standards;

21.53 e. Auto/truck/motorcycle/motor boat repair except vehicle repair that is in compliance with the requirements and standards of Section 24.12.1200; f. The placement of a sign advertising the business.

4. Permits Required. A zoning clearance and business license shall be required, except for small and large family daycare homes within residential units, which is are exempt from local regulations.

Section 12. Part 9A: MU-H Mixed-Use High Density District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

Part 9A: MU-H MIXED-USE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT

24.10.810 PURPOSE.

To promote the development of a harmonious mixture of a wide variety of commercial activities that stabilize and protect the commercial characteristics of the district while also supporting a walkable, dynamic, and efficient environment for residents, businesses, and workers.

Development could include limited industrial uses, if they are compatible and nuisance free in conjunction with condominiums and apartments. Also refer to Section 24.12.185 for design standards.

24.10.811 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

This district requires a mix of residential and commercial uses within each proposed development. The following uses are permitted if a design permit is obtained for new structures and environmental review is conducted in accordance with city and state guidelines. Design permits are not required for accessory structures and additions that are less than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet and less than fifteen (15) feet in building height. (Numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses).

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:

1. Acting/art/music/dance schools and studios (610);

2. Apparel and accessory stores (250);

3. Eating and drinking establishments (except bars, fast-food) subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280);

4. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);

5. Financial services (320);

6. Food and beverage stores (except liquor and convenience stores) (240);

7. General retail merchandise (drug and department stores) (230);

8. Home furnishing stores (270)

9. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians and ambulance services) (410);

10. Museums and art galleries (600);

11. Professional/personal service (except contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310);

21.54 12. Repairs, alterations and maintenance services for household items (except boat repair) (340);

13. Small preschool/childcare (twelve or fewer) (510A);

14. Specialty retail supply stores (290); except thrift stores (290m);

15. Theaters (620);
RESIDENTIAL USES:

16. Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups, and condominium projects in one or more structures. (830, 840)

17. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing (860)

18. Flexible Density Units (FDU) Housing

19. Community care facilities including daycare (except family daycare homes), foster home, and retirement home (six or fewer persons).

20. Small and large family daycare homes in residential units.

21. Accessory uses are principally permitted when they are a subordinate use to the principal use of the lot.
a. Park and recreational facilities.
b. Home occupations subject to home occupation regulations as provided in Section 24.10.160.
c. Room and board for not more than two paying guests per dwelling unit, when located within principal building.
d. Residential accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, Accessory buildings.

22. Supportive and transitional housing.

23. Accessory dwelling units on parcels with an approved residential use, subject to the provisions of Chapter 24.16, Part 2, however accessory dwelling units shall not be subject to approval of a design permit.

COMMERCIAL USES:

24. Professional offices (400);

25. Communication and information services (550);

26. Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570);

27. Educational facilities (public/private) (510);

28. Government and public agencies (530);

29. Houses of worship/religious facilities (500)

30. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12 requiring no public hearing.

24.10.812 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per Section 24.08.410:

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:
a. Bakery, handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly uses associated with retail sales if floor area is less than seven thousand square feet and retail sale or service area occupies at least thirty percent of the floor area;

21.55 b. Brewpubs and microbreweries, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12;
c. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;
d. Tasting rooms, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; e. Thrift stores (290m);
f. Veterinarians (410A);
RESIDENTIAL USES:
g. Two family dwelling if the lot area allows for only two units. New Single-Family development is not permitted.
h. Temporary structures and uses.
i. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140.

COMMERCIAL USES:
j. Developed parks (710);
k. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.290, and subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280H);
l. Lodging (300);
m. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); n. Recycling collection facilities;
o. Temporary commercial structures and uses;
p. Undeveloped parks and open space (700);
q. Utilities and resources (540);
r. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12 requiring a public hearing.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:
a. Bar and cocktail lounges subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B); c. Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; d. Nightclubs/music halls subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (630);
e. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

21.56 h. Health facilities for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and treatment. i. Social halls, lodges, fraternal organizations, and clubs, except those operated for a profit.

COMMERCIAL USES:
j. Contractor/building (310E);
k. Fabricated metal products (manufacturing) (150);
l. Fabricated wire products (manufacturing) (155A);
m. Food and beverage preparation (manufacturing) (100); n. Furniture and fixtures (manufacturing) (120);
o. Hospitals (520);
p. Laboratory research experimentation, testing, software development; q. Millwork, textile products, knit goods, woven fabrics, clothing (manufacturing) (105); r. Mortuaries (310I);
s. Motion picture production (manufacturing) (155E);
t. Rental services (360);
u. Solar equipment (manufacturing) (155C);
v. Sports recreation facilities, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
w. Stone, clay, glass products (manufacturing) (140);
x. Storage and warehouse when connected with permitted use (330); y. Wholesale trade (nondurable goods) (200):
i. Bakery,
ii. Confectionery,
iii. Dairy,
iv. Health foods;
z. Wholesale trade (durable goods) (210):
i. Paper products and related (210E),
ii. Special equipment (machine supply) (210F);

24.10.813 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing principal permitted uses, and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties, shall be permitted. If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then a use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

21.57 24.10.814 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings – Maximum
• Commercial-only (stories and feet) 4 & 50
• Mixed use (stories and feet) 5 & 55
• Additional height for volumetric modular,
factory-built housing (stories and feet)
0 & 2 + (1 per residential story)
• Accessory 1 & 20
b. Lot Area for creating new parcels – Minimum (net)
(sq. ft.)
6000
c. Floor Area Ratio, minimum to maximum 1.0 to 2.75
d. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (net) (sq. ft.) 792 (no requirement for 1- bedroom/studios/ SROs/FDUs)
• Units with two or more bedrooms 792
• Units with less than two bedrooms No Density Limit
e. Setbacks
• Front-yard 0
**
• Rear-yard 20*
• Interior 0
*
• Exterior 10*, **
f. Open space per unit (residential)
• Private (sq. ft.) 40
• Common (sq. ft.) and accessible to residential
units
80 g. Distance between buildings on same lot 10
* Where a Mixed-Use District abuts a residential district, the setbacks for the first three stories shall be as listed, or as required for the adjacent residential district, whichever is greater. When mixed-use development is proposed, above three stories or 35 feet (whichever is less), a neighborhood transition plane at 45 degrees shall apply per

24.12.185

21.58 ** Except where special street setback requirements for designated streets apply, then the setback shall not be less than the minimum setback listed in Section 24.12.115 for affected street.

2. Commercial uses are required with any new development proposal, and Uses for Active frontage must be incorporated. Development with a mix of residential and commercial development is encouraged, and residential-only development is not permitted.

3. Where mixed-use is proposed, residential and commercial uses may be mixed either horizontally on the same parcel, or vertically within the same structure. In all cases, Uses for Active Frontage shall occupy the site frontage to the dimensions required by Section 24.12.185.

4. Residential units shall not be located on a street frontage, but may be located on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings, or on the ground floor of residential buildings on sites where a commercial or mixed use building occupies the street frontage.

5. Other Requirements. Other regulations which may be applicable to site and building design in this zone are set forth in Title 24.12.

6. All new development adjacent to a “CON – Neighborhood Conservation District” overlay zone shall comply with Section 24.10.4060 standards for new construction on sites abutting overlay district boundaries, to ensure compatibility with the established district.

24.10.815 PARKING.

Off-street parking requirements must be fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 24.12 Part 3, Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities. Guest parking spaces required for the residential units may also be counted toward required commercial parking.

Section 13. Part 9: MU-VH Mixed-Use Visitor-Serving High Density District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

Part 9D: MU-VH MIXED-USE VISITOR-SERVING HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT

24.10.840 PURPOSE.

To encourage high-quality visitor-serving commercial development along Ocean Street and parts of Soquel Avenue, particularly hotels and motels, while accommodating other multi-story commercial development and supporting high-density housing within mixed-use developments that promote a vibrant and pedestrian oriented environment for residents, workers and visitors consistent with the Ocean Street Area Plan. Also refer to Section 24.12.185 and the Ocean Street Area Plan for design standards.

24.10.841 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

This district allows a mix of residential and commercial uses within each proposed development, or exclusively commercial development. Each new development within the zone shall incorporate active commercial uses along the site frontage in conformance with the standards set in Chapter 24.12.185 relating to Corridor Frontage.

The following uses are permitted outright if a design permit is obtained for new structures and environmental review is conducted in accordance with city and state guidelines. Design permits

21.59 are not required for accessory structures and additions that are less than one hundred twenty square feet and less than fifteen feet in building height. (Numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:

1. Acting/art/music/dance schools and studios (610);

2. Apparel and accessory stores (250);

3. Eating and drinking establishments (except bars, fast-food) subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280);

4. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);

5. Financial services (320);

6. Food and beverage stores (except liquor and convenience stores) (240);

7. General retail merchandise (drug and department stores) (230);

8. Home furnishing stores (270)

9. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians and ambulance services) (410);

10. Museums and art galleries (600);

11. Professional/personal service (except contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310);

12. Repairs, alterations and maintenance services for household items (except boat repair) (340);

13. Small preschool/childcare (twelve or fewer) (510A);

14. Specialty retail supply stores (290); except thrift stores (290m);

15. Theaters (620);
RESIDENTIAL USES:

16. Community care facilities including daycare (except family daycare homes), foster home, and retirement home (six or fewer persons).

17. Flexible Density Units (FDU) Housing

18. Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups, and condominium projects in one or more structures. (830, 840)

19. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing (860)

20. Small and large family daycare homes in residential units.

21. Accessory uses are principally permitted when they are a subordinate use to the principal use of the lot.
a. Home occupations subject to home occupation regulations as provided in Section 24.10.160.
b. Residential accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, Accessory buildings.

22. Supportive and transitional housing.

COMMERCIAL USES:

24. Communication and information services (550);

21.60 25. Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570);

26. Educational facilities (public/private) (510);

27. Government and public agencies (530);

28. Houses of worship/religious facilities (500)

29. Lodging (300);

30. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces, when combined with another allowed use (930);

31. Professional offices (400);

32. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12 requiring no public hearing.

24.10.842 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per Section 24.08.410:

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:
a. Bakery, handicrafts or similar light manufacturing and assembly uses and wholesale trade associated with retail sales if floor area is less than seven thousand square feet and retail sale or service area occupies at least thirty percent of the floor area, where retail sale or service occupies the building frontage;
b. Brewpubs and microbreweries, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; c. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12; d. Tasting rooms, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; e. Thrift stores (290m);
f. Veterinarians (410A);
RESIDENTIAL USES:
g. Temporary structures and uses.
h. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140.

COMMERCIAL USES:
i. Fast-food restaurants or drive-in eating facilities subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.290, and subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280H);
j. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930) k. Recycling collection facilities;
l. Temporary commercial structures and uses;
m. Utilities and resources (540);
n. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12 requiring a public hearing.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:

21.61 USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:
a. Bar and cocktail lounges subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280C);
b. Convenience stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (240B); c. Liquor stores, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12; d. Nightclubs/music halls subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (630);
e. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54.

RESIDENTIAL USES:
f. Community care facilities (seven or more persons) including daycare (except family daycare homes), nursing home, retirement home.
g. Dormitories, fraternity/sorority residence halls, boardinghouses. h. Health facilities for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and treatment. i. Social halls, lodges, fraternal organizations, and clubs, except those operated for a profit.

24.10.843 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing principal permitted uses, and which will not impair the present

21.62 or potential use of adjacent properties, shall be permitted. If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then a use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

24.10.844 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings – Maximum
• Commercial-only (stories and feet) 4 & 55
• Mixed use (stories and feet) 4 & 50
• Additional height for volumetric modular, factory-built housing (stories and feet)
0 & 2 + (1 per
residential story)
• Accessory 1 & 20
b. Height of buildings – Minimum
• Commercial or Mixed Use 1 &16
• Accessory No Minimum
c. Floor Area Ratio, minimum to maximum 1.0 to 2.75
c. Lot Area for creating new parcels – Minimum (net) (sq. ft.) 4000 d. Required lot area per dwelling unit 792 (no requirement for 1-
bedroom/studios/
SROs/FDUs)
e. Setbacks
• Front-yard 0
**
• Rear-yard 15*
• Interior 0
*
• Exterior 8
*, **
f. Open space per unit (residential)

21.63 Provisions Requirement
• Private (sq. ft.) 40
• Common (sq. ft.) and easily accessible to residential units 80 e. Distance between buildings on same lot 10
* Where a Mixed-Use District abuts a residential district, the setbacks for the first three stories shall be as listed, or as required for the adjacent residential district, whichever is greater. When mixed-use development is proposed, above three stories or 35 feet (whichever is less), a neighborhood transition plane at 45 degrees shall apply per 24.12.185
** Except where special street setback requirements for designated streets apply, then the setback shall not be less than the minimum setback listed in Section 24.12.115 for affected street.

2. Commercial uses are required with any new development proposal, and Uses for Active frontage must be incorporated on any Ocean Street frontage. Development with a mix of residential and commercial development is encouraged, and residential-only development is not permitted.

3. Where mixed-use is proposed, residential and commercial uses may be mixed either horizontally on the same parcel, or vertically within the same structure. In all cases, Uses for Active Frontage shall occupy any Ocean Street frontage to the dimensions required by Section

24.12.185.

4. Residential units shall not be located on any Ocean Street, Water Street, or Soquel Avenue frontage, but may be located on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings, or on the ground floor of residential buildings on sites where a commercial or mixed use building occupies the street frontage. Residential units can occupy up to 50% of the frontage on thoroughfares other than Ocean Street, Water Street, or Soquel Avenue.

5. Other Requirements. Other regulations which may be applicable to site and building design in this zone are set forth in Title 24.12.

24.10.845 PARKING.

Section 14. Part 9: MU-VA Mixed-Use Visitor-Serving Additional Height District of Chapter

24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

21.64 Part 9E: MU-VA MIXED-USE VISITOR SERVING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT DISTRICT

24.10.850 PURPOSE.

To encourage high-quality visitor-serving commercial development as well as high-intensity residential mixed-use development along Ocean Street Soquel Avenue, and adjacent thoroughfares, particularly hotels and motels, while accommodating other multi-story commercial development in both exclusively commercial and high-density mixed-use developments density within larger buildings oriented toward Ocean Street and Soquel Avenue, and using building height and massing to create a sense of place that promotes a vibrant and pedestrian oriented environment for residents, workers and visitors consistent with the Ocean Street Area Plan. Also refer to Section 24.12.185 and the Ocean Street Area Plan for design standards.

24.10.851 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

The following uses are permitted outright if a design permit is obtained for new structures and environmental review is conducted in accordance with city and state guidelines. Design permits are not required for accessory structures and additions that are less than one hundred twenty square feet and less than fifteen feet in building height. (Numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:

1. Acting/art/music/dance schools and studios (610);

2. Apparel and accessory stores (250);

3. Eating and drinking establishments (except bars, fast-food) subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280);

4. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);

5. Financial services (320);

6. Food and beverage stores (except liquor and convenience stores) (240);

7. General retail merchandise (drug and department stores) (230);

8. Home furnishing stores (270)

9. Medical/health offices (except veterinarians and ambulance services) (410);

10. Museums and art galleries (600);

11. Professional/personal service (except contractors’ yards and mortuaries) (310);

12. Repairs, alterations and maintenance services for household items (except boat repair) (340);

13. Small preschool/childcare (twelve or fewer) (510A);

14. Specialty retail supply stores (290); except thrift stores (290m);

15. Theaters (620);

21.65 RESIDENTIAL USES:

16. Community care facilities including daycare (except family daycare homes), foster home, and retirement home (six or fewer persons).

17. Flexible Density Units (FDU) Housing

18. Multiple dwellings, townhouse dwelling groups, and condominium projects in one or more structures. (830, 840)

19. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing (860)

20. Small and large family daycare homes in residential units.

22. Supportive and transitional housing.

COMMERCIAL USES:

24. Communication and information services (550);

25. Community organizations, associations, clubs and meeting halls (570);

26. Educational facilities (public/private) (510);

27. Government and public agencies (530);

28. Houses of worship/religious facilities (500)

29. Lodging (300);

30. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces, when combined with another allowed use (930);

31. Professional offices (400);

24.10.852 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per Section 24.08.410:

21.66 RESIDENTIAL USES:
g. Temporary structures and uses.
h. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:

21.67 s. Motion picture production (manufacturing) (155E); t. Rental services (360);
u. Solar equipment (manufacturing) (155C);
v. Sports recreation facilities, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12 (720);
w. Stone, clay, glass products (manufacturing) (140);
x. Storage and warehouse when connected with permitted use (330); y. Wholesale trade (nondurable goods) (200):
z. Bakery,
i. Confectionery,
ii. Dairy,
iii. Health foods;
aa. Wholesale trade (durable goods) (210):
i. Paper products and related (210E),
ii. Special equipment (machine supply) (210F);

24.10.853 USE DETERMINATION.

24.10.854 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings – Maximum
• Commercial-only (stories and feet) 6 & 75
• Mixed use (stories and feet) 6 & 70
• Additional height for volumetric modular, factory-built housing (stories and feet)
0 & 2 + (1 per
residential story)
• Accessory 1 & 20
b. Height of buildings – Minimum
• Commercial or Mixed Use 1 &16
• Accessory No Minimum

21.68 Provisions Requirement
c. Floor Area Ratio, minimum to maximum 1.0 to 2.75
d. Lot Area for creating new parcels – Minimum (net) (sq. ft.) 6000 e. Required lot area per dwelling unit 792 (no requirement for 1-
bedroom/studios/
SROs/FDUs)
f. Setbacks
• Front-yard 0
**
• Rear-yard 20*
• Interior 0
*
• Exterior 10*, **
g. Open space per unit (residential)
• Private (sq. ft.) 40
• Common (sq. ft.) and easily accessible to residential units 80 h. Distance between buildings on same lot 10
* Where a Mixed-Use District abuts a residential district, the setbacks for the first three stories shall be as listed, or as required for the adjacent residential district, whichever is greater. When mixed-use development is proposed, above three stories or 35 feet (whichever is less), a neighborhood transition plane at 45 degrees shall apply per 24.12.185
** Except where special street setback requirements for designated streets apply, then the setback shall not be less than the minimum setback listed in Section 24.12.115 for affected street.

3. Where mixed-use is proposed, residential and commercial uses may be mixed either horizontally on the same parcel, or vertically within the same structure. In all cases, Uses for Active Frontage shall occupy any Ocean Street frontage to the dimensions required by Section

24.12.185.

4. Residential units shall not be located on any Ocean Street or Soquel Avenue frontage, but may be located on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings, or on the ground floor of residential buildings on sites where a commercial or mixed use building occupies the street frontage.

Residential units can occupy up to 50% of the frontage on thoroughfares other than Ocean Street or Soquel Avenue.

21.69 5. Other Requirements. Other regulations which may be applicable to site and building design in this zone are set forth in Title 24.12.

24.10.855 PARKING.

Section 15. Part 10: C-T Thoroughfare Commercial of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

Part 10: C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL

24.10.900 PURPOSE.

To provide for retail, commercial, service, amusement, and transient-residential uses which are appropriate to thoroughfare location and dependent upon thoroughfare travel. New development including residential units or uses within the zone shall incorporate Uses for Active Frontage along the site frontage. This section of the Zoning Ordinance is also part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan.

24.10.910 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

The following uses are allowed outright, subject to other requirements of the municipal code including the approval of a Design Permit for new structures when required by Section 24.08.410 (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:

1. Art galleries.

2. Branch banks.

3. Clothing and apparel shops.

4. Eating and drinking establishments, subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12.

5. Hotels, motels and bed-and-breakfast inns.

6. Medical and dental offices.

7. Professional, editorial, real estate, insurance and other general business offices.

RESIDENTIAL USES:

8. Multiple dwellings and condominiums, when located either in the same lot or above first floor commercial development, subject to the minimum land area (net) per dwelling unit of the R-M District (830).

21.70 9. Small and large family daycare homes in residential units.

COMMERCIAL USES:

10. Carpenter shop; electrical, plumbing or heating shops; furniture upholstering shop.

11. Garages for the repair of automobiles, subject to performance standards as set forth in this title for principal permitted uses in the I-G District.

12. Handicraft shops and workshops.

13. Medical, optical, and dental clinics and laboratories, not including the manufacture of pharmaceuticals or other (similar) products for general sale or distribution.

14. Mobilehome, trailer, boat, motorcycle sales and service.

15. New car sales and service.

16. Parking facilities of five or fewer spaces.

17. Plant nurseries and greenhouses.

18. Theaters.

19. Used car sales and service, auto parts and supply stores.

20. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter

24.12 requiring no public hearing.

24.10.920 ACCESSORY USES.

Uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, Accessory buildings, and Section 24.10.930.

24.10.930 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:

USES FOR ACTIVE FRONTAGE:
a. Brewpubs and microbreweries, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12.
b. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12.
c. Souvenir and gift shops.
d. Stores, shops and general retail, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12.
e. Tasting rooms, subject to alcohol regulations in Part 12 of Chapter 24.12.

COMMERCIAL USES
f. Ambulance service.
g. Automatic car wash.
h. Bakery; soft-drink bottling plant; laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishment. i. Garages for the repair of automobiles, trucks and other heavy equipment, subject to performance standards as set forth in this title for principal permitted uses in the I-G District.
j. Recycling collection facilities.
k. Small community care residential facilities.
l. Temporary structures and uses.

21.71 m. Truck, boat, trailer, farm equipment, and other heavy equipment sales, service and rental.
n. Veterinary hospitals and clinics.
o. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Part 15 of Chapter 24.12 requiring a public hearing.
p. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140.

24.10.940 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing uses, and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties, may be permitted. If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then a use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

24.10.950 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings –
Maximum
• Principal (stories and feet) 3 & 35
• Accessory 2 & 25
b. Minimum Lot Area (net)
(sq. ft.) 5,000
c. Front-yard (feet) 0
d. Rear yard (feet) 10*
e. Side yard
• Interior (feet) 0
*
• Exterior (feet) 0
f. Distance between
buildings on same lot (feet) 10
* Except where abutting an R-District, then not less
than the minimum yard required for the adjacent yard
in the said R-District.

2. Additional Requirements.

21.72 a. All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, except for service stations and parking facilities, or other outdoor uses when appropriately screened and as approved by the zoning administrator, or within an outdoor extension area approved pursuant to Section 24.12.192.
b. In any C-T District directly across a street or thoroughfare, not including a freeway, from any R- District, the parking and loading facilities shall be distant at least ten feet from the property line, and buildings and structures at least twenty feet from the street; said setback space shall be permanently landscaped.
c. Other regulations which may be applicable to site design in this zone are set forth in General Site Design Standards, Part 2, Chapter 24.12.

Section 16. Section 24.10.2301 – Uses, Development Standards and Design Guidelines of Part 24: Central Business District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.2301 USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES.

Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, as amended, is hereby adopted by reference, and the planning and community development department shall maintain copies of the Downtown Plan in both hard copy and electronic form, for use and examination by the public. The policies and regulations set forth in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan shall control all uses in the CBD, Central Business District, and its four subdistricts: Pacific Avenue Retail District; Front Street Riverfront Corridor; Cedar Street Village Corridor; and North Pacific Area.

Section 17. Part 8: Underground Utilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Part 8: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

24.12.700 GENERAL.

All facilities and wires for the extension of facilities for the supplying and distribution of electrical energy and service, including communication service (as defined in Section

12.60.010), shall be placed underground; and further, there exists a need for regulation of certain modifications of existing utility pole lines, all in order to promote and preserve the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, and to assure the orderly development of the city of Santa Cruz.

24.12.710 PROVISIONS.

1. All new extensions of electrical and communications distribution and service facilities, equipment, and lines carrying less than thirty-four thousand five hundred volts hereafter constructed or installed in the city of Santa Cruz shall be placed underground, unless special permission to construct said facilities above ground is granted, as hereinafter provided.

2. All reallocations of existing overhead electrical and communications distribution and service poles supporting lines carrying less than thirty-four thousand five hundred volts required to be relocated by reason of change of grade or alignment or the widening of the street within

21.73 which such overhead facilities exist shall, upon relocation, be placed underground, unless special permission to reconstruct said facilities above ground is granted, as hereinafter provided. This provision shall apply only to those streets within an area of the city declared by the city council to be an underground utility district.

3. Overhead electrical and communications distribution and service poles supporting lines carrying less than thirty-four thousand five hundred volts shall not be installed to support overhead facilities where such installation would duplicate an existing pole line within an entire city block.

4. Electric and communication service wires or cables to any new building or structure shall be placed underground unless the Project is subject to an exception identified in Section

24.12.720.

5. Any new building or structure where an expansion of any electric or planned communication service on or within 500 feet of the property is planned to occur within 5 years of construction completion, as demonstrated through related capital projects or private development, and which has not otherwise been permitted for overhead utilities or in-lieu fee payment, shall install dark conduit (as defined in Section 12.60.010) along the project frontage or within the project site, together with any necessary easements for the city to facilitate expansion and future connection to all such service(s) in conformance with the Public Works dark conduit installation specifications that are current at the time of design review and available from the Public Works Department.

6. Any new building or structure, shall be connected to existing or planned electric and communications services by active lines, if available, or dark conduit leading to the building from an adjacent main, in conformance with the applicable Public Works dark conduit installation specifications that are available from the Public Works Department. Any lots or structures with more than one unit shall provide such connections to every individual unit.

7. Any existing building, site, underground utility installation, or structure, for which trenching is required to, from, or along existing or planned electrical or communications services, shall provide underground utilities or dark conduit connections of consistent form and quality with all the specifications of this Section 24.12.710 except as provided in 24.12.720 (7).

8. All conduits, conductors and associated equipment necessary to receive utility service between service conductors or underground pipe or conduit of the supplying utility and the service facilities in the building or structure, and units therein, being served shall be provided by the person building, renovating, owning, operating, leasing or renting said property, subject to applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the California Public Utilities Commission and to the lawful requirements of state laws and city ordinances. All such infrastructure, upon completion and acceptance by the city, shall be dedicated as public improvements to the city.

24.12.720 EXCEPTIONS.

The provisions of Section 24.12.710 shall not apply to: the following. Applicants shall be responsible for any studies, analysis, and reports required by Public Works to demonstrate eligibility for any exceptions.

1. Poles used exclusively for police and fire alarm boxes or any similar municipal equipment installed under the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of, the city engineer.

2. Poles or electroliers used exclusively for street lighting.

21.74 3. Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface of a building by means of a bracket or other fixture and extended from one location on the building to another location on the same building or to an adjacent building on the same lot or parcel without crossing any street.

4. Radio antennas, their associated equipment and supporting structures used by a utility for furnishing communication services.

5. Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes, and meter cabinets and concealed ducts, and other facilities which are determined by the city engineer as infeasible for undergrounding.

6. The property owner may voluntarily apply to the city engineer to request an alternate discretionary process for the purposes of assessing the applicability of this Part 8 and shall provide Public Works with any studies, analysis, or reports and payment of any associated fees. Subsequent to such study or analysis, the city engineer may require in-lieu payments, grant exceptions or other modifications to the requirements of this Part 8 on a case by case basis.

7. The city engineer may exempt city led projects from the requirement to install dark conduit connections.

Section 18. Section 24.12.1108 – Modification of Existing Establishments Selling Alcoholic Beverages of Part 12: Alcoholic Beverage Sales of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.1108 MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

1. Any establishment lawfully existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section and licensed by the state of California for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site and/or off-site consumption shall obtain a special use permit when (a) the establishment changes its type of liquor license within a license classification and/or (b) there is a substantial change in the mode or character of operation. For purposes of this part, “substantial change in the mode or character of operation” shall include, but not be limited to: (a) a pattern of conduct in violation of other laws or regulations; (b) an increase of twenty percent or greater of floor area in any five-year period to accommodate retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site and/or off-site consumption; or (c) either (1) in the case of an establishment which operates on property being acquired by the city by eminent domain or under threat of condemnation and which is required to discontinue or otherwise cease operation because of construction activities undertaken by the city, a period of closure for at least two years or six months after the city’s construction activities are completed so as to enable said use to resume, whichever is later, or (2) in any other case, a period of closure for at least six months; or (d) there is a request to add dancing, or there is request for a major extension of hours or changes related to type of entertainment.

2. Any establishment which becomes lawfully established on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this part and licensed by the state of California for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site and/or off-site consumption shall obtain a modification of use permit when (a) the establishment changes its type of liquor license within a license classification and/or (b) there is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the establishment.

21.75 Section 19. Section 24.14.030 – Slope Regulations (outside the Coastal Zone) of Chapter 24.14 – Environmental Resource Management of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.14.030 SLOPE REGULATIONS (outside the Coastal Zone).

1. Applicability and Purpose. The following regulations are enacted to minimize the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by combustible vegetation and steep and/or unstable slopes. Minor sculpted landforms, such as berms or swales, shall be exempt from the following regulations. A further purpose is to avoid excessive height, bulk, and mass normally associated with building on slopes.
a. Building permit applications for new structures on slopes of ten percent or greater shall include an accurate topographic map. The map shall contain contours of two-foot intervals for slopes of twenty percent grade.
b. Slopes thirty percent or greater shall not be considered in the density determination of a property.
c. Construction of buildings (as defined in Section 24.22.154) or structures (as defined in Section 24.22.822) on or within twenty feet of slopes fifty percent or greater shall require approval of a slope development permit at a public hearing before the zoning administrator, unless they are exempted pursuant to subsection (1)(g). Construction of buildings (as defined in Section 24.22.154) on or within twenty feet of slopes greater than or equal to thirty but less than fifty percent shall require administrative approval of a slope development permit with no public hearing required, unless they are exempted pursuant to subsection (1)(g).
d. When a slope development permit is required pursuant to subsection (1)(c), a sitespecific geological review consistent with the California Division of Mines and Geology guidelines shall be provided by a state-qualified professional. The review shall include consideration of material, height of slope, slope gradient, load intensity, and erosion characteristics of slope material. The recommendations contained in the review, including but not limited to California Building Code requirements, shall be incorporated into the design of the building project to prevent slope instability as a result of new development. e. All development on slopes shall be designed so that drainage water to and from the site complies with applicable local, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and state standards. f. Proposed buildings on parcels within or adjacent to fire hazard areas as designated in the safety element of the general plan shall maintain separation from combustible vegetation as required by the city fire department. Removal of combustible vegetation may also be required as part of project approval.
g. Minor development not including buildings (as defined in Section 24.22.154) or grading over fifty cubic yards, may encroach on slopes greater than or equal to thirty percent. Minor development can include things such as walkways, fences, retaining walls less than three feet high above existing grade, planter boxes, stairways, decks extending not more than five feet into a slope greater than or equal to thirty percent, and similar features, or similar minor development as determined by the zoning administrator, may encroach on slopes greater than or equal to thirty percent without a slope development permit.

21.76 h. No new lot shall be created that does not comply with the requirements of Section

23.04.050.3, Subdivision Principles – Buildable Lots.
i. For all development within one hundred feet of a coastal bluff, a site-specific geologic report consistent with the California Division of Mines and Geology guidelines shall be prepared by a state qualified professional.

2. Driveway Design Standards.
a. Driveways shall be designed with existing contours to the maximum extend feasible. b. Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to maintain adequate line of sight.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of twenty-five percent as illustrated in the following diagram:
d. Driveways within slopes that are thirty percent or greater shall require a slope development permit per Part 9 of Chapter 24.08.

Section 20. Section 24.16.015 – Definitions of Chapter 24.16 – Affordable Housing Provisions of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.16.015 DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases shall be interpreted as to give this part its most reasonable interpretation.

1. “Affordable ownership cost” for low income households means average monthly housing costs during the first calendar year of a household’s occupancy, including mortgage payments, property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, and homeowner’s association dues, if any, the sum of which does not exceed eighty percent of area median income, adjusted for assumed household size based on unit size, multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve. Affordable ownership cost for moderate and very low income households is defined at Section 24.16.205(1).

2. “Affordable rent” means the maximum monthly rent, including utilities and all fees for housing services, which does not exceed the following:
a. For moderate income households: one hundred ten percent of area median income, adjusted for assumed household size based on unit size, multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve.
b. For payment standard units: either affordable rent for moderate income households, or the maximum Santa Cruz housing authority payment standard rent for tenant-based subsidy holders, as provided in Section 24.16.030(9)(c)(2).

21.77 c. For low income households: eighty percent of area median income, adjusted for assumed household size based on unit size, multiplied by thirty-five percent and divided by twelve.
d. For very low income households: fifty percent of area median income, adjusted for assumed household size based on unit size, multiplied by thirty percent, and divided by twelve.
e. For extremely low income households: thirty percent of area median income, adjusted for assumed household size based on unit size, multiplied by thirty percent and divided by twelve.

3. “Affordable units” are dwelling units which are affordable to extremely low, very low, low, median, or moderate income households as defined by this part or by any federal or state housing program and are subject to rental, sale, or resale provisions to maintain affordability.

4. “Approval body” means the body with the authority to approve the proposed residential development.

5. “Area median income” is area median income for Santa Cruz County as published and periodically updated by the state of California pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932, or successor provision.

6. “Assisted living unit” is any dwelling unit in a facility licensed under Chapter 3.2 of the California Health and Safety Code as a residential care facility for the elderly, or an assisted living unit as defined in Section 1771(a)(6) of the California Health and Safety Code.

7. “Assumed household size based on unit size” is a household of one person in a studio apartment, two persons in a one-bedroom unit, three persons in a two-bedroom unit, and one additional person for each additional bedroom thereafter.

8. “Co-housing development” is an intentional community of private dwelling units clustered around shared space. Each attached or single-family home has traditional amenities, including a private kitchen. Shared spaces typically feature a common house, which may include a large kitchen and dining area, laundry, and recreational spaces. Households collaboratively plan and manage shared spaces. The legal structure is typically an HOA, condo association, or housing cooperative.

9. “Congregate living unit” is any dwelling unit in a senior housing development or senior citizen housing development, as defined in Section 51.3 of the California Civil Code, that provides private living quarters with centralized dining services and shared living spaces and may include access to social and recreational activities.

10. “Density bonus” is a density increase over the otherwise allowable maximum residential density on a site, granted pursuant to Part 3 of this chapter.

11. “Employer sponsored housing” means any rental residential development where an employer owns the land to be used in the development and at least seventy-five percent of the units in the development are used to house the employer’s employees.

12. “First approval” is the first of the following approvals to occur with respect to a residential development: development agreement, planned development permit, tentative map, minor land division, use permit, design permit, building permit, or any other permit listed in Section 24.04.030.

13. “Household income” is the combined adjusted gross household income for all adult persons living in a living unit as calculated for the purpose of the Housing Choice Voucher/ Section 8 program under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, or its successor provision.

21.78 14. “Household, low income” is a household whose income does not exceed the low income limits applicable to Santa Cruz County, as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

15. “Household, median income” is a household whose income does not exceed area median income.

16. “Household, moderate income” is a household whose income does not exceed the moderate income limits applicable to Santa Cruz County, as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

17. “Household, very low income” is a household whose income does not exceed the very low income limits applicable to Santa Cruz County, as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

18. “Household, extremely low income” is a household whose income does not exceed the extremely low income limits applicable to Santa Cruz County, as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

19. “Inclusionary unit” is an ownership or rental dwelling unit, including Flexible Density Units (FDU) and single room occupancy (SRO) units, within a residential development which is required under this part to be rented at an affordable rent or sold at an affordable ownership cost to specified households.

20. “Live/work unit” is a dwelling unit, part of which is used as a business establishment and the dwelling unit is the principal residence of the business operator or an employee of the business establishment who works in the unit.

21. “Local public employee” means a household including an employee of a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, charter city and county, special district, or any combination thereof.

Santa Cruz City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
August 23, 2022