Santa Cruz City Council
April 25, 2023

OVERVIEW
California State Assembly Bill (AB) 481, effective January 1, 2022, establishes requirements for the funding, acquisition and use of items deemed “military equipment” (Gov’t Code § 7070(c)) in law enforcement and state agencies. The bill’s intent installs enforceable safeguards, including transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body via ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy prior to purchasing, raising funds for, or acquiring military equipment. Gov’t Code § 7071(a)(1).

On May 10, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz City Council adopted Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.90, approving the military equipment use policy set forth in Santa Cruz Police Department Policy 705. Pursuant to AB 481, the Santa Cruz Police Department (“Department”) will publish an annual report for each type of military equipment approved by the Santa Cruz City Council within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. Gov’t Code § 7072(a). The annual military equipment report must include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual military equipment report, the Department will hold a well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting. Gov’t Code § 7072(b). The community engagement meeting will allow the public to discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

This Annual Report provides available data for each type of military equipment approved by the Santa Cruz City Council for the 2022 calendar year (January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022). Because the Department’s Military Use Policy was adopted during the middle of the reporting period, May 10, 2022, the Department did not have mechanisms in place to track all data required under AB 481 for the entire reporting period. The Department has utilized available data and existing documentation to provide information contained in this Annual Report. The Department is working to ensure sufficient tracking mechanisms are in place for future annual reports.

34.32 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report

CATEGORY 1 - Robot
Inventory
Recon Robotics “Throw bot”; Quantity: 1
Robotex AVITAR II; Quantity: 0 (the Department has access to two AVITAR II robots maintained by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office) Use Reporting1
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit 1 2/8/2022 Domestic
Violence No Throw bot used to locate a suspect who had
barricaded themself in a room.

N/A N/A
2 5/2/2022 Death
Investigation
No Throw bot used to visually clear a residence
before officers entered.

N/A N/A
3 2/16/2022 Training No Throw bot used in during Hostage Rescue training. N/A N/A
N/A N/A Community
Events
No
Throw bot used in community demonstrations
such as the Citizens Police Academy
and Teen Public Safety Academy. N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
A request to acquire a new Throw bot was submitted to Council on March 28, 2023.

Total Annual Cost
Personnel costs for 2/16/2022 training (approximately $1,155.46). No annual cost to the Department for the Robotex AVITAR II.

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 1 The Department did not have a method in place to track use of the Recon Robotics Throw bot in 2022. Uses described represent SCPD’s best estimate using available data.

34.33 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report

CATEGORY 1 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Inventory
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs); Quantity: 0 (the Department does not currently possess any UAVs but has access to UAVs maintained by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office)
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit 1 3/28/2022 Suspect Search No UAV was used to search for a Suspect. N/A N/A
2 5/2/2022 Crime Scene
Investigation No UAV was used to document a crime scene related to a death investigation. N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department may explore a UAV program in 2023.

Total Annual Cost
No annual cost to the Department.

34.34 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report

CATEGORY 2&3 - Armored Personnel Carrier
Inventory
Lenco Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV); Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary Complaint Summary Audit 1 1/25/2022
Vehicle
Pursuit and
Assault w
Deadly
Weapon on
Peace Officer
Assist Scotts
Valley PD
CHP initiated a pursuit that entered into the city limits of Scotts Valley. During the pursuit, the fleeing vehicle discharged a firearm at least twice towards the pursuing officers. CHP terminated the pursuit. The suspect vehicle drove to a residence on Tabor Drive and occupants fled on foot. The residents called 911 to report the location of the suspect vehicle and that a suspect was seen on their property. The use of the Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV) was requested to assist CHP in clearing the suspect car due to the fact that it was unknown if the suspect(s) were still inside or on the property. A team of CHP officers were loaded into the ARV and they cleared the vehicle, including the immediate area. The ARV remained at the
Command Post until the area could be thoroughly searched for the outstanding suspect(s). The ARV remained at the scene as a resource for SVPD and CHP if the suspect(s) were located.

Department
received
complaint that
deployment was
outside of
Department
Policy.

Department
determined use
was within
Department
Policy.

Complaint
forwarded to
Independent
Police Auditor
who agreed
deployment was
within
Department
Policy.
2 2/25/2022
Officer Killed
in the Line of
Duty Assist
Salinas PD
The Salinas Police department requested any available officers to respond to their city. They had an officer who was shot and the suspect was still outstanding. Based on this information, the Bearcat and available ESU officers were sent code 3 to assist.

When we arrived, we found that Salinas PD needed patrol officers. SCPD remained on standby at the Salinas police department for approximately 4 hours. It was determined that SCPD was not needed and returned to the Santa Cruz police

N/A N/A

34.35 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report

department.
3 4/12/2022 WarrantService No Used to transport the ESU team to serve a search and arrest warrant pursuant to a murder investigation. N/A N/A 4 4/14/2022 Refueling No Refueling the ARV. N/A N/A
5 5/5/2022 Demonstration No Demonstration for the Citizen's Police Academy. N/A N/A 6 5/12/2022 Warrant
Service
Assist Santa
Cruz
Sheriff's
Office
ARV used during the execution of a search warrant.

Subject listed in warrant had multiple calls for service regarding possession of/use of firearms at residence. Subject was prohibited person and of deteriorating mental health. N/A N/A 7 6/7/2022 Barricaded
Subject
Assist
Watsonville
PD
ARV used for providing cover for patrol that was on scene in front of the primary location of a barricaded subject. Once Watsonville’s tactical team (SRT) arrived on scene the ARV was used for cover and approaching the primary residence and recovering firearms that were adjacent to the resident. N/A N/A 8 7/12/2022 Warrant Service
Assist
Watsonville
PD
High risk warrant service. N/A N/A
9 8/2/2022 Refueling No Refueling the ARV N/A N/A
10 9/4/2022 Warrant Service
Assist
Sheriff's
Office
The ARV was requested by Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s
SWAT team to facilitate the service of a high-risk search warrant. The Search warrant was authored by Detectives of the Watsonville police department. The warrant was to search the residence of a subject associated with a homicide that occurred in Watsonville. The suspect and firearm used in the homicide were still outstanding. The homicide was gang related.

N/A N/A
11 9/6/2022 Refueling No Refueling the ARV N/A N/A

34.36 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report

12 10/27/2022 School
Shooting Threat No
ARV was used during a report of an active shooting on campus with multiple gunshot victims. ARV responded to safely secure the scene and was available to provide cover and respond to victims.

N/A N/A
13 11/16/2022 Training No BearCat orientation and training for new officers. N/A N/A 14 12/21/2022 Refueling No Refueling the ARV. N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional armored personnel carriers in 2023.

Total Annual Cost
Refuel costs ($343.20). Personnel costs for 11/16/2022 training (approximately $78.59).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.37 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 5 - Transport Vehicles
Inventory2
2008 Ford F350 Transport Vehicle; Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number
Date Incident
Type
Agency
Assist?
Use Summary Complaint
Summary
Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
This vehicle is used as a transport vehicle for all manner of Department activities. It transports personnel and
equipment for training and law enforcement operations.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional transport vehicles in 2023.

Total Annual Cost
Parts and labor costs ($588.35); Fuel costs ($426.51).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 2 Use of this vehicle is not tracked or categorized every time it is used.

34.38 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 5 - Command & Control Vehicles
Inventory
2018 Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle; Quantity: 1
2019 Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle; Quantity: 3
Use Reporting
Use
Number
Date Incident
Type
Agency
Assist?
Use Summary Complaint
Summary
Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
These vehicles are patrol vehicles assigned to the Sergeants and Lieutenants. In addition to their use during calls for service. They would operate as a Command and Control
vehicle if the situation required.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
Any acquisition of new command and control vehicles would be in compliance with already established city protocol.

Total Annual Cost
2018 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($1,415.59); Fuel costs ($2,816.96) 2019 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($1,797.83); Fuel costs ($1,733.33) 2019 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($1,543.10); Fuel costs ($6,531.28) 2019 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($2,431.38); Fuel costs ($6,110.90) Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.39 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 8 - Firearms Greater than .50 Caliber
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
The Breeching Shotguns have not been used in training
or law enforcement activity during the
reporting period. N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
The Chemical Agent Launching Shotgun has not been
used in training or Law Enforcement Activity during the reporting period.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional firearms greater than .50 caliber in 2023.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

Inventory
Mossberg 590 12 Gauge Pump Action Shotguns; Quantity: 2 Remington 870 12 Gauge Pump Action Chemical Agent Launching Shotgun; Quantity 1

34.40 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 9 - Ammunition of .50 Caliber or Greater
Inventory3

12. Gauge launching Cartridges Defense Technologies Part Number 1210; Quantity: 50 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A No breeching ammunition was used in training or law enforcement activity during the reporting period. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No launching cartridges were used in training or law enforcement activity during the reporting period. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2023
Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2023 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

The Department intends to acquire approximately 200 breeching ammunition for breeching shotguns and send officers to training specific to the breeching shotgun.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 3 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

34.41 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 10 - Specialized Firearms & Ammunition of less than .50 Caliber Inventory4
Defiance Bolt Action Precision Rifle; Quantity: 3
Accuracy International AT Series Bolt Action Rifle; Quantity: 1 Hornady .308 155 Grain ELD Match TAP Ammunition; Quantity: 2,100 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
N/A 2022 Training No
Precision rifles and ammunition were
used in monthly department N/A N/A
mandated training.
1 11/17/2022-
11/18/22 Training No Low Light/Night precision rifle training course provided by outside vendor. N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional specialized firearms in 2023.

Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2023 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
New optic for Defiance Bolt Action Precision Rifle purchased 5/2/22; Quantity:1 ($1,765.00). Hornady .308 155 Grain ELD Match TAP Ammunition purchased 11/16/22; Quantity 2,400: ($3,347.50). Low Light/Night precision rifle training course from Advanced Combat Evolutions ($1,158). Personnel costs for Low Light/Night precision rifle training course (approximately $1,925.76). Personnel costs for 2022 training (approximately $23,908.32).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 4 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

34.42 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 12 - Flashbang, Teargas & Pepper Balls
Inventory5
8902NR 12 Gram Low Roll NFDD; Quantity: 50
7007 4 Gram NFDD Training Reloads; Quantity: 25
1090 Stinger Grenades; Quantity: 10
1082 Riot Control CS Canister; Quantity: 12
1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister; Quantity: 15
5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister; Quantity: 10
1026 Triple Chaser Separating Canister; Quantity: 2
56854 Aerosol OC Fogger; Quantity 4
2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret Projectile; Quantity: 10
2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret Projectile; Quantity: 69
Pepper Ball Guns; Quantity 4
Pepperballs; Quantity: 4 (containers of 375 pepper balls) (expired) Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit N/A 2022
Training/
Tactical
Operations
No
Several NFDD and training NFDD used in training.

None were used in law enforcement operations during
the reporting period.

N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A No
No pepperball guns were used in
training or in law enforcement activities during the
reporting period.

N/A N/A
5 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

34.43 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

N/A N/A N/A No No chemical agents were used in training or law enforcement operations.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department intends to send officers to instructor certification training in 2023 for NFDD.

The Department intends to send officers to a pepperball certification course in 2023.

Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2023 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
8902NR 12 Gram Low Roll NFDD purchased 2/25/2022; Quantity: 24 ($1,381). 7007 4 Gram NFDD Training Reloads purchased 2/25/2022; Quantity: 10 ($357.00).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.44 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 13 - Long Range Acoustic Devise (LRAD)
Inventory
GENASYS Inc. LRAD-100X; Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A The LRAD was not used in training or
law enforcement activities during the reporting period. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional Long Range Acoustic Devices in 2023 Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.45 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Projectile Launchers
Inventory
Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-Single Barrel Launchers; Quantity: 14 Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1425 40mm-Single Barrel Launchers; Quantity: 15 Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers; Quantity: 2 Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher; Quantity: 1 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit 1 1/8/2022 Wanted person N/A 40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the arrest of a wanted subject reportedly armed with a machete. N/A N/A 2 1/22/2022 Occupied
stolen vehicle
N/A 40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the
arrest of a subject in possession of a stolen vehicle. N/A N/A 3 2/8/2022
Domestic
violence/
wanted
subject
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the arrest of a subject who had an outstanding warrant for felony domestic violence and who had been barricaded in residence.

N/A N/A
4 2/9/2022 Training N/A Training for new officers regarding 40mm launchers. N/A N/A 5 2/26/2022 Domestic
Violence
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during a domestic violence incident where the suspect, victim and a child were locked in an apartment.

N/A N/A
6 3/4/2022 Commercial
Burglary
N/A
40mm displayed, but not used, during the search of a
commercial business that had been burglarized when it was unknown whether the suspects were still inside the business.

N/A N/A
7 3/27/2022 Stolen
Vehicle
N/A 40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the arrest of a subject who inside of a stolen vehicle. N/A N/A

34.46 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

8 5/2/2022 Domestic
Violence
N/A 40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during a domestic violence incident. N/A
Supervisors Use of
Force investigation
completed pursuant to
Department Policy.

Use of Force
investigation
unrelated to the use or
display of the 40mm.
9 5/3/2022 Disturbance N/A 40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the arrest of a belligerent intoxicated subject, armed with a 4 foot long stick. N/A Supervisors Use of
Force investigation
completed pursuant to
Department Policy.

Use of Force
investigation
unrelated to the use or
display of the 40mm.
10 5/5/2022 Criminal
Threats
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the contact of a subject armed with a knife who had made criminal threats against a victim, and had stabbed the victim’s door with the knife.

N/A N/A
11 5/18/2022 Training N/A Training for new officers regarding 40mm launchers. N/A N/A 12 5/31/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during the
investigation of a report of a subject in possession of a gun on Main Beach.

N/A N/A
13 7/9/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, during a high-risk vehicle stop. Multiple subjects were detained and a firearm was found in the vehicle.

N/A N/A
14 7/17/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A 40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during a high-risk vehicle stop where subjects were reported to have a gun. N/A N/A 15 8/14/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A 40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during a high-risk vehicle stop. subjects reported to have a gun were detained. A N/A N/A

34.47 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

loaded firearm was found
16 8/15/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during a high-risk vehicles stop related to a report of a subject brandishing a firearm during a road rage incident.

N/A N/A
17 8/22/2022 Occupied
stolen vehicle
n/a 40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during the detention of a suspect in possession of a stolen vehicle. N/A N/A 18 8/31/2022 Commercial
burglary
N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during the
contact and arrest of a subject who had burglarized a
commercial building.

N/A N/A
19 10/7/2022
Assault with
a deadly
weapon
N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during the
contact and arrest of a subject who was wanted for stabbing another subject.

N/A N/A
20 10/10/2022 Disturbance N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during the
contact and detention of a subject who had pointed what was believed to be a gun at a City employee on Main Beach.

N/A N/A
21 10/29/2022 Subject with
a gun
N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during the
contact and detention of a subject who was reported to be in possession of a gun on Main Beach.

N/A N/A
22 11/4/2022
Failure to
yield/resisting
arrest.

N/A
40mm launcher was used during an incident, where a suspect refused to stop for officers following a vehicle pursuit. The suspect refused to exit after the vehicle was stopped. Two 40mm projectiles were used to shatter a window on the vehicle to allow officers to access the suspect and take them into custody.

N/A N/A
23 11/7/2022 Occupied
stolen vehicle
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, while conducting a high-risk stop of a vehicle reported as stolen. The subject was arrested.

N/A N/A
24 11/17/2022
Occupied
stolen vehicle
N/A
40mm launcher displayed, but not used, while conducting a high-risk stop of a vehicle reported as stolen. The subject was arrested.

N/A N/A

34.48 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

25 12/9/2022 Arson N/A
40mm launcher was displayed, but not used, during an
investigation of an arson where a subject had set multiple fires inside a storage unit complex. The suspect was seen by
officers armed with metal objects and tried to flee the scene.

The suspect was located and arrested.

N/A N/A
26 12/17/2022 Mental
Health
N/A
40mm launcher was used on a suicidal subject. The subject called 911 and reported they had a firearm and wished to kill themself. During the contact with officers, the subject refused to comply with commands. A single 40mm projectile was
fired at the subject. The subject was not struck, however the subject then complied and was detained.

N/A N/A
27 12/20/2022 Training N/A Training for new officers regarding 40mm launchers. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend acquire additional 40mm launchers in 2023.

The Department intends to send officers to instructor certification course for 40mm launchers and associated ammunition.

Total Annual Cost
Personnel costs for 2/9/2022, 5/8/2022, and 12/20/2022 training (approximately $2,357.64).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.49 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Ammunition
Inventory6
eXact Impact 40mm; Quantity 143
Direct Impact 40mm OC; Quantity: 20
Direct Impact Marking; Quantity 34
Training Sponge Ammunition 24 Round Kit; Quantity: 7
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary Complaint Summary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A 40mm ammunition used in training during the reporting period. N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
No Direct Impact 40mm OC, Direct Impact
Marking or Training Sponge Ammunition were
used in law enforcement activities during the
reporting period.

N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
See CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Projectile
Launchers Use Reporting Summary above for
summary of use of eXact Impact 40mm
ammunition.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2023
Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2023 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 6 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

34.50 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

CATEGORY 15 - Other Specified Items/Equipment
Inventory7
Colt Carbines; Quantity: 35
LMT Carbines; Quantity: 35
Hornady 5.56x45mm NATO, 75 grain BTHP TAP; Quantity: 5,120 .223/5.56x45 Training Ammunition8
; Quantity: 37,000
Use Reporting9
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
No AR-15 patrol rifles were used in lethal force
situations during the reporting period. Available data
indicates a firearm was used or displayed in 22 incidents during the reporting period. 10

N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A Duty ammunition used in ongoing accuracy verification and maintenance of the rife during the reporting period. N/A N/A 1 1/5/2022 Training N/A Department mandated Patrol Rifle Qualifications. N/A N/A 7 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.
8 .223/5.56 55 grain full metal jacket is the standard training round the Department uses. The manufacturer of the ammunition varies based on what is available at the time the Department needs to make an order. 9 The Department tracks firearms usage, however, data for 2022 does not classify use by firearm type. Information provided represents the Department’s best estimate of AR-15 usage. 10 The Department did not track firearm usage by firearm type in 2022.

34.51 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

2 1/19/2022 Training N/A Monthly ESU Tactical Team Training. Patrol Rifle Qualifications and training with the rifle. N/A N/A
3 1/12/2022 Training N/A Department mandated Patrol Rifle Qualifications. N/A N/A 4 2/17/2022-
2/18/2022 Training N/A POST mandated 16 hour patrol rifles course. N/A N/A 5 5/18/2022 Training N/A Monthly ESU Tactical Team Training. Patrol Rifle Qualifications and training with the rifle. N/A N/A
6 5/24/2022-
5/25/2022 Training N/A POST mandated 16 hour patrol rifles course. N/A N/A 7 6/8/2022 Training N/A
ESU monthly training. Topic of training was High Risk
warrant service. Rifles were used in training. No live
fire.

N/A N/A
8 9/21/2022 Training N/A
Monthly ESU Tactical Team Training. Topic of training
was criminal barricaded subjects. Rifles were used
during training. No live fire.

N/A N/A
9 9/28/2022 Training N/A
Monthly ESU Tactical Team training. Rifle
qualifications were done. Training related to the rifle was done.

N/A N/A
10 10/3/2022-
10/14/22 Training N/A
Two Officers attended Basic SWAT School. A
component of this training involves use of the AR-15
patrol rifle

N/A N/A
11 11/7/2022 Training N/A
Monthly ESU Tactical Team Training. Topic of training
was active shooter response. Rifles were used in
training. No live fire.

N/A N/A

34.52 Santa Cruz Police Department
Military Equipment UseReport
2022 Report

12 11/30/2022 Training N/A
Monthly ESU Tactical Team Training. Training topic
was Hostage Rescue operations. Rifles were used in
Training. No live fire.

N/A N/A
13 12/7/2022 Training N/A Department mandated Patrol Rifle Qualifications. N/A N/A 14 12/14/2022 Training N/A Department mandated Patrol Rifle Qualifications. N/A N/A 15 12/26/2022-
12/27/22 Training N/A POST mandated 16 hour patrol rifles course. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2023
The Department does not intend to acquire additional AR-15 patrol rifles in 2023.

Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2023 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
Inspection, and replacement part and labor AR-15 patrol rifles funding from Department’s operating budget ($19,949.57). Basic Swat School ($1,158) (a component of this training involves the use of the AR-15 patrol rifle). Personnel costs for attendance at Basic Swat School (approximately $2,310.91).

Personnel costs for Department mandated Patrol Rifle Qualification trainings (approximately $7,869.82). Personnel costs for Monthly ESU Tactical Team training (approximately $10,110.24). Personnel costs for POST mandated 16-hour patrol rifles course (approximately 12,574.08).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

34.53 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Brokaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 6:31 AM
To: M. Lee Brokaw
Cc: City Council; Fred Keeley; Editorial Santacruzsentinel; Michael Gennaco; S. Marion Subject: 481 At Council Tuesday night
Attachments: SCPD 481 042523.pdf
This is insane. The Council will vote to accept this document before it is presented to the Public for comment and review.

This is the height of 'lack of transparency' and arrogance.

I have twice requested in writing, to the Mayor for a meeting with our 481 Committee to go over the complexities of the Council's responsibilities. I have not even been given a courtesy reply.

The Chief knows that this is ass-backwards and contrary to the spirit of AB481, which was to foster transparency between Law Enforcement and the Community it patrols with lethal military weapons.

The Council/Mayor, have the authority under the law as AB481 is codified, Code 7075, where in they can ask for more than the law requires. It would be easy for the Mayor to have to SCPD to reverse order of presentation, since the Mayor controls the agenda Santa Cruz is apparently run by the Police Department and the Mayor has abdicated his responsibility to represent the Public. He has Kow-Towed to the militarized police.

34. Receipt of AB 481 Annual Military Equipment Report and Renewal of SCMC Chapter 9.90 Pertaining to AB 481 Military Equipment (PD) Motion to:
1) Receive the Santa Cruz Police Department’s (SCPD) Annual Military Equipment Report.
2) Adopt a resolution renewing Chapter 9.90 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) pertaining to AB 481, Military Equipment.

See pdf attached
______________
Tommy Douglas, the great Canadian Socialist once described the Free Enterprise System as giving elephants the right to dance among chickens!

34.54 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Brokaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council
Cc: Peter Gelblum; Keenan Lorenzato; Ron Pomerantz; Sandy Brown; Scott Graham; Elise Casby; Pamela Sexton; Keith Lesar; Ed Porter; Jonathan Gettleman; M. Lee Brokaw; Tim Fitzmaurice Subject: Fw: Please request Public Comment re: 481 report On behalf of those who wish to elaborate on the 481 report and the requirements that the Council must find in order to accept the report, I ask for at least 10 minutes..

Thanks
Lee
Chair-Police Accountability and Transparency Committee, Santa Cruz Chapter,
ACLU Northern California
note: I will not be speaking for the ACLU, but as a private Citizen who has worked on this legislation for the past two years
Tommy Douglas, the great Canadian Socialist once described the Free Enterprise System as giving elephants the right to dance among chickens!
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sandy Brown <[email protected]>
To: Lee Brokaw <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Gelblum <[email protected]>; Keenan Lorenzato <[email protected]>; Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>; Scott Graham <[email protected]>; Elise Casby <[email protected]>; Pamela Sexton <[email protected]>; Keith Lesar <[email protected]>; Ed Porter <[email protected]>; Jonathan Gettleman <[email protected]>; Tim Fitzmaurice <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:21:05 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Please request Public Comment re: 481 report Hi all,
I think the best way for this to get a more thorough consideration is for the public to weigh in with specific recommendations about the changes you want to see.

I recommend folks write in to request extra time for public comment. Anyone can do this if you are representing an organization.

Many thanks,
Sandy
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:39 AM Lee Brokaw <[email protected]> wrote:

Please request a substantial, extended amount of time for our 481 advocates to address the item 34, Receipt of AB 481 Annual Military Equipment Report and Renewal of SCMC Chapter 9.90 Pertaining to AB 481 Military Equipment

34.55 2
Tommy Douglas, the great Canadian Socialist once described the Free Enterprise System as giving elephants the right to dance among chickens!

34.56 34.57

34.58 34.59

34.60 34.61

34.62 34.63

34.64 34.65

34.66 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/14/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Appeal of Proposed Single Space Markings on David Way (PW) RECOMMENDATION: Continued to the June 27, 2023 City Council meeting.

35.1 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/19/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Review for State Submittal (PL) RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide comments on the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update prior to its presentation to the City Council and prior to its submittal to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department.

BACKGROUND: The Housing Element is a critical tool for the City of Santa Cruz to plan for and accommodate current and future housing growth and services over the next eight years. The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements included in the Santa Cruz General Plan and is required to be updated in eight-year planning “cycles.” Santa Cruz is currently in the final year of its 5th Cycle, and the upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element will be from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2031. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and plan for the City’s existing and projected housing needs. It contains a detailed outline of the City’s goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for a sustainable future. The Housing Element Update is approved by City Council and then certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State Housing Element law.

California Government Code Section 65580 lists six Housing Element goals to help ensure that every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment.

1. The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.

2. The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels.

3. The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of the government.

4. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

36.1 5. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs.

6. Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the State’s housing goals and the purposes of this article.

A central part of the Housing Element is detailing how the City can facilitate the construction of housing units at various affordability levels to the amounts prescribed in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is developed by HCD and the Association of Monterrey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and quantifies current and anticipated future housing growth within a jurisdiction. It provides a specified target number of housing units in four different affordability levels (as shown in Table G-1 from the attached Draft Housing Element below).

Table G-1: City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Income Category Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) RHNA Very Low-Income 0-50% AMI 859
Low-Income 51-80% AMI 562
Moderate-Income 81-120% AMI 709
Above Moderate-Income >120% AMI 1,606
TOTAL RHNA 3,736
*The Santa Cruz County AMI is $119,300 for a family of four, according to 2022 HCD Income Limits.

The total number of units the City needs to plan for is 3,736. To put this number in perspective, the total RHNA units for Santa Cruz in the current 5th Cycle is 747. By the end of this 5th Cycle reporting period, Santa Cruz will have produced about double the total number of units in the City’s 5th Cycle RHNA targets and will exceed the required number of units in each income category. Only about 6% of all jurisdictions in the State have met RHNA targets in all income categories. Despite this remarkable housing accomplishment, the City will need to make even greater strides to reach the significantly increased 6th Cycle RHNA targets. While there are no direct penalties for not meeting RHNA targets (yet), one consequence of not meeting RHNA targets is that, per State law, it triggers the increase in availability for a project to use SB35 legislation to bypass some local control in housing development review.

Draft Housing Element Update
In order to support meeting these RHNA targets and to drive housing decisions for the next eight years, the Housing Element Update does two key things: (1) it provides goals, policies, and objectives to address current housing needs and to guide future housing growth for all income levels, and (2) it identifies sites to show that the City has capacity to accommodate its RHNA housing unit targets.

In addition to these foremost items, the Housing Element Update includes several other sections and analyses required by the State such as a summary of the Update’s community engagement, a review of past Housing Element performance, and assessments of fair housing, housing constraints, and housing resources. Together, the Housing Element provides a comprehensive view of the City’s past, present, and future actions as they relate to supporting the production of housing for all needs and all affordability levels.

36.2 New to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Updates statewide is the inclusion of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. Beginning on January 1, 2019, Assembly Bill (AB) 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing and that all Housing Elements due after January 1, 2021 contain an assessment of fair housing. Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free of barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics (such as race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability).” The State requires Santa Cruz to show how its housing decisions are furthering fair housing and HCD assigns special focus on this new portion of the document in its certification review.

Each of these required summaries, analyses, and actions are packaged into the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The full document is available on the City’s website:
www.cityofsantacruz.com/housingelement. Note that two sections have been updated since the release of the Public Review Draft on March 24: Chapter 2 – Policy Plan and Appendix G – Housing Sites Inventory Appendix. These two edited sections are included as attachments. The Policy Plan revisions are shown in track changes while the Sites Inventory Modifications attachment will guide readers through the changes to the Sites Inventory section.

On June 14, 2022, City Council also provided direction on the Housing Element to staff in the form of a resolution. The attached Response Letter to the June 14, 2022 City Council Housing Element Direction details how the Draft Housing Element Update is meeting the formal directions provided by City Council. Council also formed a Housing Element Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Keeley, Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, and Councilmember Newsome.

Staff has met regularly with the Subcommittee to vet goals, policies, objectives, and sites, and will continue to do so throughout the Housing Element Update process.

The Public Review Draft of the Housing Element Update has been available since March 24 for the community to review and provide feedback to staff. This public review draft comment period is open for 30 days until April 23. Comments received through this public review period will be considered prior to formally submitting the first draft of the Housing Element Update to HCD for review. Public comments received through April 19 are included in the Public Review Draft Comments attachment.

Staff will also consider how to best incorporate comments and feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council into the draft submitted to HCD. Public comments at these meetings will also be considered. Upon submittal, HCD will have 90 days to review the document and provide comments to the City if the document is not certifiable. Based on reviews of Housing Elements across the State, at least two submittals have been needed before HCD certifies the document. Staff intends to receive feedback from HCD in the summer and address those comments, along with any additional public feedback, as part of another submittal package.

The discussion section below seeks to provide an overview of the Draft Housing Element Update and focuses attention on key areas where review and comments at this time may be especially impactful.

DISCUSSION: When reviewing the Draft Housing Element, note there are two chapters, an Introduction Chapter, and a Policy Plan Chapter. These chapters are followed by eight

36.3 appendices: Community Engagement, Review of Past Performance, Housing Needs Assessment, Fair Housing Assessment, Housing Constraints. Housing Resources, Housing Sites Inventory, and Glossary. Other than the Policy Plan Chapter and the Housing Sites Inventory Appendix, the other sections are largely summaries of existing conditions in the City and often used to support the Policy and Sites Inventory sections. Thus, this report will focus on the Policy Plan Chapter and the Housing Sites Inventory Appendix, as those are areas where many new decisions are made.

Policy Plan Chapter
The Policy Plan Chapter details the community’s goals, policies, and objectives relative to housing production, rehabilitation, conservation, and assistance for all residents in Santa Cruz.

This chapter builds upon the identified housing needs and the constraints and resources evaluated in other appendices to address housing needs in the community. This chapter is organized in a hierarchy of three levels, each more specific in nature. There are seven overarching goals that guide all the efforts to address housing needs facing the City. Policies fall under each goal addressing key housing topics and issues. Finally, objectives are listed under each policy that describe what the City will do to achieve the City’s goals and policies. Each objective includes a timeline for completion, and the objectives are quantified when applicable. Objectives that include an (AFFH) stamp were determined to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing objectives.

The seven goals of the Draft Housing Element Update Policy Plan are listed below to provide the reader with a general overview of what the Policy Plan Chapter covers. More detail on the goals, as well as the policies and objectives within them, are in the attached Draft Housing Element Update.

Goal 1: Housing Production. Facilitate housing production that meets the present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.

Goal 2: Affordable Housing. Provide an increased and protected supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.

Goal 3: Special Needs Housing and Homelessness. Provide accessible housing and supportive services that provide equal housing opportunities for special needs populations, including the unhoused and those at risk of homelessness.

Goal 4: Housing Assistance. Provide increased opportunities for low- and moderateincome residents to rent or purchase homes.

Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality. Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas while protecting residents from displacement.

Goal 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.

Goal 7: Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship. Fulfill the City’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries that takes into consideration the existing and potential impacts of sea level rise and climate change, particularly on underserved communities.

36.4 When reviewing the goals, policies, and objectives in this Draft Housing Element chapter, it is important to note that the policies can achieve multiple goals, and objectives can achieve multiple policies. There is overlap in many housing areas, such as one goal facilitates housing production while another goal facilitates affordable housing production in particular. Another example is that AFFH has its own goal and set of policies and objectives, but polices and objectives housed under all of the other goals also achieve AFFH objectives.

Given Santa Cruz’s positive efforts on housing, some policies and objectives maintain or expand on what the City is doing already to facilitate housing production, and they do not have a definitive end point. These objectives are listed as “ongoing.” Some objectives also represent discrete work that is already underway but anticipated to be completed in the new Housing Element Cycle (such as completion of the Downtown Plan Expansion in 2024). Many other objectives introduce new programs and Zoning Ordinance amendments. These feature staff’s best estimate of when the task would be completed. These timings are prioritized based on level of impact, staff capacity, and whether the action may be combined with another project that already has a separate timeline. Staff has requested that the public review the goals, policies, and objectives to provide feedback on the proposed ideas, their anticipated effectiveness, and their prioritization, and the same is being asked of the Planning Commission and City Council. The objectives and their timelines are included in the Housing Element Policy Objectives Gantt Chart attachment to visualize the proposed timing of this work.

Based on conversations with consultants and staff from other jurisdictions, there are two key things to note when reviewing the Policy Plan Chapter: (1) HCD is looking for cities to push the envelope regarding policies and objectives, as it is not enough to rely on existing policies no matter how well a city has previously performed, and (2) it is vital that the AFFH component links the proposed policies and objectives to noted fair housing issues the city faces. Deficiencies in these two areas have most slowed down certification of Housing Element Updates statewide.

HCD is looking for creative and progressive approaches to further support housing production and services in Santa Cruz. The State is also looking for the AFFH component to tell a story of why a given AFFH issue exists in Santa Cruz and what solutions to that issue are included in the policies, objectives, and site inventory. If draft policies and objectives presented in this current Draft Housing Element Update get removed or watered down for the first submittal, HCD may ask for stronger policies and objectives, and a back-and-forth will ensue. This scenario would delay review times and possibly certification. Submitting a strong first draft of the Housing Element Update will put the City on the front foot in negotiating with HCD and likely give the City more control over the document moving forward in the process.

In response to community and Council Subcommittee feedback, some of the Policy Plan Chapter goals, policies, and objectives have been modified since the draft was released. An updated version of that chapter showing the changes made is included as an attachment.

Housing Sites Inventory Appendix
The Housing Element is required to include an inventory of parcels (sites) suitable for residential development that can accommodate the RHNA unit targets for all income levels. The Sites Inventory section is essentially a paper exercise to show HCD that capacity exists for the City to meet its housing targets. Inclusion of sites does not directly mean they will develop, only that their capacity for housing development is included to show the HCD that the City has enough capacity to meet its housing development targets. Reversely, sites not included in the inventory

36.5 would see no changes to how they could currently develop. If a site not included in the inventory develops housing, that housing would still count towards meeting the RHNA. One possible outcome of being included in the Sites Inventory is that if a developed site has been included in two consecutive Housing Elements and has not redeveloped, a new development proposal may use a ministerial process to achieve its Housing Element capacity. This means that a housing project would still be subject to the City’s Objective Standards for development review but would not require a public hearing or review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For vacant sites, a ministerial process would be triggered upon a property’s inclusion in a third consecutive Sites Inventory. The aforementioned ministerial, or by right, triggers are identified in Government Code Section 65583.2(c). Table B-17 in the Sites Inventory lists whether a site was included in the 4th or 5th Cycle Housing Element.

The sites in the inventory are broken down into two categories: Pipeline Projects and Projected Development. Pipeline projects are those that have already been submitted for review or received entitlements, but they have not yet received a Building Permit. The proposed affordable units in those projects are directly counted. These sites are the easiest for HCD to accept as part of the Sites Inventory, because they highlight developer confidence and have the highest potential to produce housing in the next few years. A prime example of a pipeline project is the recently approved Downtown Library and Affordable Housing project, but many other sites throughout the City have accepted or approved applications and have not yet received a Building Permit. Some or all of two projects on the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) campus currently called the Hager and Heller projects can also be counted as pipeline projects, because they exist within the City (even though they are outside of City development control). Only full dwelling units (and not dormitory-style rooms) can currently be counted towards meeting RHNA targets, so only those units are included in the Sites Inventory.

Projected Development includes sites that have potential for housing development due to their parcel size, location, base General Plan/zoning, and development capacity. This section does not assume that each of these properties will develop, rather, a “realistic capacity” is assigned to these sites from 30% to 100% to provide a more grounded projection of the number of units that could be produced in these areas over the next eight years. These Projected Development sites are opportunity areas such as downtown, major transportation corridors, and sites that have mixed-use zoning. These are sites zoned for higher density and have good access to transportation options. Many sites in these areas are underutilized and ripe for redevelopment.

The Sites Inventory supposes that a percentage of these sites will develop in this eight-year cycle.

The Projected Development portion of the Sites Inventory also includes Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). HCD supports the use of a projection to estimate the number of ADUs included in the Sites Inventory. Santa Cruz used the average of the last five years of ADU permits to determine the number of units to be counted per year in the eight-year cycle (72.88). This is the method most supported by HCD. However, this is likely a conservative estimate because the number of permitted ADUs increased each of the last five years, so if the Sites Inventory used a linear progression over eight years rather than a single average, there would be significantly more ADUs in the inventory. The ADU affordability levels are projected to be 60% Very Low and Low, 30% Moderate, and 10% Above Moderate. This is a common standard that the State is likely to accept in their review. A recent ADU study conducted for the Housing Element 2022 Annual Progress Report showed that 89% of ADUs in the City were at Very Low and Low36.6 Income rents or less. This study featured self-reported data and a relatively small sample size, but it does support the 60%/30%/10% projection as reasonable.

Finally, several church sites were also included as Projected Development in the Sites Inventory.

Recent State legislation has made it easier to build housing on church parking lots. In fact, a project on the Calvary Church parking lot downtown is currently under construction, and the Peace United Church on High Street is pursuing entitlements for a housing project at their site.

So it is reasonable to consider some future development on other church sites in the City. Again, the Sites Inventory is an estimate to show the State what could develop and where, so the State knows that the RHNA targets can be reached within the City in the eight-year Housing Element cycle. It does not dictate that the sites will develop with housing.

Since the Public Review Draft of the Housing Element Update was released, several changes have been made to the Sites Inventory. The reasoning for these site changes is noted in the attached document Sites Inventory Modifications. A separate group of sites labeled as “Objective Standards Mixed-Use” was removed in favor of adding those sites to various corridor areas. The allowed densities of those sites were also corrected. The Downtown Expansion Plan area was originally listed as needing a separate rezoning. Instead, staff has opted to only count the base density of that expansion area to reduce uncertainty by HCD when they are reviewing the capacity. Staff expects the Downtown Plan Expansion project will allow for more units than its base capacity once approved, but those units were not necessary for the Sites Inventory at this time.

Below is a table taken from the Sites Inventory Appendix in the Draft Housing Element. This provides a breakdown of each of the categories, their housing unit capacities, and unit affordability projections.

Table G-2: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis
Strategies
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
TOTAL
6 th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736
City of Santa Cruz 691 174 1,865 2,730
UC Santa Cruz 868 217 0 1,085

1. Pipeline
Projects
Total 1,559 391 1,865 3,815
ADUs 349 175 59 583
Vacant Residential Land 5 11 138 154
Mission Street Corridor 93 71 705 869
Ocean Street Corridor 51 40 176 267
Soquel Avenue Corridor 80 62 353 495
Water Street Corridor 28 23 172 223
River Street Corridor 12 9 201 222
Church 55 25 28 108
Downtown 26 21 312 359
Downtown Expansion Plan
Area 115 115 916 1,145
Other 0 3 29 32

2. Projected
Housing
Total 814 555 3,089 4,457

3. Buffer TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL 2,373 946 4,954 8,272
Buffer Over RHNA 67% 33% 208% 121%

36.7 Aside from pipeline projects with known affordability amounts, HCD prescribes set percentages of affordability (and only if the parcel is at least a half-acre in size or more – otherwise the units are considered all Above Moderate Income, or market rate). The unit counts by affordability are not allowed to consider the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance or the use of Density Bonus. While the percentage of Above Moderate Income units is higher than Very Low, Low, and Moderate, the affordable units created by the Above Moderate development through the Inclusionary Ordinance are not taken into account. These projections set by HCD also do not directly consider 100% affordable development that is often facilitated through the work of the City staff and nonprofit partners even though that work was successful in the 5th Cycle. HCD merely uses set percentages to derive these affordability amounts. Thus, with the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance and with 100% affordable projects, more affordable units are expected than what is included in the table. It must be reiterated that the affordability breakdown in the Sites Inventory is not necessarily correlated with what will get built or a projection of the City’s housing priorities but rather an output on paper based on HCD’s algorithms all jurisdictions must use.

HCD also recommends that the Sites Inventory includes 15-30% more units than the RHNA to help ensure that RHNA targets can be met should some sites not develop. While the Moderate Income Category has the lowest percentage over the RHNA target, it is 33% over, which is still within the HCD recommended range. The other affordability levels in the City’s draft Sites Inventory greatly exceed the HCD recommendation. The extent of the noted capacity above the RHNA targets is supported as a State Prohousing Designation best practice and would be looked upon favorably by HCD in their review.

Next steps
Staff will present the Draft Housing Element to Planning Commission on April 20, 2023 and to City Council on April 25, 2023. Staff will take into consideration Commissioner and Councilmember comments at these meetings as well as public comment. The Public Review Draft Housing Element has been available since March 24, 2023, and the 30-day comment period will close on April 23, 2023. Following closure of the comment period, ten additional business days are required by the State for staff to address comments. Staff will make additional edits during that time and will consult with the Housing Element Subcommittee as needed.

Following that period, the Draft Housing Element can be submitted to the state for review. Staff anticipates submitting the Draft document in the first half of May.

Upon submittal, the City will be assigned a reviewer at HCD, and the State is allowed up to 90 days to provide comments on the submittal. Staff will seek early and regular feedback from HCD during their review period and expect to receive formal comments from the State in August.

Staff will address those comments (and hold an additional community meeting) prior to the second formal submittal. HCD will then have a 60-day comment period. The deadline for Housing Element certification is December 15, 2023, so staff will present a certifiable Housing Element to Council for approval before that date.

Based on these review times, there is no flexibility for delay in this schedule if the City wishes to have a certifiable Housing Element complete in December. Given that the project anticipates two reviews by HCD before December, it is important for the City’s initial submittal to be comprehensive and progressive to meet or exceed HCD’s expectations. This will minimize backand-forth during the review periods and help ensure a smoother path to certification.

Health in All Policies

36.8 The goal of Health in All Policies (HiAP) is to ensure that decision-makers are informed about the impacts on the three HiAP pillars of health, equity, and sustainability when reviewing projects and policy options. The Housing Element Update’s key purpose is to support the development of housing throughout the City for all needs and all affordability levels. It supports health by promoting housing, services, and efficient land use patterns that encourage sustainable living situations and healthy lifestyles. The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing component of the Housing Elements provides many policies and objectives focused on improving equity in housing.

The resource conservation and environmental stewardship goal in the Housing Element Policy Plan also provides a variety of policies and objectives to address sustainability. Therefore, the Housing Element Update meets each of the HiAP pillars.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Housing Element Update requires environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the draft Housing Sites Inventory (Appendix G) of the Housing Element indicates that rezoning of properties will not be required, and the Downtown Plan Expansion project is being reviewed as a separate project under CEQA; it is anticipated that a CEQA Exemption will be prepared. Per Section 15061(b)(3), an Exemption consists of activities covered by the “common sense exemption” that CEQA allows when a project would not cause a significant effect on the environment.

As currently proposed, the Housing Element would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. The Housing Element is a policy document and does not provide entitlements to any specific land use projects. It does not make any changes to the 2030 General Plan land use map and would not modify any land use designations, allowed densities, or land use intensities currently established in the 2030 General Plan. It would not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development.

It would not change the rate or location of development and would not propose or approve any development projects.

Rather, the goals, policies, and programs established by the Housing Element would only facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing consistent with existing and proposed uses as identified in the 2030 General Plan and as mandated under State law.

All future proposed housing development projects submitted to the City will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA, when required, concurrent with other permitting and regulatory requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT: The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update outlines policies and programs that facilitate all types of housing. This includes continuing existing programs with funding streams currently directed towards affordable housing, supportive housing, and homeless services. The continuation of programs and new programs called for in the 6th Cycle Housing Element will result in direct staff and consultant costs. The exact costs of those programs is unknown at this time. The production of housing will increase the City’s tax base. However, services provided to new residents generally cause new housing to result in net negative fiscal impacts, particularly over the long-term.

Prepared By:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

36.9 ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update - Chapter 2 - Policy Plan – edited

2. Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Appendix G - Housing Sites Inventory - edited

3. Response Letter to the 6/14/22 City Council Housing Element Direction

4. Housing Element Policy Objectives Gantt Chart

5. Sites Inventory Modifications

6. Public Review Draft Comments

36.10 City Council

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/25/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Review for State Submittal item (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the additional information provided below as part the review and comments on the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update prior to its submittal to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department.

BACKGROUND: Staff presented the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (Housing Element) to the Planning Commission on April 20, 2023. Staff received comments from the Planning Commission and the public during that meeting, and those comments are summarized in Exhibit 1: April 20, 2023 Planning Commission Overview, included below this report. Staff also discussed the Planning Commission hearing with the City Council Housing Element Subcommittee (Subcommittee) on April 21, 2023, along with follow-up information of additional items of Subcommittee interest. Staff received feedback from the Subcommittee.

DISCUSSION: Between these two meetings, several key discussion points were brought up that warranted this additional information presented to Council. The first item is discussion on the Housing Element’s ministerial process triggers and whether it is in the City’s interest to reduce sites included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, especially if they can only have market rate housing attributed to them. The second item is the ongoing edits being made to the Sites Inventory based on staff analysis and public comments. The final item is discussion of additions/edits to the Housing Element Policy Plan Chapter being considered based on comments from the Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and public.

Ministerial Process and Site Inventory Reductions
The Housing Element includes Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory, where parcels are included throughout the City to show that adequate capacity exists to support the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing unit targets in each income category. As the main Agenda Report on this item notes, parcels included in multiple Housing Elements trigger the allowance of ministerial approval for the site. This means that qualifying sites with projects that meet all objective standards would only need a Building Permit for development. No California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation would be required either. If sites have undergone substantial general plan or zoning changes, the number of times listed in the inventory can be counted following those changes. Many of the sites that were the subject of the December 2022 objective standards rezonings can fall into that category.

36.11 Considering the above information, staff and the City’s consultants have identified four sites in the Sites Inventory, as proposed, that would qualify for a ministerial process if they continue to be included. Three of those sites are small and only have Above Moderate Income (market rate) units assigned to them in the Sites Inventory. One site is larger and includes five Moderate Income units assigned to it. These sites can be viewed in Exhibit 2: Map of Ministerial and Above Moderate Income Sites. The Subcommittee recommended removing these sites from the Sites Inventory so that they would not automatically qualify for ministerial approval upon certification of the Housing Element, and staff currently intends to remove those sites, pending any alternative direction from the full Council.

The Subcommittee also recommended removing additional sites currently included in the draft Sites Inventory, so they could be saved for a future Housing Element without triggering ministerial review at that future time. The sites proposed to be removed are a portion of those that are only assigned Above Moderate Income units. As seen in Table G-2 below from the Sites Inventory, the City has an ample Above Moderate Income Units in the current draft of the Sites Inventory, so removing some should not affect the success of the Housing Element certification.

The Exhibit 2 map also includes all the sites in the draft Sites Inventory that have only Above Moderate Income units assigned to them. Those sites total approximately 980 Above Moderate Income Units.

The Subcommittee did not choose specific sites but recommended reducing the Above Moderate Income-only sites by two-thirds. A majority of these sites are small and located on the west side of the City along Mission Street. Leaving one-third of these Above Moderate Income sites in the inventory helps ensure that units included in the inventory are spread more evenly across the City.

Aside from the potential ministerial process that can occur should a site be included in multiple Sites Inventories, inclusion in the inventory does not affect the ability of a housing project to be developed or the associated process. For sites that have a general plan designation that allows for housing, said housing can be developed whether the site is included on the Sites Inventory or not. Many sites in the draft inventory could not develop as housing, and many other sites (that allow housing but are not included in the Sites Inventory) may develop as housing during the upcoming Housing Element cycle (2024 through 2031).

Sites Inventory Edits
When considering reductions to the Sites Inventory, it is important to keep in mind that several errors in the draft have been caught recently that will affect the number of units in each income category. The State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), who review and certify the Housing Element, recommend a unit buffer of at least 15-30% for each income category. As shown in Table G-2 from the Draft Housing Element, the City currently exceeds 30% in all categories. However, based on the edits to the Sites Inventory, the buffer percentage will lower somewhat.

Pending corrections to the draft Sites Inventory include: a reduction of approximately 100 mostly market rate units but also Lower Income and Moderate Income unit as well; correcting the income distribution of units in the project at 190 West Cliff Drive, which had excess units placed into the Low Income column; and removal of the project at 525 Ocean Street

36.12 (included in the table above as 65 Very Low / Low Income units), as housing development interest on that site has ceased. Staff are still carefully going through the Sites Inventory prior to the HCD submittal and will likely catch similar errors. Despite these edits, staff believes all income categories in the Sites Inventory will remain within or above the recommended HCD buffer.

Table G-2: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis
Strategies
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
TOTAL
6 th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736
City of Santa Cruz 691 174 1,865 2,730
UC Santa Cruz 868 217 0 1,085

1. Pipeline
Projects
Total 1,559 391 1,865 3,815
ADUs 349 175 59 583
Vacant Residential Land 5 11 138 154
Mission Street Corridor 93 71 705 869
Ocean Street Corridor 51 40 176 267
Soquel Avenue Corridor 80 62 353 495
Water Street Corridor 28 23 172 223
River Street Corridor 12 9 201 222
Church 55 25 28 108
Downtown 26 21 312 359
Downtown Expansion Plan
Area 115 115 916 1,145
Other 0 3 29 32

2. Projected
Housing
Total 814** 555** 3,089** 4,457**

3. Buffer TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL 2,373** 946** 4,954** 8,272** Buffer Over RHNA 67%** 33%** 208%** 121%**
**Unit counts in this table will be reduced prior to HCD submittal based on Site Inventory corrections and recommended changes outlined in this report.

Policy Plan Chapter Additions
Based on feedback received from Commissioners and the public at the Planning Commission meeting on April 20, 2023, a few additions to the Housing Element Policy Plan Chapter are recommended by staff. The first is greater discussion of Extremely Low Income (ELI) units.

These are units priced at 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or lower, all the way down to fully subsidized units at 0% AMI. The current draft of the Housing Element does include several policies regarding supportive housing (which is considered ELI housing), but there is no mention of ELI housing specifically even though it can exist outside of supportive housing. Staff anticipates reviewing the draft to add language on ELI housing to the respective policies and/or create a new policy supporting ELI housing.

Staff also recommend a closer review of the policies regarding preservation, renter protection, and displacement to consider any refinements to these policies. These areas of concern were brought up several times by Planning Commissioners and the public, so staff will look to see if the policies on these topics warrant revisions.

Finally, on a more general level, staff will still be reviewing and revising the proposed policies prior to the HCD submittal and will continue tweaking them to respond to public comments and to improve their specificity as needed. HCD wants policy objectives to be as discrete as possible,

36.13 and staff have received feedback from Kimley Horn, the project consultant, that several policies need to be massaged to be in line with HCD guidelines and expectations.

Next steps
Staff will receive additional comments from Council and the public at the April 25, 2023 Council meeting. This feedback will be considered as staff update the current draft and prepare the final Draft Housing Element Update to be submitted to HCD in early May. HCD will then have 90 days to review the draft and provide the City with its comments.

As the information contained in this report will be received by the City Council and public shortly before the Council meeting on this topic, staff will include key information from this supplemental memo in the presentation to Council. More information, including but not limited to information on Health in All Policies, environmental review, and fiscal impacts, is contained in the original staff report for the Housing Element.

Prepared By:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
EXHIBITS:

1. April 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Overview (below)

2. Map of Ministerial and Above Moderate Income Sites (below)

36.14 Exhibit 1: April 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Overview Overview of Public Comments:
 Sites Inventory Comments
o Questions about where pipeline projects are in the entitlement/development phases
o Desire to only count pipeline projects that are likely to happen o Reference to a probability of development formula used by Los Angeles in their Sites Inventory selection process and question about City’s identification process o Request to add Golf Club Drive properties into the inventory o Question about presence/absence of City-owned properties in the Sites Inventory  Policy Comments
o Support UCSC housing and do not litigate UCSC housing projects o Streamline building permit process for small projects o Commit to developing certain City properties with affordable housing o Facilitate larger housing units, like 2-3 bedroom units o Add more apartments in low density neighborhoods / high opportunity areas o Support increasing size of ADUs so that small spaces become more livable o Address/facilitate/encourage production of Extremely Low Income Units o Support first right of refusal and other renter protections, such as rent control and just cause eviction
o Increase the number of people helped through rental assistance programs o Support expansion of locations accepting Section 8 vouchers o Address State law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of Section 8 voucher use
Overview of Planning Commissioner Comments:
 Remove barriers to housing production
 Limit late changes at a public hearing that have the potential to sink a project  Consider additional findings for project denials
 Consider how to facilitate SB 9 projects (that allow up to four units on single-family properties)
 Support for ADUs, Junior ADUs, and removal of owner occupancy requirements  Explore whether City can incentivize ADU affordability requirements  Support for smaller units, as they relieve pressure on single family housing by offering more options than having many students occupy a single-family house  Remove barriers to/encourage Section 8 voucher acceptance  Increase transparency regarding project financing and what pencils out  Support developers and maximize affordability at the same time  Analyze outcomes of displacement and displacement policies  Appreciation for the outreach

36.15  Question about how the Sites Inventory overlays on the Council Districts map o Equitable distribution (based on various factors, like access to transit, proximity to jobs/amenities, adding units to high opportunity areas), not equal distribution o Similar analysis using most affluent areas could also be employed

36.16 Exhibit 2: Map of Ministerial and Above Moderate Income Sites

36.17 Policy Plan
Chapter 2

36.18 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-2
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy Plan
The provision of housing that fulfills the diverse needs of the community is a fundamental priority for the City. The Policy Plan provides a statement of the community’s goals, policies, and quantified objectives relative to housing production, rehabilitation, conservation, and assistance for all residents in Santa Cruz. This chapter builds upon the identified housing needs and evaluated constraints and resources to address housing needs in the community. To that end, this chapter is organized around three themes:
• Goals guiding efforts to address housing needs facing the City; • Policies addressing key housing topics and issues, followed by specific actions the City will implement to achieve the City’s goals; and,
• OQuantified objectives for housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation for the 2023-2031 planning period.

Housing Goals
Goal 1: Housing Production.

Facilitate housing production that meets the present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.

Goal 2: Affordable Housing.

Provide an increased and protected supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.

Goal 3: Special Needs Housing and Homelessness.

Provide accessible housing and supportive services that provide equal housing opportunities for special needs populations, including the unhoused and those at risk of homelessness.

Goal 4: Housing Assistance.

Provide increased opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents to rent or purchase homes.

Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality.

Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas while protecting residents from displacement.

Goal 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.

36.19 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-3
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Goal 7: Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship.

Fulfill the City’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries that takes into consideration the existing and potential impacts of sea level rise and climate change, particularly on underserved communities.

Housing Policies
Each Goal is briefly described in the sections below, followed by policies and objectives that would help to achieve that goal. While many objectives achieve more than one goal and policy, they are grouped by the primary policy and goal they would achieve. The policies and objectives are then grouped all together into a table. This table notes additional goals and policies that each objective supports and outline the type of action, timelines, and metrics by which to measure progress.

1. Housing Production
Persons and households of different ages, types, income levels, and lifestyles have a variety of housing needs and preferences. Moreover, housing needs evolve over time in response to changing life circumstances. Providing an adequate supply and diversity of housing accommodates changing housing needs of residents, promotes an inclusive community that welcomes all residents, and achieves larger social and equity goals in Santa Cruz.

Policy 1.1
Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations that encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.

Providing new housing to accommodate projected employment and population growth and to meet the needs of existing residents is a major objective of the City. To that end, the Housing Element identifies “adequate” sites to accommodate the City’s share of the region’s housing needs from 2023-2031. Adequate sites are those with sufficient development and density standards, water and sewer services, and adequate infrastructure.

Objectives:

1.1a. Adopt a certified housing element with adequate sites to meeting a range of housing needs. (Metric: December 2022)

1.1b. Maintain an inventory of available vacant and underutilized sites that can accommodate new housing, and post that inventory for the public to view. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

1.1c. Maintain a GIS website that provides mapping of high-quality transit corridors and transit stops to encourage developers to take advantage of additional development allowances when sites are near these areas. (Metric: ongoing)

36.20 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-4
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 1.2
Concentrate most new housing in the central core, along major commercial corridors, and on major opportunity sites consistent with the Land Use Element.

Recognizing the limited availability of land and the City’s commitment to preserve open space, the General Plan encourages a compact urban form. High density development, mixed uses, transitand pedestrian-oriented land uses, and other creative housing types are encouraged. To that end, the City’s Zoning Ordinance currently allows higher densities, reduced parking requirements, and higher building heights for residential projects in the Central Core and along major corridors.

Objectives:

1.2a. Adopt a program level EIR for the Downtown Expansion Project to facilitate housing development in the expansion area. (Metric: June 2024)

1.2b. Implement and maintain the City’s recently adopted Objective Standards project and its associated rezonings that provide more certainty and further encourage development along the corridors. (Metric: ongoing)

1.2c. Review the City’s Objective Standards approximately two years after adoption to determine if further changes are needed to ensure the standards provide the clarity and certainty of outcomes intended. (Metric: June 2025)

1.2d. Receive California Coastal Commission approval of the Objective Standards mixeduse rezonings within the Coastal Zone so that they align with the General Plan development standards. (Metric: by 2024)

1.2e. Adopt rezonings in the Ocean Street Area Plan so that they align with the General Plan development standards. (Metric: by end of 2024).

1.2f. Support a balance of jobs and housing land uses by only considering residential use in industrial land it if is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner. (Metric: ongoing)
Policy 1.3
Facilitate the production of residential units through design and compatibility review, use of objective development standards, and regulatory and/or financial incentives.

The City understands the importance of timely and transparent development review processes in facilitating housing development. It also seeks to use its recently approved objective development standards and another regulatory tools to promote the development of housing.

36.21 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-5
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:

1.3a. Implement a new permit software system to streamline and improve development review processes in permit tracking, electronic submittal, and electronic review of plans (Metric: by December 2024).

1.3b. Coordinate yearly meetings with the development community (at minimum) to consider process improvements and amendments to promote efficiency and predictability in the development review process and thus improve project feasibility. (Metric: annual)

1.3c. Present options to the Council for reduced parking requirements, shared parking allowances, and off-site parking allowances to further facilitate housing, with the ultimate goal to eliminate parking minimums citywide. (Metric: ongoing and elimination by January 2028) (AFFH)

1.3d. Conduct a fee review to determine if the current fee structure covers applicable City costs for projects of varying sizes and scopes. (Metric: by mid-2024)

1.3e. Present to Council options for the utilization of SB 10 allowances to increase residential density in transit rich areas. (Metric: by December 2025)

1.3f. Streamline and reduce costs of building plan check for residential projects of four or fewer units if the building plans have previously been submitted and approved by the City in the same Building Code cycle. (Metric: by December 2025) Policy 1.4
Facilitate alternative housing types that respond to Santa Cruz’s diverse population and housing needs, especially those for single-person households, low-income households, students, and special housing needs groups.

Santa Cruz faces the challenge of meeting the housing needs of residents, particularly given the needs of single-person households, low-income households, students, and special housing needs groups. With diminishing vacant land and a diversity of housing needs, alternative housing types will need to be built in a creative manner. New alternative housing types are being constructed within the City and opportunities for such development should be encouraged.

Objectives:

1.4a. Create and/or revise development standards for co-housing, housing cooperatives, live/work and other alternative housing types. (Metric: by end of 2029) (AFFH)

1.4b. Meetings with the development community to potential barriers to the development of alternative types of housing. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

1.4c. Encourage the State to recognized non-traditional types of housing units for RHNA purposes by providing feedback to HCD and State representatives. (Metric: ongoing)

36.22 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-6
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 1.5
Facilitate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can be an important source of affordable housing, provide a source of revenue to fixed-income households, and facilitate multi-generational living. The City has historically had and still maintains ADU standards that are more lenient than what State law mandates, and some recent State law changes have been influenced by standards that Santa Cruz put in place. Due to recent updates in State law and continued interest from the community, the City will continue to update development standards and zoning requirements to further facilitate ADU development.

Objectives:

1.5a. Maintain an inventory of ADU applications, location, affordability, and other important data to ensure adequate ADU development is occurring to meet the 6th cycle RHNA. (Metric: ongoing)

1.5b. Continue to implement the City’s ADU program, and communicate with ADU applicants to identify ways to modify the program in a manner that facilitates the production of ADUs. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

1.5c. Update the City’s ADU webpage with development standards, fees, processes, and incentives, such as development allowances that are more flexible than typical State or local requirements. Such incentives could include increases in square footage allowances and/or allowing multiple ADUs per parcel. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

1.5d. Provide streamlined processing and reduced plan check costs for ADU building plans that have been approved at another site within the City, while recognizing that various items, such as setbacks, utility connections, soil conditions, archeological resources, and other issues, will require applicants to submit site-specific information that will require the City’s review and associated fees. (Metric: by January 2024) (AFFH)

1.5e. Establish and implement a public awareness campaign for the construction of ADUs and available incentivesthrough diverse forms of media and outreach distribution. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

1.5f. Annually review ADU development progress and if unit development is less than projected, develop amendments to the City regulations to further facilitate ADU production. (Metric: annually) (AFFH)

1.5g. Consider amendments to the City’s ADU regulations regarding owner occupancy to provide greater flexibility to existing and future ADU developments. (Metric: May 2024) (AFFH)

36.23 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-7
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

1.5h. Annually survey ADU owners to receive information on types of rental and affordability levels to help ensure accurate Annual Progress Report accounting. (Metric:
annual)

1.5i. Expand programs and improve resources that facilitate legalization of unpermitted ADUs if they meet applicable building standards. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

1.5j. Continue to waive City permitting fees for low-income ADUs units that are deedrestricted for 55 years. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH) Policy 1.6
Use the City’s Planned Development Permit (PD) process to facilitate non-conforming development while also serving public objectives more fully than development permitted solely under conventional zoning.

The Planned Development Permit (PD) is a quasi-judicial technique to foster development plans that serve public objectives more fully than plans permitted solely under conventional zoning. In such cases, the City will consider modifications to: building setbacks, street standards, lot coverage, lot area, parking and loading, landscaping, open space, uses, and maximum height. The PD permit has been used successfully to facilitate a range of housing projects. To be eligible for a PD permit, however, the project must occupy a lot of at least 20,000 square feet in area and be approved by the City Council. The minimum lot size requirement could, in some cases, constrain the production of nontraditional housing on smaller infill lots. While the Planned Development process has largely been superseded by the use of density bonuses, it may provide development potential for smaller projects or other projects where a density bonus is not requested.

Objectives:

1.6a. Continue to consider modifications to building setbacks, street standards, lot coverage, lot area, parking and loading, landscaping, open space, uses, and maximum height through the PD permit process that facilitates housing development. (Metric:
ongoing)

1.6b. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow PD Permits on infill lots less than the current standard of 20,000 square feet in area. (Metric: by 2026).

Policy 1.7
Provide meaningful opportunities for public engagement with development proposals for new housing so the public can provide informed feedback on the proposal.

Meaningful and informed public participation helps ensure that proposals for new housing meet community expectations and are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Santa Cruz offers many venues for residents to learn about proposed projects and provide meaningful input.

36.24 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-8
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
An informed community is key to the success of the Housing Element’s goals and policies, as well as for the development of housing that addresses the community’s needs. The City will host community workshops to receive feedback from the community and educational meetings to provide details on City processes, development projects, and available resources and services.

Objectives:

1.7a. Maintain and implement the official Public Outreach Policy for Planning Projects Adopted by Council in 2018 and revised in 2019. (Metric: ongoing)

1.7b. Maintain a website and access to a public information counter to provide accurate and clear information to the public and development community about policies, projects, and the development review process. (Metric: ongoing)

1.7c. Provide educational materials such as webpages and brochures that provide information on key planning and housing issues and are updated over time. These include information on changes to planning processes, new legislation becoming effective, and new programs available to customers. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2. Affordable Housing
Affordable housing allows persons of all economic segments to live in the community, provides housing for the City’s workforce, allows the integration of different family sizes, income levels, and racial/ethnic groups, and furthers larger social goals. The City’s affordable housing policies encourage the production and preservation of affordable housing.

Policy 2.1
Enable mixed-income projects that encourage greater diversity within housing projects.

The City recognizes that mixed-income neighborhoods provide a variety of benefits to the City including a chance for residents to learn from others of different backgrounds and interests. This helps to broaden perspectives and deepen understanding of other people’s values and points of view, leading to more respect and understanding. The primary way the City promotes mixedincome housing development is through its inclusionary ordinance (which currently requires 20% of the base project units at 50% AMI for SRO projects and 80% AMI for all other residential development).

Objectives:

2.1a. Maintain and implement the City’s Inclusionary. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.1b. Review the Inclusionary Ordinance to determine if amendments are needed to ensure that the inclusionary requirements provide the maximum number of affordable units or deeper levels of affordability without being a barrier to housing development, while considering implications for how developers will use density bonus. Analysis will

36.25 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-9
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
evaluate affordability levels to incentivize deeper levels of affordable housing or more moderate income units depending on needs. (Metric: by end of 2026) (AFFH) Policy 2.2
Develop creative ways to facilitate more affordable housing development in the City.

The City recognizes that creative approaches are needed to facilitate additional affordable housing development. The City will utilize lobbyists and affordable housing advocates to promote affordable housing development and will seek to provide regulatory and/or financial incentives to facilitate affordable housing production, particularly in the case of affordable units not otherwise able to secure additional State and federal financial assistance.

Objectives:

2.2a. Study ways of providing affordable housing currently included, but not highly utilized in the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, such as allowing affordable units to be provided offsite or incentivizing land dedication in favor of units provided as part of a development project. (Metric: by end of 2026) (AFFH)

2.2b. Identify residential projects for City financial or regulatory incentives subject to City Council approval. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.2c. Explore additional funding mechanisms that can provide one-time, or more importantly, ongoing funding for affordable housing, such as an affordable housing bond measure. (Metric: ongoing & ballot measure by Nov. 2024) (AFFH)

2.2d. Direct City lobbyists to concentrate on state and federal legislation that would help fund affordable housing. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.2e. Continue to engage with affordable housing advocates during the creation of policy and during the development review process to help achieve successful affordable housing outcomes. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.2f. Utilize the City’s single-room occupancy and Flexible Density Unit regulations to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types, specifically smaller units, that address the needs of low- and extremely low-income households. (Metric: ongoing) AFFH

2.2g. Present Council with ordinance options that allow 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones. (Metric: by end of 2025) (AFFH)

36.26 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-10
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 2.3
Support the Density Bonus as a valuable tool for incentivizing the development of housing and the inclusion of affordable units in housing projects.

The Density Bonus Program continues to be a valuable tool, in tandem with the Affordable Housing Ordinance, to allow developers to build additional housing units which help subsidize the inclusion of affordable units in the project. The Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2018 and 2020 to comply with changes in State law; however, additional revisions are needed to fully reflect the state law allowances, except where the City's code further facilitates housing production.

The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance currently allows a developer to construct 20 percent more units than allowed under the Zoning Ordinance for projects that dedicate ten percent of units for lower income households, five percent for very low-income households, and/or for qualified senior housing developments with at least 35 units. The Ordinance includes the opportunity for developments of at least five units to utilize up to three incentives.

Government Code Section 65915 authorizes an applicant to receive two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower‐income households, at least 10 percent of the total units for very low‐income households, or at least 20 percent moderate‐ income households. It also allows an applicant to receive up to three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent of the total units for very low‐income households, or at least 30 percent for persons or families of moderate‐income households. Lastly, Government Code Section 65915 also allows projects proposing up to 50 percent additional density provided those projects produce the additional below market rate (BMR) units in the “base” portion of the project – unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35 percent.

Objectives:

2.3a. Amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to fully reflect State Density Bonus Law allowances, except where the City's code further facilitates housing production. (Metric:
by end of 2024).

2.3b. Continue implementation of the City and State Density Bonuslaws. (Metric: ongoing) Policy 2.4
Support Public-Private Partnerships that facilitate the development of affordable housing.

In today’s housing market, creative approaches and partnerships are required to finance and build affordable housing. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, Mercy Housing California, Mid-Peninsula Housing, South County Housing, Habitat for Humanity, For-the-Future Housing, Community Housing Land Trust, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, Inc., and other housing groups and agencies offer expertise in developing and managing affordable housing. In addition, the City has partnered with nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing to build

36.27 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-11
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
housing. The City has granted regulatory concessions (such as density bonuses), subsidized the replacement of infrastructure, modified development regulations, lowered development and impact fees, and provided direct assistance to such groups. Working with affordable housing developers enables the City to better provide high quality and affordable housing. The City’s Economic Development and Housing Department cultivates public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing.

Objectives:

2.4a. Coordinate with: the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, Mercy Housing California, Mid-Pen Housing, Habitat for Humanity, For-the-Future Housing, Community Housing Land Trust, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, Inc., and other housing groups and agencies offering expertise in developing and managing affordable housing. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.4b. Partner with nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable housing to build housing. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

2.4c. Acquire properties when possible as part of a public-private partnership to develop affordable housing or convert existing units into deed-restricted affordable units. (Metric:
ongoing & number of properties acquired or properties the city assists non-profits in acquiring) (AFFH)
Policy 2.5
Preserve at-risk affordable housing.

The City’s Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance governs noticing procedures for the conversion of at-risk affordable units and allows the City and qualified nonprofit housing organizations an opportunity to negotiate to purchase the project or extend the affordability restrictions. In addition, the City plays an active role in financially assisting at-risk projects in return for extended affordability controls on the projects.

Objectives:

2.5a. Work with interested agencies and community organizations to preserve at-risk units by monitoring their status, providing technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordability controls, and review tenant notification prior to project conversion. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

36.28 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-12
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 2.6
Provide water and sewer service priority to lower-income households.

Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted housing element, jurisdictions are responsible to immediately distribute a copy of the Housing Element to area water and sewer providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and service providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Additionally, water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households.

Objectives:

2.6a. Include projected water use for all housing defined in the Housing Element in any updates to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and continue to grant priority for service to proposed developments that includes housing units affordable to lower-income households. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

3. Special Needs and Homelessness
Santa Cruz is home to people with special housing needs that result from income level, family characteristics, disability, or other issues. These groups include, but are not limited to: seniors, families with children, people with disabilities, single-parent families, college students, farm workers, and people who are experiencing homelessness. Santa Cruz is committed to furthering a socially and economically integrated community and therefore is committed to providing a continuum of housing and supportive services to help address the diverse needs of residents.

Policy 3.1
Create housing for low-income families with children and persons with disabilities.

The Santa Cruz population of families with children has been shrinking in recent years and the housing need for this type of household can generally be met through the current development market. However, Santa Cruz recognizes the importance of a living environment conducive to lowincome families with children and is committed to the development of affordable and accessible family housing in the City, including projects that contain childcare facilities. In past years, the City has entered into development agreements for the Pacific Station South (59 VLI and 10 LI units), Pacific Station North (27 ELI and 28LI), and the library mixed-use project, with includes 124 units of housing affordable to low- and very low-income households and includes a childcare facility.

Additionally, the City provided financial assistance to the Water Street Apartments, a 41-unit, 100 percent affordable project with 8 units reserved for disabled persons with a preference for individuals who would benefit from developmental disability support services. The City will continue working with affordable housing developers and nonprofit organizations to provide for the needs of low-income families.

36.29 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-13
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:

3.1a. Work with interested agencies and community organizations to preserve at-risk units by monitoring their status, providing technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordability controls, and ensuring proper tenant notification prior to project conversion. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

3.1b. Include childcare opportunities in conjunction with affordable housing development when possible. (Metric: number of childcare facilities added). (AFFH)

3.1c. Continue to seek out funding and opportunities to acquire properties that to develop affordable housing units and/or provide support to low-income families and persons with disabilities. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

3.1d. Work with other agencies, community groups, and non-profits to develop housing for persons with disabilities and to publicize housing accessible to persons with disabilities. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)
Policy 3.2
Provide high quality care alternatives such as childcare centers and family daycare for children and youth that are available, affordable, and accessible to those persons who live or work in the City.

Santa Cruz recognizes that our children represent the future. In today’s market, the high cost of rental and ownership housing typically requires that all adult family members work. The availability of affordable care for children and youth is necessary to provide an environment conducive to healthy and safe development and to enable families to continue to live in Santa Cruz. The City is committed to making high quality care alternatives for children and youth available, affordable, and accessible to those persons who live or work in the City, including childcare centers and family daycare homes. The City recently implemented a childcare impact fee on development project to help fund childcare opportunities throughout the City. The City is also committed to planning affirmatively for childcare through land use, zoning, and permitting procedures. Recent Zoning Ordinance updates brought the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with State law by including family daycare homes as an allowed use in any district that allows residential uses.

Objectives:

3.2a. Continue to assist nonprofit and for-profit organizations that provide services to children, youth, and families with children. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

3.2b. Include childcare centers and facilities in new residential developments and employment centers. (Metric: ongoing)

3.2c. Use the funding collected through the City’s Childcare Impact Fee to facilitate provision of new childcare facilities in the City. (Metric: ongoing)

36.30 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-14
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 3.3
Implement the City’s Homelessness Response Action Plan and maintain the relationship with the Continuum of Care to support housing solutions for the homeless as well as a wide variety of supportive services.

Santa Cruz has the County’s largest number of persons experiencing homeless. More homeless services are provided in the City than anywhere else in the County. The City received State Homelessness Response funding in 2021 and approved a Homelessness Response Action Plan in March 2022 to prioritize and coordinate comprehensive actions that respond to homelessness. As a member of the Continuum of Care (CoC, called the Housing for Health Partnership), the City also coordinates with governmental, non-profit, and private sector partners to distribute local, state, and federal funding to assist people experiencing homelessness. The City plays an instrumental role in the CoC by supporting the continued operation of homeless services, funding the majority of the Continuum’s operations, and applying for grants on behalf of nonprofits.

In addition to offering shelter and services to the homeless, the City is committed to preventing homelessness by assisting at-risk populations, such as those with extremely low incomes, through emergency assistance and the development of stable, affordable housing. Santa Cruz also has a significant number of transitional and permanent supportive housing units for people with disabilities, psychiatric illness, HIV/AIDS, and substance problems; more transitional and supportive units are currently in the pipeline. The City also contracts with nonprofit organizations providing employment training, childcare, rental assistance, and other supportive services.

Objectives:

3.3a. Actively seek funding to implement the three-year action plan approved in 2022 and update the plan periodically to respond to changing needs. (Metric: ongoing)

3.3b. Increase homelessness response capacity through integrating citywide services and creating and maintaining a full-time team dedicated to homelessness response while coordinating with external partners to work collectively on homelessness response solutions for the City. (Metric: annual updates to Council) (AFFH)

3.3.c. Collect and share public data, systems, and metrics with the County and communitybased organizations. (Metric: ongoing)

3.3d. Develop annual targeted state and federal legislative asks related to homelessness response efforts and be a leader in the effort to build a statewide coalition of municipalities advocating for legislative changes and funding to support reducing homelessness. (Metric:
annual/ongoing) (AFFH)

3.3e. Work with partner agencies to deliver a vision for the Coral Street campus and navigation center and seek partnerships and funding to effectuate the vision. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

36.31 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-15
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

3.3f. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the parking requirements of AB 139. (Metric: by January of 2028) (AFFH)

3.3g. Continue to fund and partner with the County’s Continuum of Care to provide shelter services, and continue to encourage other jurisdictions’ similar funding, participation, and partnership with the County’s Continuum of Care and shelter service provision. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

3.3h. Provide information resources to help connect the homeless population with supportive services, and actively promote said resources through City Outreach staff who interact with people experiencing homelessness. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

3.3i. Take proactive steps to minimize environmental degradation caused by unsanctioned camps. (Metric: ongoing)

3.3j. Apply for grant funding to Ccreate a waste disposal program for recreational vehicle owners. (Metric: June of 2025)

3.3k. Partner with community groups for restoration of sensitive habitats affected by unsanctioned camps throughout the City. (Metric: ongoing)

3.3l. Work with partner agencies and advocate for expanded homelessness response services within the County and outside the City’s jurisdiction.

Policy 3.4
Provide as many permanent supportive housing and transitional housing options for residents as possible through funding and partnerships.

Santa Cruz has a large population requiring supportive living services to preserve and maintain equal housing opportunities and choice. This includes people with disabilities, formerly homeless people, persons recovering from substance abuse, persons living with chronic disabling conditions such as HIV/AIDS, and other special needs groups. "Supportive Living Housing Services" is a broad term that encompasses a range of community services and types of assistance. The concept goes beyond the traditional single-service delivery "supportive services" and seeks to enable individual special needs recipients to achieve a significantly greater quality of life and independence and to adapt as individual needs change over time. The City recognizes that permanent supportive housing can broadly service a variety of special needs groups. Whatever the level of service or setting required, the City remains committed to continue providing permanent supportive housing options for residents as funds are available.

Objectives:

3.4a. Continue supporting organizations in maintaining permanent supportive housing and providing assistance to special needs groups. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

36.32 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-16
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

3.4b. Locate permanent supportive housing in residential setting or other locations readily accessible to public amenities, public transit, shopping, and supportive services. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

3.4c. Amend the Zoning Ordinance in compliance with State law requirements for transitional and supportive housing. (Metric: end of 2026) (AFFH)

3.4d. Continue to facilitate 100 percent affordable supportive housing projects that comply with Government Code Section 65651 (AB 2162), and on a project-by-project basis, go beyond state law and establish qualifying projects above 50 units as by-right development. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)
Policy 3.5
Facilitate new student housing as well as housing for university faculty and staff.

Over the next 20 years, the University has committed to constructing additional housing pursuant to its Long-Range Development Plan (2021 LRDP) to provide housing for 100 percent of projected student growth of approximately 8,500 students for a total of 28,000 students by 2040. In addition, USCS has committed to provide new housing for approximately 25 percent of new faculty and staff, approximately 558 additional new housing units.

The City supports UCSC’s goal to provide housing opportunities commensurate with goals set forth in the LRDP. The City Council and Chancellor and City and University staff meet to collaborate on facilitating new student, faculty, and staff housing. Housing currently in process includes a new housing project, Student Housing West, with space for approximately 2,900 undergraduate and graduate students as well as 140 units for student families. An addition to Kresge College will also add 400 new student beds. These housing units are included in the prior LRDP (2005-2020) and are not included in the totals planned in the 2021 LRDP.

Objectives:

3.5a. Continue to collaborate with UCSC on ways to increase the supply of student, faculty and staff housing on the University campus. (Metric: ongoing)

3.5b. Support state legislation that would advance the housing goals of the community such as facilitating construction of new student housing and increasing funding for oncampus housing on the UCSC campus. (Metric: ongoing)

36.33 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-17
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 3.6
Provide community programming funding to support the special needs and homeless populations in finding housing and supportive services.

In recent years, the City has provided approximately $1 million each year to a variety of nonprofit human service and housing development organizations supporting numerous programs that assist homeless persons, very low- and low-income households, families with children, women, and others in finding housing and supportive services.

Objectives:

3.6a. Support City-led efforts or non-profit human service and housing development organizations to assist homeless persons, very-low- and low-income households, families with children, single-parent households, persons with disabilities, and others in finding housing and supportive services, including through directing funding such as HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to those causes. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)
Policy 3.7
Support agriculture and employee housing where applicable.

The California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5 and 17021.6 requires agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds.

Objectives:

3.7a. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 that requires agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit, in single-family residential zoning districts for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. (Metric: by end of 2026)

4. Housing Assistance
Rapid increases in rents in recent years have placed a disproportionate burden on and, in some cases, have displaced lower income residents. Due to rising housing prices, moderate income households (e.g., health care workers, public safety workers, teachers, and others) may leave

36.34 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-18
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Santa Cruz to seek affordable housing in neighboring cities. Providing housing assistance, where feasible, helps maintain an economically and socially balanced community.

Policy 4.1
Support the provision of rental assistance in the event of a household having insufficient funds for a security deposit or rent payment.

In recent years, rising rental costs mean that some households may have insufficient income for a security deposit and cannot secure an apartment. The City contracts with the County Housing Authority to assist low-to-moderate income households with the security deposit and last month’s rent. The security deposit is provided in the form of a grant to the tenant. With agreement of the landlord, the Housing Authority guarantees the last month’s rent as a Letter of Credit and the tenant pays 1/12 the amount each month over one year. The Housing Authority pays the shortfall if the tenant defaults. The City also funds, through Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc., an emergency rental assistance program to prevent the eviction of tenants or homeowners for a short transition period to allow tenants to stabilize their finances.

Objectives:

4.1a. Continue to contract with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz or other partners to assist low-to-moderate income households with the security deposit and last month’s rent and continue to fund a third-party, emergency rental assistance program to prevent eviction for a short transition period. (Metric: aim to assist at least 50 households through the planning cycle). (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)
Policy 4.2
Investigate and apply for various state, federal, and private sources to provide financing for the construction of new housing and the provision of supportive services.

Various State, federal, and private sources provide financing for the construction of new housing and provision of supportive services. CalHome Grants and other State and federal sources fund affordable ownership and rental housing, neighborhood revitalization efforts, special needs housing and supportive services, downtown revitalization, and a variety of other programs that address housing needs of communities across the state. Many of these programs benefit Santa Cruz residents and nonprofit organizations.

Objectives:

4.2a. Apply for CalHome grants and other state and federal sources in an effort to expand homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate income buyers through homebuyer assistance. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

36.35 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-19
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.2b. Support the continuation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to promote the development and preservation of affordable housing and to utilize as leverage for other sources of funding. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

5. Neighborhood Vitality
Quality of life is shaped, in part, by neighborhood conditions in Santa Cruz. As an older, established community, Santa Cruz requires a concerted effort to encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing and to promote sustainable, livable neighborhoods in the face of increasing density. In neighborhoods, a continued focus is needed on upgrading infrastructure, improving community facilities, and providing public services. City community development policies seek to balance the need for accommodating new housing, respecting neighborhood character, enhancing infrastructure and public services, and promoting vital residential neighborhoods all the while protecting existing households from displacement.

Policy 5.1
Provide Code Enforcement services to ensure that the character and quality of neighborhoods and housing is maintained.

Code enforcement is important to ensuring that the character and quality of neighborhoods and housing is maintained. The City’s Code Compliance Division inspects properties for compliance with State and local regulations governing building and property maintenance. If deficiencies are found, the property owner has a specified period of time to voluntarily correct the problem.

Should corrections not occur, the City can issue citations or initiate legal action. In situations where violations threaten the safety of tenants, property owners must provide up to four months of relocation assistance. However, the City seeks voluntary compliance through educating property owners and may refer property owners to programs for available financial and technical assistance.

Objectives:

5.1a. Continue to implement the City’s code enforcement program as a key method of maintaining the quality of neighborhoods and housing. (Metric: ongoing)

5.1b. Continue to proactively offer special code compliance assistance like free community clean-up and refuse disposal days in lower-income areas such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean and work with community groups in those areas to increase awareness of neighbors in those areas. (Metric: ongoing)
Policy 5.2

36.36 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-20
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Provide a rental housing inspection program that improves the quality of housing, neighborhood conditions, and health of residents.

Given the age of housing in Santa Cruz, some older homes may experience deferred maintenance or have substandard electrical, plumbing, or other systems. Many of these conditions may not be evident to residents or property owners. In order to improve the quality of housing, neighborhood conditions, and health of residents, the City benefits from a rental housing inspection program.

The Rental Inspection Program requires rental properties to undergo periodic inspections to ensure the prevention and correction of basic housing code violations.

Objectives:

5.2a. Continue to administer the City’s rental inspection program to ensure maintenance of a healthy and safe rental housing stock throughout the City. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

5.2b. Develop an expanded outreach program on the City’s rental inspection program and other Code Enforcement initiatives by working with other City departments, community groups, or non-profit organizations to reach people in need of help who are unaware of the program or its benefits. (Metric: by March of 2025, then ongoing) (AFFH) Policy 5.3
Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to low-income households when feasible.

The City of Santa Cruz recently partnered with the City of Watsonville and received a shared grant for rehabilitation and electric conversion work on 25 low-income homes in each city. The Unified Housing Rehabilitation Program (UHRP) also provides Federally funded loans to low-income homeowners or rental property owners with low-income tenants to upgrade housing or eliminate substandard or unsafe housing conditions. Eligible work includes repairs to electrical and plumbing systems, seismic upgrades to foundations, painting, replacement of roofing, energy conservation devices, and modifications to improve accessibility for people with disabilities. Depending on the funding sources, the loan terms require the unit to remain affordable to low-income households for up to 15 years after rehabilitation.

Objectives:

5.3a. Explore local, state, and federal partnerships to fund loans to low-income homeowners or rental property owners with low-income tenants to upgrade housing or eliminate substandard or unsafe housing conditions. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

5.3b. In addition to low-income household assistance, seek out housing habilitation program funding that would particularly increase energy efficiency within a project or assist low-income seniors to age in place. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

36.37 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-21
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 5.4
Provide additional support to the as a historically underserved area, such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean.

Certain areas of Santa Cruz, such as Beach Flats and Lower Ocean, are home to large a proportion of the City’s low- to moderate-income and minority households and experience low homeownership and higher prevalence of overcrowding and substandard living conditions. The City will continue to seek ways to better support these areas.

Objectives:

5.4a. Provide targeted outreach to the South of Laurel, Beach Flats, and Lower Ocean neighborhoods for policy initiatives and projects that may affect those areas. (Metric:
ongoing) (AFFH)

5.4b. Annually host a neighborhood meeting to gather input and feedback from the community and relevant organizations and agencies regarding resident’s needs. (Metric:
annual) (AFFH)

5.4c. Continue to utilize HUD Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) designation to target support for the NRSA services such as tutoring, food pantry, translation services, referral services, rent assistance, and more to the community in those areas. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)
Policy 5.5
Protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources, and access to affordable units.

Displacement may occur for a variety of reasons, including rising housing costs and gentrification (a result of changing urban areas attracting wealthier households and displacing existing, lower income households). The City has identified one census tract (downtown neighborhoods) currently experiencing displacement of very-low-income households and another census tract with a population at risk of displacement (the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean neighborhoods). In comparison to the City as a whole, both tracts report higher rates of renter households, Latinx population, households with limited English-speaking ability, and lower household incomes.

Therefore, residents of these two areas are considered more at-risk of displacement.

To preserve existing neighborhoods and protect susceptible populations while improving infrastructure, resources, and access to affordable units, the City is implementing antidisplacement strategies such as relocation assistance if a large rent increase creates the need for tenants to move, relocation assistance if tenants must move due to unsafe conditions, funding for emergency rental assistance, and codes protecting tenants from landlord retaliation. These programs or similar ones should be maintained, and potential ways to expand tenant protections should be explored.

36.38 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-22
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Objectives:

5.5a. Maintain and continue to implement the City’s affordable housing preservation strategies, such as negotiating agreements to extend the length of affordable housing deed restrictions that are set to expire. (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)

5.5b. In relation to HUD’s upcoming Equity Plan requirements, evaluate the effectiveness of existing anti-displacement strategies and tools and present to Council best practices and recommendations for additional anti-displacement policies and programs such as additional anti-retaliation policies and a revised first right of refusal to tenants displaced due to development. (Metric: by September of 2025) (AFFH)

5.5c. Establish a program that promotes the rental protections that are in effect and utilize a variety of means to distribute that information widely with a focus on getting that information disseminated in lower-income areas. (Metric: by June of 2024, then ongoing) (AFFH)

36.39 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-23
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

6. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunities based on protected classes, as defined by State law. The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.

Policy 6.1
The City shall mitigate displacement risks and seek to remove barriers to housing choice vouchers.

The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County administers the Housing Choice Voucher (previously known a Section 8 vouchers) rental assistance program for Santa Cruz. This program extends rental subsidies to very low-income households and offers the tenant a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent (FMR) established by the Housing Authority and 30 percent of the tenant’s income. The voucher is accepted on a voluntary basis by the landlord. A tenant may choose housing that costs more than the FMR and pay the extra rent above the standard. In recent years, the volatility of the local rental market, as related to the FMR, has presented challenges in ensuring that the voucher program remains attractive to landlords.

Objectives:

6.1a. Annually conduct outreach to developers and community organizations to identify development opportunities and incentives for the creation of affordable housing units. (Metric: annual; # of projects with affordable housing units facilitated through partnerships)

6.1b. Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and property owners with the goal to continue funding that provides incentives to rent to vouchers holders. (Metric: ongoing)

6.1c. Coordinate with the County Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz annually to identify and provide support for pursuing funding opportunities for voucher holder and low-income tenant assistance programs, including, but not limited to, assistance with security deposits and moving expenses. (Metric: annual, funding identified)

6.1d. Provide support for Housing Authority applying for the HUD “Moving to Work” designation that will expand opportunities for financial assistance and vouchers. (Metric:
by end of 2025)

6.1e. Support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruzin adopting more vouchers for special needs groups such as persons with disabilities or larger, lower-income families with children. (Metric: by 2027)

36.40 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-24
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

6.1f. Develop a proactive approach to inform renters about various resources that may be available to them, such as rental and security deposit assistance programs, with a focus on providing information in low-income areas like Beach Flats and Lower Ocean. (Metric: by March of 2025, then ongoing)
Policy 6.2
The City shall support affordable housing and the siting of new housing that furthers fair housing.

Santa Cruz recognizes that the location of affordable housing can help counter historic patterns of segregation in land use. The City will look for ways to expand housing opportunities in single-family zoning and areas of higher resources based on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and HCD data.

Objectives:

6.2a. Continue to implement the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance to create mixed-income developments throughout the City. (Metric: ongoing & Goal: At least 200 affordable units through the inclusionary ordinance)

6.2b. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures. (Metric: May of 2024)

6.2c. Present Council with options to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones by amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of larger homes to multiple units when doing so would currently exceed limitations on types of housing allowed and would currently exceed density limits. (Metric: by end of 2029)

6.2d. Expand the use of Flexible Density Units into more zoning districts in conjunction with an SB 10 overlay district to provide opportunities for more small units in the City, particularly in higher resource areas. (Metric: by end of 2026)

6.2e. Develop a local ordinance to implement SB 9 consistent with State law. (Metric: by 2027)

6.2f. Recruit residents from areas of concentrated poverty and from underrepresented groups to serve on boards, committees, task forces, and other local government decisionmaking or recommending bodies with the goal to identify two new members to participate. (Metric: by end of January 2025 and ongoing)

36.41 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-25
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Policy 6.3
Support the development and marketing of accessible housing, senior housing, and tenant services.

The City can utilize its many communication channels to affirmatively market and promote housing opportunities throughout the city and support equal access to government-assisted housing and services.

Objectives:

6.3a. Work with landlords, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, and the regional center for developmental services to create a list of properties suitable and available for persons with disabilities and seniors. (Metric: by June 2027, make the list available to partnering organizations and publicly available on City website.)

6.3b. Continue to fund bi-lingual tenant legal counseling services, and continue to update and provide understandable, bi-lingual information about most readily used local housing laws, such as the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance or the Relocation Assistance Ordinance. (Metric: ongoing)

6.3c. Apply for the AARP Age-Friendly Community designation and assemble a standing committee of City staff to coordinate projects and operations that integrate the AgeFriendly Community program pillars. (Metric: by December of 2024, then ongoing) Policy 6.4
Consider displacement risks due to new development, economic trends, and the environment, and provide community investments to support fair housing.

Santa Cruz understands that new development can increase the risk of displacement, especially for sensitive populations. It is also known that sensitive populations are more likely to live in areas susceptible to displacement due to climate change and other environmental factors and the City can work towards mitigating those displacement risks.

Objectives:

6.4a. Identify and pursue funding sources for areas in need and continue to conduct targeted investments in areas of highest need focused on improving community assets such as recreational facilities and programs, social service programs, parks, streets, active transportation, and infrastructure. (Metric: ongoing)

6.4b. Amend the City’s Relocation Ordinance to include Right of First Refusal requirements for existing, low-income households who are vacated from their housing situation due to redevelopment. (Metric: by September of 2025)

36.42 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-26
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

6.4c. Maintain, implement, and update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and Climate Adaptation Plan (CAdP) on the required schedule to, among other things, reduce the likelihood of displacement associated with flooding, sea level rise, and wildfire. (Metric:
ongoing)

7. Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship
The City of Santa Cruz remains committed to protecting the beauty and integrity of its natural environment, particularly in light of anticipated population growth, consumption levels, climate change, technology impacts, tourism, and other pressures associated with urban life. Balancing environmental preservation with fulfilling the City’s housing needs and the provision of infrastructure and services remains a priority.

Santa Cruz residents benefit from a range of natural features, including hillsides, rivers and streams, the ocean and coastline, air quality, and forestland. These resources enhance the quality of life for Santa Cruz residents and make Santa Cruz a popular tourist destination. The City remains committed to protecting the beauty and integrity of its natural environment, particularly in light of anticipated impacts noted above. Climate adaptation strategies and adaptive design approaches to building in climate hazard zones are also needed. Balancing environmental preservation with housing goals and the provision of infrastructure and services remains a priority.

Policy 7.1
Maintain and implement the City’s Securing Our Water Future policy.

Santa Cruz produces and delivers to nearly 100,000 water customers inside the City of Santa Cruz and in adjacent areas outside the City limits in unincorporated Santa Cruz County and the City of Capitola. The City’s major source of supply is the San Lorenzo River and other surface water sources, which have also been identified as a sensitive habitat for coho salmon and steelhead trout. The City has reached agreements with state and federal regulators to provide the instream flows needed to support and enhance recovery of threatened steelhead trout and endangered coho salmon. These flow commitments have been integrated into the City’s water supply augmentation planning efforts that are designed to improve the reliability of Santa Cruz’s water supply with a special focus on increasing supply resiliency in the face of longer and more frequent droughts.

Santa Cruz water service customers have achieved and are sustaining an unprecedented level of water use efficiency that is supported by a strong community ethic focused on sustainability. The City has an ongoing commitment to encourage the continuation of efficient water use practices and behaviors and is supporting this goal through investments in advanced metering technology that provides customers with real-time access to their water use and supports virtually instantaneous leak detection. As new housing stock is developed, local per capita water usage is expected to continue to decease through the increased proportion of multi-family housing and through the use of higher efficiency fixtures and appliances as compared to existing housing stock.

Recent work to update the City’s water supply reliability policy recognizes the importance of the community’s ongoing commitment to water use efficiency, but also acknowledges that, by itself,

36.43 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-27
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
water conservation cannot resolve the system’s long-standing water supply reliability problem.

This long-standing problem is, in fact, becoming even more challenging in the face of climate change that is increasing the variability of the City’s water supply resources.

The City’s newly adopted Securing Our Water Future policy has supply augmentation as its focus because, given the already highly efficient level of water use by most customers, demand reduction through mandatory restrictions or water rationing are no longer relatively low cost and simple to implement solutions. The policy establishes a supply reliability goal of both planning for climate change conditions and meeting customer water demand given the assumption of ongoing water use efficiency. Growth in water demand has only a marginal impact on overall water system demand and is not even a minor driver of the need to increase supply. Climate driven water supply variability, in which there is an increase in the frequency and length of back-to-back droughts, is making the system’s long-standing vulnerability to droughts a critical issue for action.

Objectives:

7.1a. Pursue a water supply augmentation strategy consistent with the adopted City water policy and plans. (Metric: ongoing)

7.1b. Plan for water supply reliability to meet customer water demand under climate change conditions and maintain a continuing emphasis on reinforcing current levels of customer water use efficiency. (Metric: ongoing)

7.1c. Ensure that adequate solid waste, stormwater and sewer services continue to be available for residents and businesses. (Metric: ongoing) Policy 7.2
Support green building principles and building decarbonization efforts to reduce and respond to global warming and impact of climate change.

Santa Cruz is committed to protecting the environment and promoting a sustainable community.

To fulfill this commitment, the City implements a Green Building Ordinance that requires construction projects to attain a minimum number of “green building points” to be able to obtain building permits. The program works in conjunction with other programs to include best management practices, deconstruction and reuse of materials, erosion control and grading ordinances, energy and waste management, and application to residential, commercial, and industrial projects.

The City also has an ordinance that prohibits natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The ordinance reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves indoor air quality and safety.

Consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City is conducting outreach and research as the initial step in developing building decarbonization and electrification ordinance language for existing buildings. Additionally, the City implements the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which was established to meet the AB 32 goals of establishing a comprehensive

36.44 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-28
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020. The State has recently released an updated 2022 CalGreen Code. The City will amend its Municipal Code and the Green Building Ordinance where necessary to complement the 2022 CalGreen standards.

The City developed its Green Building Program in 2005, prior to the adoption of CalGreen. As CalGreen, which was published several years after the City’s program, has evolved, many of the City’s standards have been incorporated into CalGreen. As the City’s program incorporates a point system that is calculated through a checklist and CalGreen also requires an additional checklist, the City is considering changes that might achieve the same sustainability goals while reducing the time and paperwork burden on the developer.

Objectives:

7.2a. Expand upon current efforts to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings, including seeking incentives for the associated construction and remodeling. (Metric: ongoing)

7.2b. Continue to support green building principles, the new building natural gas prohibition, and the existing building decarbonization and electrification efforts and consider adjustments to the programs as needed to respond to external conditions and meet the City’s latest sustainability goals. (Metric: ongoing)

7.2c. Amend the Municipal Code and Green Building Ordinance to compliment the 2022 CalGreen Code. (Metric: by end of 2025)

7.2d. Use the Climate Action Plan’s Development Compliance Checklist as part of review of all new housing projects to support relevant Climate Action Plan actions and help ensure compliance. (Metric: ongoing)
Policy 7.3
Support transit-oriented development and non-motorized transportation.

Santa Cruz’s desire to preserve environmental features, protect sensitive habitats, and shape future urban growth led to the establishment of a greenbelt surrounding the community.

Residents recognized as a quid pro quo that future housing growth would be accommodated within a dense urban core and along major transportation corridors. The City supports connections between land uses and transportation networks (including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) to minimize automotive dependence. In addition, the State has recently passed a number of laws encouraging denser residential development close to high-quality transportation. To that end, the City is processing high-density multifamily projects in the Downtown Core, single-room occupancy units and mixed-use developments along major corridors, and other similar projects. Zoning Ordinance incentives allow for higher density residential structures in these areas because of their proximity to transportation, public services, and facilities.

Objectives:

36.45 Chapter 2: Policy Plan 2-29
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

7.3a. Facilitate the development of transit-oriented development through General Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards. (Metric: ongoing)

7.3b. Collaborate with City departments and other local agencies to link land uses and transportation systems and promote bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. (Metric: ongoing)
Policy 7.4
Ensure the safety of existing and future households as climate emergencies such as floods and wildfires occur more frequently due to climate change.

The City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan was adopted in June 2012 and amended in October 2019 to include the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan per SB 379. Senate Bill 1035 (SB 1035) requires the City to revise its Hazards, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan to identify flood hazards and address the risk of fire hazards in certain lands upon each revision of the Housing Element.

Additionally, Santa Cruz experienced severe damage and displacement events due to floods and fires during the 5th planning cycle – including the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire and 2023 bomb cyclone flooding event. As such, the City recognizes the dire need to ensure the safety of existing and future households as climate emergencies occur more often due to climate change. In 2019, the City adopted a Wildland-Urban Interface ordinance to ensure that new building projects adjacent to wildlands, where fire danger is higher than in the City core, address fire safety issues in building construction.

Objectives:

7.4a. Publish and maintain an emergency resources page on the City’s website. (Metric: by January 2026 and ongoing)

7.4b. Use a variety of means such as social media, text messages, targeted reverse 911, City and other websites, press releases, and email lists to provide emergency information quickly. (Metric: ongoing)

7.4c. Update and implement Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan, both of which identify programs, resources, and policy decisions for areas at risk of flooding and fires. (Metric: June 2024)

36.46 DRAFT
Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix G

36.47 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-2
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
1 Introduction
The Housing Element is required by Government Code Section 65583.2 to include an inventory of parcels (or sites) suitable for residential development through the 6th planning cycle to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation for all income levels, as shown in Table G-1.

Table G-1: City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle RHNA by Income Category Income Category Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) RHNA Very Low-Income 0-50% AMI 859
Low-Income 51-80% AMI 562
Moderate-Income 81-120% AMI 709
Above Moderate-Income >120% AMI 1,606
TOTAL RHNA 3,736
*The Santa Cruz County AMI is $119,300 for a family of four, according to 2022 HCD Income Limits.

Figure G-1 illustrates the sites identified to meet the RHNA shown in Table G-1 above and their projected capacity. These include projects currently in the pipeline, vacant residentially zoned sites, underutilized sites, and infill opportunities – as shown in Table G-2. These sites have been identified throughout the City to provide future development opportunities equitably in areas with high accessibility to resources, public transportation, and employment.

Table G-2: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis
Strategies
Very
Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
TOTAL
6 th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736

1. Pipeline
Projects
City of Santa Cruz 691 174 1,865 2,730
UC Santa Cruz 868 217 0 1,085
Total 1,559 391 1,865 3,815

2. Projected
Housing
ADUs 349 175 59 583
Vacant Residential Land 5 11 138 154
Mission Street Corridor 93 71 705 869
Ocean Street Corridor 51 40 176 267
Soquel Avenue Corridor 80 62 353 495
Water Street Corridor 28 23 172 223
River Street Corridor 12 9 201 222
Church 55 25 28 108
Downtown 26 21 312 359
Downtown Expansion Plan
Area 115 115 916 1,145
Other 0 3 29 32
Total 814 555 3,089 4,457

3. Buffer TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL 2,373 946 4,954 8,272
Buffer Over RHNA 67% 33% 208% 121%

36.48 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-3
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-1: 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory – All Sites

36.49 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-4
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

1.1 General Plan Consistency
The City’s 2030 General Plan was adopted in 2012 and amended in October 2019.

In 2022, the City Council approved the “Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing” project that, among other things, created six new Mixed-Use Zoning Districts affecting 387 parcels and encourages new and higher-density housing development. These rezonings created consistency between the 2030 General Plan and the Zoning Code.

1.2 Zoning Consistency
Sites identified as part of this 6th Cycle Housing Element inventory are consistent with the City’s existing zoning. No rezoning is proposed.

1.3 CEQA Streamlining
The 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted in April 2012, evaluated the impacts of 3,350 new residential units constructed through 2030. CEQA review for the 6th Cycle Housing Element will be included with the project review and adoption.

Generally, projects found to be consistent with site zoning and objective design standards are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.4 Transportation
Future residential development in Santa Cruz is supported by current and future planned transportation programs, services, and improvements. The City will continue to work with Santa Cruz Metro to ensure that new residential development is adequately served.

1.5 Infrastructure and Public Services Capacity
Sites identified as part of this Housing Sites Inventory are located in areas that are adequately served by existing and planned infrastructure and public services. The Policy Plan establishes requirements for adequate infrastructure and public services for developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households.

As described in Appendix E, the Santa Cruz Water Department is responsible for ensuring an adequate water supply to accommodate future water demand requirements to accommodate additional housing development to meet the City’s RHNA requirements through the 6th planning cycle.

36.50 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-5
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
2 Development Analysis

2.1 Development Trends and Demand
Residential development has been very strong during the 5th cycle. The City was successfully able to accommodate well over the entirety of its 5th cycle RHNA with a variety of housing types at all income categories, including a number of SRO developments and supportive housing projects.

Table G-3 below provides examples of the types of residential developments that have been approved and developed in the past few years.

Santa Cruz is a fairly built-out city with limited vacant land opportunities outside of the UC Santa Cruz campus and environmentally constrained areas. As a coastal community with sensitive environmental areas, development is generally restricted to areas that are currently developed.

Following development and community interest, the City is focusing its 6th cycle candidate sites in areas that are considered underutilized, aging, and in need of rehabilitation. Additionally, General Plan Policy LU3.7.1 “[allows] and [encourages] development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.” The goal is to continue providing property owners and developers with additional opportunities to maximize use of their properties and create rehabilitated corridors that provide current and future residents with a variety of housing options in walking distance to commercial uses, community resources, employment, and access to transportation. Table G-3 shows that existing uses on recently developed sites did not create constraints to development. The prior uses included:
 Aging commercial uses with revitalization intentions;  Existing, aging housing units on underutilized parcels;  Vacant parking lot land;
 A religious institution; and
 Various other uses such as a historic commercial building and an existing homeless shelter.

The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance has been utilized in the development of affordable units and will continue to play an important part in future developments. Density bonus incentives have also resulted in the development of additional units beyond what the City’s density limits establish.

Additional details on both the Inclusionary Ordinance and the density bonus ordinance are provided in Appendix E.

As it relates to the development of ADUs, the City has seen a steady increase year-over-year and continues to receive inquiries and applications. A survey conducted by the City found that approximately 90 percent of ADUs are currently rented to lower income households. More than half the units in the survey responses are utilized by property-owner family members, at affordable rates or for no rent. More analysis on projected ADU development is provided in the Section 3.3 of this Appendix.

36.51 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-6
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table G-3: Residential Development Trends (2019-2022)
Project Acreage Density Units Prior Use New Development Type 350 Ocean St 1.59

50.93 (x 1.275
density bonus)
63 N/A 100% very low-income
mixed-use
130 Center St 1.19 195.8 233 Commercial
Mixed-use SRO units
which received 50%
density bonus under AB
2345.
119 Coral St 0.77 157 120 Transitional
Housing Supportive housing
111 Errett Cir 1.62 9.88 16 Church 12 single-family parcels. 150 Felker St 0.412
23 (x 1.5 density
bonus)
32 Commercial
Apartment building with
4 low-income units
through density bonus
727 Hanover St 0.476 23 11 Single-family home
Market-rate multi-family
rental development with
2 inclusionary units
314 Jessie St 0.43 116.28 50
14 apartments
with accessory
structures
100% affordable multifamily development with
supportive services
Pacific Front
Mixed-Use
Development

1.44 142.36 205 Commercial Mixed-use residential
and commercial
Pacific Station
South 2.14 32.7 70 Commercial
100% affordable
residential mixed-use
development with
commercial and medical
offices on City-owned
land
Front St/
Riverfront
Project

1.04 168.7 175 Commercial
Mixed-use development
with 20 affordable units
and commercial uses,
which received a 32%
density bonus.
831 Water St 0.91
Max FAR: 1.75
(x density
bonus = 2.625)
145 Commercial
Mixed-use SB 35
streamlining project
with 50% affordable
residential and
commercial
190 West Cliff 2.18 30 89 Parking lot
Mixed-use development
with 10 affordable units
and commercial uses,
which received a 35%
density bonus
532 Center St 65 Parking lot
Affordable housing
project with 16 very lowincome units and 48
low-income unit

36.52 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-7
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

2.2 Larger and Smaller Sites
AB 1397 identifies parcels measuring between half an acre and ten acres to be appropriate for the development of affordable housing units. Parcels that are less than half an acre (“smaller”) or above ten acres (“larger”) are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless past performance shows a tendency for affordable housing projects to develop on those types of sites.

The City has identified sites that are considered smaller due to consolidation interest for neighboring properties, as well as larger sites with parcelization potential. As Table G-3 and G-5 show, the City has a history of development interest in both smaller and larger parcels.

2.3 Replacement Units
The inventory of sites includes parcels with existing residential units. As Table G-3 shows, the City has a history of redeveloping and consolidating sites with existing housing units for the development of high density residential projects and mixed-use projects.

A program is included in the Housing Plan to ensure demolished residential units occupied by lower income households, or households subject to affordability requirements within the last five years, are replaced in compliance with Government Code Section 65915.

2.4 Review Process
The City is committed to ensuring development occurs appropriately and efficiently. Table G-4 provides the review times for residential projects with affordable units. The average time between the submission of a complete application and the completion of entitlements is approximately 4.5 months. The average time between submission of an application and the granting of building permits is approximately a year and a half. It takes an average of a year for projects to receive Certificates of Occupancy. The review process timeframe is not considered a constraint to development, especially when considering that the above does not take into account the amount of time it takes for an applicant to respond to an incomplete determination, nor does it take into account the amount of time it takes an applicant to prepare detailed working drawings for the building permit submittal.

Further evidence that the City’s review and permitting process is not a constraint on development is the large development interest and number of projects proposed throughout the entire community. Market-rate and affordable housing developers alike have shown great interest in developing in Santa Cruz and working with the City to create projects that address the needs of the community.

36.53 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-8
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table G-4: Review Process Timeframe Trends (2018-2022)
Project Units Application
Submitted
Entitlement
Complete
Building
Permits
Certificate of
Occupancy Review Time Affordability
Completed Entitlement
335 Golf Club Dr 10 5/1/2018 7/18/18 - - 2.5 months  1 deed-restricted L 190 West Cliff Dr 89 4/7/19 10/22/19 - - 6 months  8 deed-restricted VL  2 deed-restricted L
111 Errett Cir 16 2/12/20 5/12/20 - - 3 months  2 deed-restricted L 916 Seabright Ave 9 4/2/2020 9/22/20 - - 5.5 months  1 deed-restricted L 508 Front St 175 7/19/2019 1/12/21 - - 18 months  15 deed-restricted VL  5 deed-restricted L
902 Pacific Ave 95 5/6/21 6/2/21 - - 1 month
 56 deed-restricted VL
(27 extremely low)
 37 deed-restricted L
727 Hanover St 11 6/22/21 7/7/21 - - 2 weeks  2 deed-restricted L 831 Water St 140 8/17/21 12/16/21 - - 4 months  55 deed-restricted L 130 Center St 233 9/14/21 1/25/22 - - 4 months  35 deed-restricted VL 415 Natural
Bridges Dr 20 12/15/21 4/26/22 - - 4 months  20 deed-restricted VL 314 Jessie St 50 11/15/21 1/2/22 - - 6 weeks  48 deed-restricted VL Average Review Time 4.5 months
Building Permits Granted
801 River St 7 9/16/19 11/6/19 1/27/21 - 27 months  1 deed-restricted L 100 Laurel St 205 10/26/18 12/11/18 5/18/21 - 31 months  Market-rate only 448 May Ave 4 5/22/20 6/23/20 7/8/21 - 19 months  Market-rate only 532 Center St 65 N/A 5/12/22 8/24/22 - 3 months*  16 deed-restricted VL  48 deed-restricted L
818 Pacific Ave 70 11/13/20 12/2/20 6/28/22 - 19 months  59 deed-restricted VL  10 deed-restricted L
202 Frederick St 7 4/11/22 N/A 7/21/22 - 3 months  1 deed-restricted L  2 L
Average Review Time 17 months
Certificates of Occupancy Granted
555 Pacific Ave 94 N/A N/A N/A 4/26/18 N/A  14 deed-restricted M 630 Water St 20 N/A N/A 1/18/18 1/7/20 24 months*
 11 deed-restricted L
 6 L
 2 M
708 Water St 41 N/A N/A 4/9/18 4/23/20 24 months*  11 deed-restricted VL  29 deed-restricted L
1547 Pacific Ave 79 N/A N/A 8/3/20 Approx. 3 yrs.  12 deed-restricted L 711 Pacific Ave 7 N/A N/A 8/13/19 9/21/20 19 months  7 L 350 Ocean St 63 N/A N/A 4/22/19 2/16/22 34 months*  62 deed-restricted VL Average Review Time 27.4 months
Notes:

VL – Very Low-Income
L – Low-Income
M – Moderate-Income
*Based on earliest available date

36.54 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-9
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
3 Existing Zoning Capacity

3.1 Projects in the Pipeline
“Projects in the pipeline” are defined as projects that have recently received Planning approval and/or have submitted for Building permits that have not yet been approved and issued. As shown in Table G-5 and Figure G-2, there are currently 54 projects in the pipeline that will provide additional residential units that will contribute towards meeting the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA requirements. These projects range from single-family to large large-scale mixed-use developments with multi-family units. Many of these projects include affordable units as a component of the development, through deed restrictions as a result of the Inclusionary Ordinance, and/or as part of a density bonus application.

In addition to projects currently in the City’s review pipeline as shown in Table G-5, the UC Board of Regents have granted project approval and financing of approximately $146 million for the development of the 3,000-bed Student Housing West project. This project includes the following two developments with projected units offered at approximately 40 to 48 percent below market rate:
 Hager: 140 two-bedroom apartments for students with families and a childcare center.

Construction is set to begin in early 2024, with families moving into the units as early as fall 2025.
 Heller: Six new buildings that will provide housing for about 2,700 undergraduate students and 220 graduate students. These buildings will include approximately 780 apartmentstyle units and approximately 165 units for graduate student housing – resulting in about 945 new housing units. This phase is anticipated to be completed in fall 2028.

Per HCD requirements, apartment-style housing provided by UCSC can be counted toward the RHNA; however, dorm-style housing cannot. The total anticipated units from these two developments are 1,085, with 920 apartment-style units. As the units will be offered at approximately 40 to 48 percent below market rate, the City assumes 80 percent will be affordable to lower income households and 20 percent will be affordable to moderate income households.

These projects are not included in Table G-5 as they will be developed outside the City’s purview.

Table G-5: Pipeline Projects
Address Density Net Dwelling
Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate Affordability
1800 Soquel 84 8 8 68 Lower
135 Vista Branciforte 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
508 Front 175 20 0 155 Lower
515 Soquel 42 0 4 38 Moderate
908 Ocean 26 386 38 38 310 Lower
915 Water 46 104 10 10 84 Lower
119 Lincoln 124 12 12 100 Lower
902 Third 28.02 32 3 3 26 Lower
1013 Pacific 17 1 1 15 Lower
1024 Soquel 17 1 1 15 Lower

36.55 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-10
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table G-5: Pipeline Projects
Address Density Net Dwelling
Units Lower Moderate Above Moderate Affordability
109 S Rapetta 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
111 Errett 12 0 0 12 Above Mod.
1129 Soquel 46 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
1133 East Cliff 18.02 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
118 Ortalon 8.22 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
119 Coral 120 119 0 1 Lower
122 Benito 46 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
126 Eucalyptus 8.22 13 0 2 11 Moderate
130 Center 233 35 0 198 Lower
135 Gharkey 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
137 Pryce 28.02 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
140 Fairland 8.22 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
1459 High 8.22 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
150 Felker 28.02 32 4 0 28 Lower
1811 Mission St 25 2 2 21 Lower
190 West Cliff 89 89 10 0 Lower
1930 Ocean Street Ext 8.22 32 0 0 32 Above Mod.
2035 N Pacific 26 2 2 22 Lower
2120 Delaware 161 16 16 129 Lower
218 Seabright 18.02 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
236 Mora 28.02 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
247 High 28.02 6 0 0 6 Above Mod.
352 Market 18.02 4 0 0 4 Above Mod.
409 Linden 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
415 Linden 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
415 Natural Bridges 18.02 20 0 20 0 Moderate
415 Windsor 18.02 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
446 La Fonda 8.22 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
501 Cedar 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
530 Front 276 27 27 222 Lower
600 Encinal 0.82 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
624 Isbel 8.22 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
716 Monterey 8.22 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
719 Darwin 28.02 5 0 0 5 Above Mod.
726 San Juan 8.22 2 0 0 2 Above Mod.
727 Hanover St 28.02 11 2 0 9 Lower
742 N Branciforte 1 0 0 1 Above Mod.
831 Water St 46 140 55 0 85 Lower
900 High 8.22 40 0 0 40 Above Mod.
902 Pacific 128 126 0 2 Lower
912 Western 8.22 3 0 0 3 Above Mod.
916 Seabright 18.02 6 0 0 6 Above Mod.
1130 Mission St 59 5 5 49 Lower
525 Ocean St 56 56 0 0 Lower
332 Union St 5 0 0 5 Above Mod.
162 Hagemann Ave 7 0 0 7 Above Mod.
801 River 7 7 0 0 Lower

36.56 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-11
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-2: Pipeline Projects

36.57 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-12
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

3.2 Downtown Expansion Plan Area
As shown in Figure G-3, the Downtown Expansion Plan Area includes approximately 29 acres south of Laurel Street in Downtown Santa Cruz. The Downtown Plan will be expanded to include this area and changes will include:
 Additional affordable and market-rate housing in the downtown  Public amenities including parks, public plazas, and pedestrian improvements  Improved connection to the San Lorenzo River and Beach area  New economic opportunities for local businesses and employees  Coordination with the Santa Cruz Warriors to construct a new permanent arena The SOLA District currently contains a mix of commercial and residential land uses and is generally underdeveloped. Existing uses include: the temporary Kaiser Permanente Arena, various commercial retail uses including restaurants and bars, multi-family housing, and visitor-serving motels and hotels. The City is partnering with the Santa Cruz Warriors, property owners, and the community in the development of the Plan, which is scheduled for adoption by June of 2024.

As currently envisioned, the Plan would rezone the SOLA District to allow for the creation of 1,200 new affordable and market-rate units. Additional affordable and market-rate units will be added through density bonuses and the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, providing a total of approximately 1,600 total units. City Council direction is to provide 20 percent of the total 1,600 units as affordable. For the purpose of the Housing Element, only the existing capacity is accounted for – totaling 1,145 potential units.

36.58 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-13
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-3: Downtown Expansion Plan Area

36.59 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-14
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

3.3 Accessory Dwelling Units
Throughout the 5th Cycle, the City of Santa Cruz has been an award-winning leader in promoting and permitting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in the City. This includes efforts to incentivize ADUs, waiving permitting fees for deed-restricted lowincome units, legalizing unpermitted units, and a streamlined review process. These efforts, in addition to State mandates, are anticipated to further increase ADU production.

HCD has supported a strategy for estimating future development of ADUs based on the average number of ADUs from past performance (2018 to 2023). As shown in Table G-6, the City has over tripled ADU production between 2018 and 2023. Based on this past performance, it is anticipated an additional 583 ADUs can be accommodated during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Table G-6: Past Performance and Projection of ADU Development Year ADU Permitted and Projected
2018 35
2019 46
2020 67
2021 80
2022 99
2023 119*
Annual Projection 73 ADUs per year
2024 73
2025 73
2026 73
2027 73
2028 73
2029 73
2030 73
2031 73
Projection Period Total 583
* Based on the number of applications submitted and reported in the 2022 APR.

3.3.1 Affordability Assumptions
The City assumed a percentage of ADUs will be affordable based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, which consists of the following steps:

1. Calculate maximum rent limits for RHNA income categories for one-person and two person households by county.

2. Survey rents for ADUs in the ABAG region.

3. Use survey data to determine proportion of ADUs within each income category.

4. Create assumptions of how many persons will occupy each ADU, finalize proportions.

Using ABAG’s method, Table G-7 shows estimated ADU projections for Santa Cruz by income category.

36.60 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-15
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Table G-7: ADU Projections by Income Category
Income Category Percentage Units
Low- and Very Low-Income 60% 349 units
Moderate-Income 30% 175 units
Above Moderate-Income 10% 58 units
Total 583 units
The City has performed informal, voluntary surveys of rental pricing for ADUs annually for the past three years. These surveys have indicated that a significant percentage of ADUs are provided at no or low cost to family members or friends and that in general, the majority of ADUs are rented at low-income rents or below. For the 2022 survey, 89 percent of respondents who provided rental cost data were charging at or below the low income rent for their units.

3.4 Vacant Residential Land
The City has an estimated 15 parcels that are currently vacant and residentially zoned. These parcels have a density range from one to 30 dwelling units per acre. Conservatively, a redevelopment capacity of 80 percent was applied to each of the sites; however, given the development trends described in this Appendix, it is possible that actual capacity could be greater.

Affordability assumptions include 35 percent of potential units for lower income units and 15 percent for moderate income units.

36.61 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-16
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-4: Vacant Residential Land

36.62 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-17
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
4 Infill Opportunity Areas
As part of the sites inventory analysis, the City has identified a number of “Opportunity Areas” to accommodate additional units based on existing zoning. This includes permitted residential redevelopment in the following areas:
 Transportation Corridors
 Downtown and River Street Sites
 Church Properties
 Other Sites
Table G-8 provides a summary of the residential unit and affordability capacity for each Opportunity Area category, which are discussed below.

Table G-8: Infill Opportunity Areas
Site Areas Buildable
Acreage
Assumed
Density
Realistic
Capacity
Net Units
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Units
Transportation
Corridors 23.12 Varies 100% 25% 252 units
20%
196 units
55%
1,406 units 1,854
Downtown and River
Street 10.53 60/ 111 80% 25% 38 units
20%
30 units
55%
513 units 581
Church Properties 14.59 10/ 20 50% 75%
55 units
20%
25 units
5%
28 units 108
Other Sites 18.12 5 30% 25%
0 units
20%
3 units
55%
29 units 32
TOTAL 66.36 - - 424 317 2,116 2,575

4.1 Transportation Corridor Opportunity Sites
In 2022, the City Council approved the “Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing” project that, among other things, created six new Mixed-Use Zoning Districts affecting 387 parcels and encourages new and higher-density housing development. These rezonings also created consistency between the 2030 General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

These mixed-use areas are in close proximity to commercial uses, community resources, and public transportation; namely, along the Ocean Street, Mission Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue corridors.

These corridors were analyzed previously by the City as part of their effort to make the development intensities between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistent subsequent to the City’s adoption of the updated General Plan in 2012. The initial effort to correct this discrepancy was known as the Corridors Plan. This work was paused in 2017 and then stopped by the City Council in August of 2019 due to concern over the level of housing intensity included in the adopted General Plan. The City’s adoption of the Objective Development Standards in 2022 created six new mixed-use zoning districts, thereby addressing the development intensity inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

Further review of these corridors was done as part of this Housing Element update to identify additional underutilized properties that have the most potential to redevelop during the 6th Cycle.

36.63 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-18
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
These properties were screened based on a number of criteria. First, using assessor’s data from the County of Santa Cruz, commercial, surface parking, and vacant parcels were identified as “underutilized” where the land value exceeded improvement value. Parcels were further screened based have one or more of the following factors; 1) a review of aerial and street view imagery to identify successful business unlikely to be redeveloped in the 6th Cycle, 2) ownership patterns, 3) expressed developer interest, 4) recent development trends along each corridor, and 5) City planning staff knowledge.

During the Objective Standards project in 2020, Strategic Economics studied six projects 1 submitted to the City and determined that the average unit size was a gross 860 square feet. The mix included 33 percent studios, 49 percent one-bedrooms units, 16 percent two-bedroom units, and two percent three-bedroom units. These findings show the typical development standard is 1000 sf per unit gross and that Santa Cruz attracts lower bedroom counts and smaller unit sizes in projects. This assessment has been applied to development areas that use Floor Area Ratios (FAR).

For example, in mixed-use corridors where the most common FAR is 2.75, the density would be 136 dwelling units per acre minus the ground-floor commercial component. As such, Table G-9 identifies about 23 acres with existing capacity to produce 1,854 additional units. The development capacity is assumed at 100 percent as the assumed density is already lowered to consider the commercial components, as established above.

The locations of these sites are shown in Figures G-8 through Figure G-11. A brief summary of each corridor is provided below.

Table G-9: Corridor Opportunity Sites
Corridors Buildable
Acreage FAR Assumed Density*
Realistic
Capacity
Net Units
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Mission Street 12.72 1.75 71 100% 93 71 705 869
Ocean Street 3.85 1.75 71 100% 51 40 176 267
Soquel Avenue 4.52 2.75 111 100% 80 62 353 495
Water Street 2.02 2.75 111 100% 28 23 172 223
TOTAL 23.12 Varies 100% 252 196 1,406 1,854
*Based off the FAR and considering an average unit size of 860 square feet and a lot coverage of 80 percent. 1 350 Ocean Street, 418 Pennsylvania Avenue, 908 Ocean Street, 1024 Soquel Avenue, 1800 Soquel Avenue, and 2415 Mission Street

36.64 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-19
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.1.1 Mission Street Corridor
The Mission Street Corridor is the primary arterial corridor on the “West Side.” This corridor supports a high level of traffic as the primary access north up the Pacific Coast (Highway 1), the UCSC campus, and a number of residential neighborhoods. A number of high density residential and mixed-use developments have been proposed along and near Mission Street over the past several years. These include:
 1130 Mission Street: This SB 330 pre-application review consists of the demolition of two existing commercial buildings on two parcels zoned C-C for the construction of 42,849 square feet of commercial space with 59 SROs above. The project would include a request for density bonus waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and FAR.  1811 and 1815 Mission Street: The project includes the demolition of two single-family units for the construction of a three-story, 27 SRO development with ground floor commercial on two parcels in the C-C zoning district.

The City has identified 12.72 acres along the Mission Street Corridor with the potential to accommodate 869 new residential units.

36.65 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-20
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-8: Mission Street In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.66 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-21
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.1.2 Ocean Street Corridor
Ocean Street is a primary north-south arterial and is the primary access route for visitors arriving from Highway 17, particularly in the summer months. This corridor is characterized by a mix of commercial uses that includes hotels and motels, restaurants, convenience services, and gas stations. The Santa Cruz County Government Center which includes government services and the County courthouse, is located on Ocean Street.

In 2014, the City adopted the Ocean Street Area Plan. The Plan seeks to revitalize the Ocean Street corridor as a vibrant gateway to Santa Cruz and includes policy guidance, development standards and design guidelines to realize this goal.

The Ocean Street Plan has helped stimulate economic and real estate development over the past ten years which is expected to continue into the future. Significant planned projects include:
 350 Ocean Street: This project was recently completed and included the demolition of existing commercial uses and construction of a mixed-use development comprised of ground floor commercial space and 63 affordable housing units. The project received a density bonus to increase the base density from 30 dwelling units per acre to 43.75 dwelling units per acre.
 908 Ocean Street: This pending project proposes the demolition of commercial and residential buildings (12 units), the combination of 20 parcels, and the construction of a mixed-use development with 354 units and 8,860 square feet of commercial space. The project would include a request for a density bonus from a base density of 262 units.  701 Ocean Street: This site is located on a portion of the County of Santa Cruz Government Center. This is based on the County’s Long Range Facilities Plan (2020) which recommends excising 4.5 acres for private development along the Ocean Street frontage as part of a large site redevelopment plan.

The City has identified 3.85 acres along the Ocean Street Corridor with the potential to accommodate 267 new residential units.

36.67 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-22
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-9: Ocean Street In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.68 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-23
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.1.3 Soquel Avenue Corridor
The Soquel Avenue Corridor is an important east-west arterial corridor that is predominantly made of up single-story commercial buildings and some multi-story mixed- uses. This corridor has experienced significant redevelopment interest over the past few years. Recent significant project applications include:
 515 Soquel Avenue: This project proposes to demolish the existing structures and construct three new buildings, including a five-story, mixed-use building; a five-story residential building; and a three-story residential building consisting of 43 residential units and 1,166 square feet of commercial space.
 1129 Soquel Avenue: This approved project proposes to construct a 5,420 square feet mixed-use building with two apartment units.
 1800 Soquel Avenue: This project proposes to construct a four-story mixed-use project consisting of 1,497 square feet of ground level commercial space, and 84 residential units.

The City has identified 4.52 acres along the Soquel Avenue Corridor with the potential to accommodate 495 new residential units.

36.69 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-24
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-10: Soquel Avenue In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.70 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-25
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.1.4 Water Street Corridor
Water Street is another east-west corridor that extends from Ocean Street to Soquel Avenue.

Predominant land uses include one-story commercial. There are a number of used car lots and some vacant parcels. Recent significant project applications include:
 915 Water Street: This recently approved project proposes the demolition of existing commercial and residential buildings and the construction a four-story, 74,290 square feet, mixed-use building with 1,079 square feet of commercial space and 105 SRO's. The project includes a request for a 50 percent Density Bonus to allow for 50 density bonus units (105 total) and incentives/concessions and waivers to FAR, Height, and Setbacks, in exchange for providing 14 very low-income units.
 831 Water Street: This recently approved SB 35 project consists of a mixed-use building with 140 residential units and 4,336 square feet of ground floor commercial space. Two units will be set aside as Manager Units. Of the remaining 138 units, 50 percent (69 units) will be deed-restricted affordable units with rents formulated to qualify for those earning 80 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI).

The City has identified 2.02 acres along the Water Street Corridor with the potential to accommodate 223 new residential units.

36.71 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-26
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-11: Water Street In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.72 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-27
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.2 Downtown and River Street Opportunity Sites
In addition to the pipeline projects and the Downtown Plan Expansion project described above, additional underutilized sites have been identified in the downtown and on River Street to the north. These sites can be characterized as aging commercial uses where the land value is greater than the improvements and therefore have a greater likelihood of being developed in the near future. Some of these sites are also included due to past development activity, ownership patterns, and expressed owner/developer interest. A number of these parcels could be consolidated to allow for more economically viable residential and mixed-use development projects.

Table G-8 identifies a future capacity on these about 10 acres of underutilized parcels as detailed below:
 Downtown Sites: Assumed density of 60 dwelling units per acre with a development capacity of 80 percent. The 2020 amended Downtown Plan allows for upper floor residential developments with up to 60 units as principally permitted uses. Development history and interest in the downtown area shows a strong interest in residential development over other uses such as commercial. As such, the development capacity of 80 percent was deemed appropriate.
 River Street Sites: Assumed density of 111 dwelling units per acre with a density capacity of 80 percent.

The locations of these sites are shown in Figure G-6 and Figure G-7.

36.73 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-28
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-6: Downtown In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.74 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-29
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-7: River Street In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.75 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-30
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.3 Church Properties Opportunity Sites
Throughout the State, there has been increased interest in the redevelopment of religious institutions to include affordable housing units, primarily on underutilized open space and uncovered parking lots. Religious institutions in close proximity to single-family neighborhoods have zoning that allows residential uses at lower densities. Recent examples in the City where residential development has occurred on church properties include:
 Calvary Episcopal Church (530 Center Street): Currently under construction (March 2023), the Calvary Episcopal Church is transforming of the surface parking lot adjacent to the Church into a mixed-use development with 65 dwelling units and 3,400 square feet ground-floor retail and leasing space. The project includes 16 very low-income units, 48 low-income units, with one manager’s unit considered to be above moderate.  111 Errett Circle: Identified as a Pipeline project, the project was approved with two alternative designs to subdivide a 1.62 acre property zoned R-1 into either 1) 12 singlefamily lots or 2) ten single-family parcels and six condominium units. The application includes demolition of the existing church. The applicant has submitted a Final Map application that reflects the 12 single-family lot option.  900 High Street: Identified as a Pipeline project, the project proposes to divide the church parcel, currently zoned R-1-10, into two separate lots to construct a 40-unit (4 low- and 5 very low-income units), four-story apartment building. The application includes a Density Bonus request with requested concessions related to building height and number of stories.

As shown in Figure G-5, the City has conservatively identified four church properties with the potential to accommodate 108 units through existing zoning. The income category breakdown of these units is shown in Table G-8. The development capacity is limited to 50 percent of the total property area to account for the existing primary religious and parking uses.

The City recognizes that the exact parcels identified may or may not be developed, but has made a reasonable assumption that, consistent with past trends, over the next 8-year 6th Cycle, some additional church properties will be developed with affordable housing units.

36.76 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-31
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-5: Church Properties Opportunity Sites

36.77 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-32
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update

4.4 Other In-fill Opportunity Sites
In addition to the seven opportunity areas listed above, the City has identified a number of other sites throughout the City with potential and interest for residential development. As shown in Table G-10, these sites include:
 Seven properties along River Street and north of Highway 1 currently owned by the City and Caltrans.
 Three properties along Golf Club Drive with development interest.  Swift Street School/Natural Bridges Elementary which has property owner interest in redeveloping the site for residential.
 Developer interest for townhomes on a parcel on San Lorenzo Boulevard.  Property owner interest in developing multi-family units on a property along Broadway.

The locations of these Other In-fill Opportunity Sites are shown on Figure G-12.

Table G-10: Other In-fill Opportunity Sites
Areas Buildable
Acreage
Assumed
Density
Realistic
Capacity
Net Units
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate Total
River Street 3.87 5 30% 0 0 3 3
Golf Club Dr. 9.75 5 30% 0 2 10 12
Swift St. School 4.08 5 30% 0 1 5 6
San Lorenzo Blvd. 0.15 5 30% 0 0 3 3
Broadway 0.27 5 30% 0 0 8 8
TOTAL 18.12 5 30% 0 3 29 32

36.78 DRAFT
Appendix G: Housing Sites Inventory G-33
Santa Cruz Housing Element Update
Figure G-12: Other In-fill Opportunity Sites

36.79 On June 14, 2022, City Council directed staff to analyze and consider ten policies or actions for inclusion in the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The policies and actions are listed below in italics followed by information on how those policies and actions are being addressed in the draft Housing Element update. 1) Develop policies and action items that support Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing by seeking to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.

Policy directions can include: prioritizing rezoning in higher resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods; housing replacement programs/tenant protections for redevelopment of rental housing projects; homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups. Consider citywide tools and outreach strategies, including engagement of underserved communities, to help address disproportionate housing needs as well as direct and indirect displacement risks.

One of the seven goals of the Housing Element Update is to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

The goal states: “The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice.”
Under the AFFH goal, there are four policies as listed below.

Policy 6.1: The City shall mitigate displacement risks and seek to remove barriers to housing choice vouchers.

Policy 6.2: The City shall support affordable housing and the siting of new housing that furthers fair housing.

Policy 6.3: Support the development and marketing of accessible housing, senior housing, and tenant services.

Policy 6.4: Consider displacement risks due to new development, economic trends, and the environment, and provide community investments to support fair housing.

These policies each have multiple objectives for the City to achieve in the coming Housing Element cycle.

Several objectives are listed below that specifically meet the policy options listed in the Council direction.

6.2b. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures.

6.2c. Present Council with options to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones by amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of larger homes to multiple units when doing so would currently exceed limitations on types of housing allowed and would currently exceed density limits.

6.2d. Expand the use of Flexible Density Units into more zoning districts in conjunction with an SB 10 overlay district to provide opportunities for more small units in the City, particularly in higher resource areas.

36.80 6.3a. Work with landlords, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, and the regional center for developmental services to create a list of properties suitable and available for persons with disabilities and seniors.

6.3b. Continue to fund bi-lingual tenant legal counseling services, and continue to update and provide understandable, bi-lingual information about most readily used local housing laws, such as the City’s Large Rent Increase Ordinance or the Relocation Assistance Ordinance.

6.4a. Identify and pursue funding sources for areas in need and continue to conduct targeted investments in areas of highest need focused on improving community assets such as recreational facilities and programs, social service programs, parks, streets, active transportation, and infrastructure.

6.4b. Amend the City’s Relocation Ordinance to include Right of First Refusal requirements for existing, low-income households who are vacated from their housing situation due to redevelopment.

6.4c. Maintain, implement, and update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and Climate Adaptation Plan (CAdP) on the required schedule to, among other things, reduce the likelihood of displacement associated with flooding, sea level rise, and wildfire.

There are many other objectives throughout the draft Housing Element policy chapter that overlap with AFFH goals. These objectives are highlighted with an “(AFFH)” tag listed after an objective’s metric information.
2) Explore creative approaches to incentivizing higher density residential development and/or smaller units, within the same or slightly larger building volume, such as expanding locations that allow Flexible Density Units or creating a citywide average unit size density ordinance like that of the City of Santa Barbara.
3) Evaluate possible locations where additional residential capacity, development height, and/or density maximums could potentially be increased, including but not limited to exploring the use of SB 10 legislation that allows the City to change the General Plan and Zoning of properties to accommodate up to 10 units, regardless of property size, and without triggering California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, so long as the property is located in a transit-rich area or is an urban infill site as defined by the State of California (Government Code: 65913.5). Include Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing objectives in the event that residential capacity increases are being evaluated.

The Draft Housing Element Update includes objectives that support Council direction items #2 and #3.

There is some overlap as these objectives were combined to meeting multiple policies. These objectives are listed under the AFFH section because they meet those policies as well. Single-family zoning has a history of exclusion so policies and objectives seeking to densify or provide a greater variety of housing options in single family zoning satisfy AFFH objectives.

1.3e. Present to Council options for the utilization of SB 10 allowances to increase residential density in transit rich areas.

36.81 6.2b. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures.

6.2c. Present Council with options to expand housing opportunities in single-family zones by amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of larger homes to multiple units when doing so would currently exceed limitations on types of housing allowed and would currently exceed density limits.

6.2d. Expand the use of Flexible Density Units into more zoning districts in conjunction with an SB 10 overlay district to provide opportunities for more small units in the City, particularly in higher resource areas.
4) Consider evaluation of site inventory capacities that exceed the RHNA amount. A small excess capacity could serve as a buffer that allows the Housing Element to still be certified, even if HCD does not approve of certain site capacities identified in the update. Such additional capacity could also give the City a greater chance of meeting its RHNA targets during the Housing Element Cycle.

The sites inventory in this draft Housing Element Update includes capacities that exceed the RHNA amount by a considerable margin. The sites inventory exceeds the Very Low and Low-income category by 67%, the Moderate-income category by 33%, and the Above Moderate-income category by 208%.

HCD recommends a 15-30% buffer so the Sites Inventory goes above and beyond this recommendation. 5) Consider allowing 100% affordable residential development to be considered a “byright” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed.

Two objectives listed below satisfy this Council direction.

2.2g. Present Council with ordinance options that allow 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones.”

3.4d. Continue to facilitate 100 percent affordable supportive housing projects that comply with Government Code Section 65651 (AB 2162), and on a project-by-project basis, go beyond state law and establish qualifying projects above 50 units as by-right development. 6) Evaluate whether alternative inclusionary approaches may produce more affordable housing or deeper levels of affordability. Options to consider could include alternative inclusionary percentages based on differing levels of affordability or incentivizing land dedication versus provision of units on-site.

Following this evaluation, consider whether changes to the inclusionary regulations should be proposed.

Objective 2.1b satisfies this direction:

2.1b. Review the Inclusionary Ordinance to determine if amendments are needed to ensure that the inclusionary requirements provide the maximum number of affordable units or deeper levels of affordability without being a barrier to housing development, while considering

36.82 implications for how developers will use density bonus. Analysis will evaluate affordability levels to incentivize deeper levels of affordable housing or more moderate income units depending on needs.
7) Consider policy changes, such as updates to square footage or development standards, which can incentivize and promote Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production, including creative approaches that go beyond minimum state requirements, and evaluate implications of whether the maximum allowable square footage for an ADU could be allocated to multiple ADUs rather than one single ADU. Consider mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element.

Several objectives in the draft Housing Element Update satisfy this direction.

1.5c. Update the City’s ADU webpage with development standards, fees, processes, and incentives, such as development allowances that are more flexible than typical State or local requirements. Such incentives could include increases in square footage allowances and/or allowing multiple ADUs per parcel.

1.5f. Annually review ADU development progress and if unit development is less than projected, develop amendments to the City regulations to further facilitate ADU production.

1.5g. Consider amendments to the City’s ADU regulations regarding owner occupancy to provide greater flexibility to existing and future ADU developments.

6.2b. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures.
8) Consider reducing other barriers to development such as: reduction of parking minimums; reduction of impact fees; delaying the collection of impact fees until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to reduce financial impacts on new housing and make the units cheaper by not asking the developer to carry impact fee charges or debt throughout the construction phase.

1.3c. Present options to the Council for reduced parking requirements, shared parking allowances, and off-site parking allowances to further facilitate housing, with the ultimate goal to eliminate parking minimums citywide.

1.3d. Conduct a fee review to determine if the current fee structure covers applicable City costs for projects of varying sizes and scopes
9) In the event that rezoning for additional housing capacity is required as part of the Housing Element process, only consider residential use in industrial land if it is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner.

No rezoning is required as part of the Housing Element update process. The only rezoning included in the Housing Element update is the Downtown Plan Expansion project which is going through a separate rezoning and CEQA process. The preservation of industrial lands is still supported in the City’s 2030 General Plan and is reflected in the draft Housing Element objectives.

36.83 1.2f. Support a balance of jobs and housing land uses by only considering residential use in industrial land it if is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner.
10) Expeditiously perform any necessary rezoning after Housing Element certification.

The Downtown Plan Expansion project is scheduled for completion mid-2024. Staff will continue to work towards meeting that anticipated date. Other than that project, no rezonings are included in the Draft Housing Element sites inventory.

36.84 Draft Housing Element Update - Objectives Timeline

3 36.85

3 36.86

3 36.87
Several changes were made to the Draft Housing Element Appendix G – Housing Sites Inventory section since the release of the Public Review Draft on March 24. The revised Sites Inventory document is included in the Council Agenda Packet, but given the nature of the changes, it is easier to describe the edits in this separate document rather than try to show them in track changes. Below are brief explanations of these changes for readers to understand where and why the changes to the Sites Inventory were made.

Sites Inventory Organization
Table G-2 in the Public Review Draft organized the sites into two categories: Existing Zoning Capacity and Infill Opportunity Area. This was confusing because some sites could be counted towards both.

Instead, the revised Sites Inventory document clearly organizes the housing units into two distinct categories: (1) Pipeline Projects, and (2) Projected Housing. Pipeline projects represent units that have already been applied for or entitled by the City. The Projected Housing section is where the City is making a reasonable assumption that a given number of units could develop in the Housing Element cycle. This includes projections of accessory dwelling units built, development on vacant land, and infill development along corridors, certain church sites, and the downtown area. While there is some uncertainty in whether the sites will develop, the goal of this section is to provide the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with evidence to support the projection assumptions, such as site underutilization characteristics, past performance of the surrounding area, and similar development in the pipeline.

In the Public Review Draft, the Objective Standards Mixed-Use area was a separate line item for units, but the units included in that category overlapped with various corridor areas. In the updated Sites Inventory, the Objective Standards Mixed-Use area was removed, and its units were added to the appropriate corridor areas instead for clarity. As part of this change, a few site density assumptions listed in Sites Inventory were also revised to reflect the correct corridor density assumptions.

The Downtown Plan Expansion and its unit calculations were also discussed differently in the Public Review Draft. In that draft, the Downtown Plan Expansion was listed as a rezoning project, and while the total number of units was unknown, 1,200 units were estimated for the projection. Given the Downtown Plan Expansion is still in the planning stages and the rezoning has not taken place yet, it is easier for the sake of review by HCD to only count the base unit capacity that already exists in the expansion area. Through the existing standards, development of test fits, and market analyses, the base unit count for the expansion area is calculated at 1,145 units. The unit total in Table G-2 was revised to that amount and discussion of the project being a rezoning effort has been removed. The City still fully intends to move forward with the Downtown Plan Expansion, but because HCD appreciates more certainty in the Sites Inventory, staff proposes this more conservative approach to counting the Downtown Plan Expansion unit potential. Finally, the Public Review Draft did not have the individual sites within the Downtown Plan Expansion area broken out individually in the Sites Inventory table. Each site will be properly included as part of the Sites Inventory table submitted to HCD.

Sites Removed/Added
The existing library and surrounding parcels were accidentally omitted from the Public Review Draft and staff intended to put the sites back into the Sites Inventory. However, the Housing Element Subcommittee ultimately wished to keep the existing library off the Sites Inventory and instead

36.88 suggested that the City’s Lot 7 be added into the Sites Inventory as a reasonable swap. While both City properties could see housing development in the Housing Element cycle, Lot 7 was considered the better option to put into the Sites Inventory so that direction is reflected in the Sites Inventory revisions.

The sites on Golf Club Drive were removed because there is interest from the City in doing an area plan for these sites. While Golf Club Drive remains an exciting opportunity site for housing, the timeline for redevelopment of this area is unknown so it was removed from the inventory. Similarly, the Antonelli Pond site was removed from the Sites Inventory because Coastal Commission has expressed concerns about the potential development on the site and a future project would require a Local Coastal Program Amendment. Given that and the presence of sensitives species on the site, the timing of housing development happening on that site in the next eight years is unknown. Finally, the County Building site on Ocean Street was also removed. While County has previously expressed interest in developing this site with housing, there is uncertainty in whether this could happen in the eight years as well.

36.89 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Public Review Draft Community Feedback
The following tables include comments received through the Feedback Form regarding the Public Review Draft and organized by chapter and appendix. Form submissions will continue to be submitted through April 24th; comments submitted after this date may not be included in the City’s first Draft submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Chapter 1 - Introduction.
* Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element.
*** Parks - With appropriately-increased focus on higher-density MFR development, the City must center the development, access, and maintenance of the City Parks system, so that MFR residents have ample and ready access to outdoor facilities for recreation and relaxation. There is no mention of this in the document; I submit that this is a glaring omission and one that cuts against achieving appropriate health-oriented equities. The City must commit to an enhance parks program as part of this RHNA cycle. That effort should include consideration of and, as appropriate, improvement or development of active-transportation-based “safe routes to parks” from areas of high-density development.
*** Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higherdensity development. This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown. Those clear standards should be called out in this document.
*** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area).

Zoning these parcels so that buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria. * Editorial suggestions
** [Page 1-1] “Monterrey” should be “Monterey"
No retail. More parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with

36.90 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

I realize the RHNA numbers are based on state requirements, AND wouldn't it be sweet if Santa Cruz exceeded the RHNA numbers for low and very low income housing. I was shocked to see that the number of above moderate income units is greater than the low and very low combined.

The City of Santa Cruz is not meeting the RHNA for very low-income and low-income housing. It is imperative for the City of Santa Cruz' City Council to require the developers to build less market-rate housing. The developers need to increase the number of low and very low-income housing. It is not wise to crowd up the city with new residents when current residents need places to live. and none are available. Seek private, state, and federal dollars to build low-income and very low-income housing.

Chapter 2 - Policy Plan.
* Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
** Specific comments
*** [Page 2-4] Goal 1.2f should include some consideration, based on the evolving and changing character of the community’s economy, of whether the industrial lands are zoned for highest/best use, and triggers for when/whether zoning changes (e.g., to mixed commercial/residential) are called for.
*** [Page 2-8] Inclusionary Ordinance. The document refers to reviewing the Inclusionary Ordinance in order to maximize development of affordable housing without “being a barrier to housing development.” While I acknowledge that excessively high inclusionary levels can effectively prevent development, at present it’s not possible to assess the impacts of inclusionary ordinances, because developers are not sharing their business models and project economics. Developers who want to take advantage of density bonuses should be willing to share their project economics; the City should require it. It should not be the City’s obligation to blindly incent development. *** [Page 2-8] Vouchers. Further, the notion that developers can’t make affordable units “pencil” at a time when citizens have Housing Choice Vouchers that landlords won’t honor is simply disingenuous.

Landlords/developers can receive full market value for deemed affordable units simply by accepting these vouchers!
*** [Page 2-13] Childcare. The Housing Element makes much of the City’s “commit[ment]” to childcare. And yet the City (and County) in the recent CORE grants process completely eliminated City support for existing childcare programs (which the City and County had supported in the past). This community support enabled local child-care centers to provide low-cost care to lower-income families. Before developing new childcare facilities, the City should support and enhance existing programs to their capacity. Objective 3.2a should be re-written from “continue to assist” to “restore and expand assistance to”, since there is no currently-funded support for childcare. *** [Page 2-14] Homelessness Response. The City’s focus should be on supporting the development of shelter and facilities, not providing services. The County should be the lead agency for funding and supporting services delivered in those facilities (and facilities throughout the County). *** [Page 2-16] UCSC. As relates to Policy 3.5, if I read this correctly (UCSC committed to 25% of housing for new facility/staff - 558 additional new housing units), then UCSC expansion will consume at least 1500 units of our RHNA 6 goal. It’s not clear to me how that helps further our goal of providing ample affordable housing for the community - the document should make clear how that goal reasonably fits within the overall Housing Element’s goals. *** [Page 2-16] Affordability. Further, the City and University should work together to ensure that oncampus housing is provided below prevailing market, in order to relieve UCSC pressure on local

36.91 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
housing stock, availability, and affordability.
*** [Page 2-27] Transit and active transportation. Policy 7.3 should be more explicit. Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for high No retail. More parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

The planning department and city council need to visit Santana Row in San Jose. We could do the same here.

The housing goals look good. I appreciate the vision.

Maybe it's feedback for 2.5a. I'm not sure where it fits in. Santa Cruz currently has a rent control loop hole that allows property owners to evict long term tenants without just cause. This is used to evict folks who have rent controlled spaces so landlords can charge more rent. Santa Cruz needs stricter rent control measures to ensure the continuation of affordable housing.

Yes, to continuing to encourage/force the university to provide housing for its students.

Policy 6.1 It's not possible to obtain a Housing Choice Voucher or even get on the waitlist.

It is not a good policy to assume people can travel on the poorly capable bus system in Santa Cruz.

The bus system needs re-organization
Why are you not upzoning R-1 zones? Please allow for multi-family development on all residential parcels!
Appendix A - Community Engagement.
* Editorial suggestions
** [Throughout] Inconsistent use of “LatinX” and “Latino”. Consult with the community about preference and use one or the other, but not both.

No retail. More parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

When the community tries to engage to tell the City Planners and the City Council what they want in the way of housing the City Council does not vote in accordance with the residents. The survey data in the past has been slated to accomplish what the planners wanted.

36.92 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Appendix B - Review of Past Performance.

Comments and Questions
** General Plan-Level comments
*** [Throughout] Benchmarking. There are many missed opportunities for the document to benchmark Santa Cruz demography, in order to provide needed context for the public and for planners and policy-makers, and in order to highlight those areas where Santa Cruz notably differs from other communities or national standards. In my opinion, it’s not enough to simply compare Santa Cruz to other parts of the County, given that county communities differ widely. It would be helpful to add comparisons to other benchmarks / communities (e.g., in many cases Santa Barbara or Santa Monica may be relevant comparators; in other cases, statewide or nationwide numbers may (also) be useful). Specific instances include:
[Page B-2] Seniors (12.5% of population)
[Page B-3, C-20] Disabilities (9.7% of population)
[Page B-7] ELI households (25% of households)
[Page C-10] HH size (2.4 persons per HH)
[Page C-17] Overcrowding (% by owner v renter)
[Page C-18] Cost-burdening (55.4% of renters)
[Page C-25] Poverty (20% living in poverty)
[Page C-26] Homelessness (benchmark outside of our area, please) ** Specific comments
*** [Page B-8] UCSC. The text here is unclear and potentially self-contradictory regarding the University’s commitment to student housing. The document refers to the settlement agreement between the City and UCSC, which requires the University to provide housing for 2/3 of its student population. The document then indicates the LRDP proposes 10,125 on-campus beds and 579 offcampus beds. That is NOT 2/3 of the LRDP’s target student population. The Element needs to make clear whether and, if so, how the University plans to meet the settlement agreement terms, or make clear that the University does not plan to do so (and the resulting impacts on the local housing situation).
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page B-3] “…Loudon Nelson…” should be “…London Nelson…” ** [Page B-6] “…homeless persons’ being…” should be “…homeless persons being…”; bullet for Janus item formatting inconsistent with other bullets
** [Page B-7] CHAS is used without definition (not defined until page C-11) ** [Page B-8] “…50 unit affordable…” should be “50-unit affordable…”; “…full-time while attend school…” should be “…full-time while attending school…" Need parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Past performance has been very poor. The residents speak up but the residents are ignored in the majority of the cases with it comes to approving buildings in Santa Cru.

36.93 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Appendix C - Housing Needs Assessment.
* Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page C-10, C-23, etc.] The numbers presented relating to single-adult households (HHs) are inconsistent and/or unclear throughout. For example, on page C-10, Table C-9 cites 1,680 “Female HH, No Spouse Present”, while Table C-10 cites 1,008 “Female Households, No Spouse” and 1,680 “Male Households, No Spouse”. Tables C-24 and C-25 (pages C-23, 24) suggest that only femaleheaded HHs are in poverty (210 single-parent HH living in poverty v 210 Single Parent Female HH Living in Poverty). That seems incredible to me. Need to make a thorough and critical review of all of these figures in order to ensure consistency, validity and accuracy. Also need to clarify whether referring to single-person HHs or single-parent HHs (with dependent children). Again, these HH numbers are difficult to make sense of throughout.
*** [Page C-19] Reference to female-headed (presumably no-partner) HHs as “special needs”, per HCD. I would suggest that the Element should certainly center HCD-designated special needs HHs, and should also note that male-headed (presumably no-partner) HHs will, in many cases, evidence the same special needs as female-headed HHs (need for childcare, etc.). Analyses breaking out femaleheaded no-partner HHs should also break out male-headed no-partner HHs. * Editorial suggestions
** [Page C-2] Formatting of numbers in the 2020 Actual column needs attention. ** [Page C-11] CHAS used and defined here; used previously, without definition, on page B-7. ** [Page C-17] The narrative regarding Table C-17 (overcrowding prevalence, owner v renter occupied) does not comport with the numbers presented in the table. Fix the narrative so that it makes sense based on the numbers (215 is 3.3% of 6,515, which is nowhere to be found in the table). ** [Page C-22] The narrative relating to Table C-23 (on the following page) should be cleaned up. It refers to “five or more” and “six or more” and “seven or more” occupant HHs, but the data are actually 5-person, 6-person, and 7 or more. Also, the text says that there are more owner-occupied 5- and 6-person HHs, but that’s not reflected in the data; all of the categories have more renter HHs than owner HHs.
** [Page C-27] Using West Valley College as an example “out of area” commuter school seems an odd choice. How about SJSU or SCU instead? How many folks commute to WVC? ** [Page C-29] “…nearby jurisdiction.” Should be “…nearby jurisdictions.” ** [Page C-32] “…higher to the ACS…” should be “…higher than the ACS…” ** [Page C-33] “the U.S… .” Should be “The U.S. …"
No retail. Parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Table c-32
Shocking to see the percent of seasonal, vacation, or occasional use. Would love to see additional movements in place to revive the idea of an Empty Home Tax. It worked in SF. It could impact the amount of housing stock available or raise funds for affordable housing.

Table C-35
Teachers are very low to low income in this table. I worked on housing elements in different jurisdictions. It seemed like if people knew that building affordable housing means building teacher housing, they might be more open to it.

36.94 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
The needs are for low-income and very low-income housing. The City of Santa Cruz planning department needs to apply for grants for building housing as Salinas and Monterey do. The city manager needs to take action to make this happen.

Appendix D - Fair Housing Assessment.
* Comments and Questions
** Specific comments
*** [Page D-54] Vouchers. I would like to understand why there is an “extreme shortage of housing vouchers” - what are the causes of this shortage, and what can we do, as a community, to fund or create more vouchers (as well as get landlords to accept them)? * Editorial suggestions
** [Page D-5] “…polices…” should be “…policies…”
** [Page D-23] “…it is consider as…” should be “…it is considered as…” ** [Page D-47] “…less than one persons…” should (probably) refer to one percent?; similarly with “…and one identified as Asian…”? If the latter is, indeed, one person, then say so. ** [Page D-52] Reference to exponential population growth is inaccurate and hyperbolic. Exponential growth is growth that accelerates over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth). That is not the case here. “Rapid” or “accelerated” growth seems more appropriate.

No retail more parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Appendix E - Housing Constraints.
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page E-3] “…$100 a square foot…” should be “…$100 per square foot…”; “…Discloser Act…” should be “…Disclosure Act…”; the narrative regarding approval rates by ethnicity are inconsistent. One paragraph cites 60% for American Indian; the other, 45.2% - correct as appropriate. ** [Page E-45] Reference to 4.2 million gallons per day (GPD) to SCWD service area is incorrect. The SCWD serves an average of closer to 6.5MGD year round (lower in winter; higher in summer). The 4.2 MIGHT be correct for customers within the City Limits; would need to confirm that with SCWD. ** [Page E-45] “…pipped…” should be “…piped…”
** [Page E-46] “…and potable and domestic…” should be “…and potable domestic…" No retail. More parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Santa Cruz is constrained by available land.

36.95 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Appendix F - Housing Resources.

No retail. Parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

The city of Santa Cruz Planners and city manager needs to meet with the city manager and planning staff and commissions of Salinas and Monterey to learn how to apply for Federal and State Grants to gain the funds to build 100% affordable housing via grants. Santa Cruz has a very high homeless rate which would make our town a top candidate.

Appendix G - Housing Sites Inventory.
* Comments and Question
** General Plan-Level comments
*** Locating Density - The document notes that we have 224% of the capacity needed in order attain the RHNA 6 goals (that is, develop-able lands allow for a 124% overage above the RHNA 6 target). As such, it’s clear that the City would be able to reduce the maximum densities allowed on shallow parcels immediately adjacent to existing homes (as along Water and Soquel in the Branciforte area).

Zoning these parcels so that buildings “max out” at 3 stories (at most 4 with bonuses) would go a long way to gain community favor for the overall plan, and reduce the potential conflicts that may arise when out-of-scale projects are proposed (as was the case with 831 Water St). Doing so would clearly NOT threaten the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA 6 goals; as such, the City should carefully review and adjust the target zoning for parcels that meet these criteria. ** Specific comments
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page G-5] “…recently developed sites…” should be “…recently-developed sites…” ** [Page G-31] “…the construction a…” should be “…the construction of a …”; “SRO’s” should be “SROs”.

I am extremely underwhelmed at the size of the housing sites inventory. What is this, a RHNA for ants? The housing inventory has to be at least three times bigger than what is proposed.

No retail. Parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Appendix H - Glossary.

No retail. Parking on site
How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

36.96 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Please submit any additional comments or questions you have regarding the Santa Cruz 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Here is rest of my commentary on Chapter 2, which was truncated due to Microsoft Forms limitation:
*** [Page 2-27] Transit and active transportation. Policy 7.3 should be more explicit. Transit - Much is made of the City’s public transit, but the fact remains that the service is modest at best, both in terms of coverage and in terms of service level (headway, hours of operation). The City (with Metro) needs to make clear (1) specific targets for service-level and coverage improvements, (2) specific measures that the City (with Metro) will take to meet those targets, and (3) timelines for achieving those targets. While these specifics may be beyond the scope of this particular document, the document should be able to reference responsible entities and plans in the Circulation Element. Active Transportation - While mentioned, the Housing Element, along with the Circulation Element, must center the development and/or enhancement of active transportation facilities throughout the City, and especially along or adjacent to the areas and corridors targeted for higher-density development.

This work must contemplate Safe Routes to Schools, as well as to parks, critical resources (food shopping, etc.), and commercial centers. The City should develop and enforce clear standards for protecting and preserving existing active transportation corridors, as we (rightly) focus on increasing the housing density on our transit corridors and downtown. Those clear standards should be called out in this document.
*** [Page 2-28] Wildfire. City zoning and building policies must incorporate the learnings from recent urban-area fires (e.g., Santa Rosa), so that our built environment is appropriately protected from wildfires that become urban fires. Flood / sea-level rise. City zoning and building policies must reflect flooding risks in low-lying or flood-prone areas. Specifically, building code should ensure that vital building infrastructure is safe from flood waters (whether caused by weather or sea-level rise, or a combination of the two).
* Editorial suggestions
** [Page 2-2] Make left-indentation of the “Goals” descriptive text consistent (text for Goals 1 and 4 differs from others)
** [Page 2-5] “…community to potential barriers to…” re-write to make sense; “…to recognized…” should be “…to recognize…”
** [Page 2-8] “…the City’s Inclusionary.” Should presumably be “…the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance.” ** [Page 2-16] “USCS” should be “UCSC”
** [Page 2-20] “…are home to large a proportion…” should be “…are home to a large proportion…" ** [Page 2-22] “…previously known a…” should be “…known as…” ** [Page 2-25] “…produces and delivers to nearly…” should be “…produces and delivers water to nearly 100,000 customers …”
** [Page 2-27] “…compliment the…” should be “…complement the…” Housing yes with parking for each unit on site. Forget retail instead help the downtown ghost town which will only get worse with their parking lost to renters.

How will this impact city water use and traffic. Mission Street in particular is already at capacity morning, noon and night. Side streets such as King, Bay and California are already impacted with overflow traffic from Mission. Even though we have had an extraordinary amount of rain this year, what about the years to come when we fall back into drought conditions.

Many local/CA cities require story-poles to identify the height and mass of proposed buildings.

Buildings the size and mass as proposed should be shown before approval is given. I have spoken with California Story Poles at 800 987 8046. They serve many cities in CA., several locally. It is only right and fair that the City of Santa Cruz be fully transparent about the scale of the proposed buildings. It is disingenuous to move forward without providing more info to residents/voters. I have been in Santa

36.97 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Cruz all my life, 72 years, as my family purchased an allotment in Paradise Park in 1924. I understand progress and the need for housing but a 12 story building and the other proposed development south of Laurel will shock people if completed. It is not right to not “show residents/voters the scale of the development”.

The concern we have is the destruction of the crucial values of the residents of this area. Constructing megastructures that resemble early Soviet Russian designs is the opposite of why people want to live here . The developers could care less about the monstrosities they build. They often do not live here.

It is so obvious that certain members of City leadership in the past and present are very willing to allow our community to become an uninviting destination for visitors. The city of Carmel is very aware of the need to keep the beauty of the area they live in. Do you truly think coming into town to visit the ocean, and driving by the Soviet style architecture is going to promote tourism? How short sighted are you? We depend on being a tourist destination. Ugly, oversized structures will mean loss of revenue.... pretty obvious.

Years ago, the fight to save Lighthouse Field was successful. And now, it is a tourist haven. Then, someone wanted to construct a parking structure on West Cliff Dr. Again, that was prevented, and West Cliff is still attractive. However....look at what has been allowed. The money voted for to refurbish our downtown library has been misappropriated. Every other branch in the county has already been worked on. Some ill advised members of our City thought is was a great idea to take that money and give it to an out of town developer who thinks libraries should be in dark basements.

Really? You think that is the desire of the residents of Santa Cruz? NO. Also, to claim it is for low income people, is a sad example of dishonest developers, hoping we are too stupid to notice how few low income units are actually built. The developers think we should look like San Jose. Then, all of the folks who come here from San Jose will loose the chance to enjoy a beautiful seaside town . Instead, they may think they never left town. It will look exactly like the worst parts of the valley.

We are so saddened by what you are creating for our young people. Long after the ugly monstrosities are built, Santa Cruz will no longer be a place of beauty . The young will hear stories of how it used to be, but sadly, is no more. Is this really the legacy you wish to leave? We are at a time where we need to have creative and sustainable growth. We are limited by our water supply. This area can only support a limited amount of people due to the environmental constraints. As city leaders, you are heading towards environmental disaster when we run out of water. Do you expect us to reduce our usage so developers can make their money? Are you prepared for the loss of tourisim once you have destroyed the village atmosphere of Santa Cruz?
I would hope that you seriously consider the issues we have mentioned in this essay. Perhaps you might even make it easier for people to respond to your request for input. You might learn something. You might think twice about destroying the very thing that provides income to this area.

I'd love to see Santa Cruz go big and lead by example by chucking the RHNA numbers and building a greater percentage of very low and low income housing in this cycle.

1. Add incentives for a Mobile Home interest rate & term to be the same rate & term as a Residential home - especially for seniors over 62 years old (Mobile Home mortgages are usually much higher than for residential). 2. Allow for a Mobile Home Duplex - add incentives to exchange an older Mobile Home for a Duplex Mobile Home (one side for the owner & a studio for a renter). 3. Allow Bike Sharing in Mobile Home Parks. 4. UCSC must support building more housing for staff on/off campus, and change the static data (The current breakdown is 80% for Faculty, 15% for Staff & 5% for nonsenate academics - including housing for staff families). 5. More housing along the Rail/Trail. 6.

Allow detached bedrooms in Mobile home parks as ADU's.

This housing element does not plan well for the future of Santa Cruz. Building additional market rate units and removing parking will not be beneficial to our town.

36.98 City of Santa Cruz 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Public Review Draft Community Feedback
Please recommend to the politicians that short-term/vacation rentals should be illegal or HEAVILY restricted in the City. That is what hotels are for. Short-term rentals are horrendous for our housing stock and the City needs to rid them. South Lake Tahoe has banned short term rentals and Palm Springs has placed a cap on only 36 days per YEAR for a short-term rental. So many homes are wasted on this use that is terrible for the locals - please enact change.

UPZONE UPZONE UPZONE! Please convince the politicians to upzone this city so that supply doesn't keep sitting artificially depressed. UPZONE R-1 to allow multi-family development!

36.99 36.100

36.101

36.102

36.103
April 7, 2023
Matt VanHua
City of Santa Cruz, Planning and Community Development Department, Advance Planning Division 809 Center St #206
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Thank you for sharing this early draft of the Housing Element with the public. On behalf of the City of Santa Cruz’s nearly 400 residents with developmental disabilities, Housing Choices is grateful for the opportunity to comment before it is sent to HCD. We also appreciate the work that the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development staff has done to draft a Housing Element that prioritizes equity and inclusion and for including an analysis of the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by SB 812.

While we believe that this Draft does show that the City is taking seriously its obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for all City of Santa Cruz residents we found that there are some revisions or additions that should be considered in order to make sure that the Housing Element submitted to HCD is in full compliance with the state law. We believe with some minor changes this Draft has potential to be approved by HCD in a timely manner rather than requiring multiple rounds of revisions as seen in many other jurisdictions throughout the state. Some of our suggestions include further analysis of the special housing needs that exist within the city in accordance with HCD requirements so that the City may better prioritize and plan for the needs of the City’s most vulnerable residents including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities. We also believe that the City should include more measurable metrics in its Policy Plan for each objective by including not only a date by when each objective will be implemented but number of units or people to be served to measure the success of each program in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and/or achieving the City’s RHNA goals. Lastly, while we support many of the new programs and policies already proposed in the Draft Housing Element we have included recommendations for refinements to the proposed programs as well as additional programs and policies the city should consider for inclusion in the Housing Element.

About Housing Choices
Housing Choices is a housing service provider funded by the San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) to support people with developmental disabilities to be fully integrated in the affordable housing supply within the Counties of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito and Monterey. We provide housing navigation services for both individuals and families. We also partner with affordable housing developers to make inclusive housing commitments for people with developmental and other disabilities in their housing 1 36.104
projects. At these projects we provide onsite housing retention services. Our work over the past 25 years, including in the City of Santa Cruz at Water Street Apartments, shows that this model of housing plus services is highly effective in increasing housing access and stability for people with developmental disabilities.

The San Andreas Regional Center has contracted with Housing Choices to provide the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development staff and Housing Element consultants with an assessment of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities, as required by SB 812.

Missing Definition of Developmental Disabilities
Understanding what defines a developmental disability is key to understanding their housing needs and accessibility requirements. While the housing needs analysis which appears on pages C-20 through C-22 of the Draft Housing Element does discuss some of the types of housing that would be appropriate for a person with a developmental disability it does not talk about the requirement for supportive services in order to live in the community which defines a developmental disability and differentiates the accessibility needs of a person with a developmental disability from those of a person who has a disability that is solely physical.

California state law defines developmental disabilities as a disabling condition that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is a substantial disability attributable to major impairment of cognitive and/or social functioning. A substantial disability is defined as “significant functional limitations…in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's age: Receptive and expressive language; Learning; Self-care; Mobility; Self-direction; Capacity for independent living; and/or Economic self-sufficiency”. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. A developmental disability by definition does not include conditions that are solely physical, psychiatric or learning disabilities (Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 54000-54002 of the Code of Regulations). Under California’s Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive setting of their choosing. The shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement, under SB 812, that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from the state’s 21 Regional Center in order to live in their home community. San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is funded by the Department of Development Services (DDS) to serve all Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities. While SARC is able to fund the services needed for consumers to live independently they are not able to provide funding for housing which is why jurisdictions must plan for housing that is appropriate and accessible for this special needs population.

Incomplete Assessment of Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities HCD has provided guidance for a complete analysis of special housing needs groups, which must include:
● A quantification of the total number of persons and households in the special housing needs group, including tenure (rental or ownership), where possible. 2 36.105
● A quantification and qualitative description of the need (including a description of the potential housing problems faced by the special needs groups), a description of any existing resources or programs, and an assessment of unmet needs.
● Identification of potential programs or policy options and resources to address the need In addition for the analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental and other disabilities HCD further advises that jurisdictions should include:
● A discussion of resources, including existing housing and services for people with disabilities.

Contact local, service providers such as the local Center for Independent Living, county health/mental-health departments, health-related nonprofits (e.g. United Cerebral Palsy, Crippled Children’s Society, Heart Fund, Lung Association, Diabetes Association, Cancer Society, etc.) or school districts that maintain the number of students enrolled in special education programs, students requiring special accommodations and/or transportation, and students participating in home schooling.
● Identification of housing types (e.g. residential care facilities) that can accommodate people with disabilities and zoning and capacity available to facilitate these housing types. ● Housing programs or strategies to address identified needs.

While the City of Santa Cruz’s draft analysis of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities does quantify the housing need, because this quantification is based on zip code level data for only one of the zip codes within city limits it underestimates the true number of City of Santa Cruz residents who have a developmental disability. Furthermore, the draft housing needs analysis does not meaningfully discuss the factors driving the housing needs of this population nor does it discuss best practices for creating inclusive affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities requiring on-site supportive services funded by SARC in order for them to have equitable access to living in the community as a person without a disability.

In its quantitative analysis the city used data reported by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) by zip code to estimate the number of residents with developmental disabilities living in the City of Santa Cruz. By requesting this information directly from SARC, Housing Choices was able to get city-specific data which is reflected in the table below:

Table ___ City of Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age City of Santa
Cruz
City of Santa
Cruz % of total
Santa Cruz
County
Santa Cruz
County % of
total
Under age 18 88 24% 407 29%
18 and older 275 76% 1009 71%
Total 363 100% 1416 100%
Note: The City of Santa Cruz population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021. 3 36.106
Housing Choices was also able to get data from SARC regarding the living arrangements of City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities to better understand where people are currently living and where there may be need for improvement in housing and services for this population. Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home, whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities.

Table ___ Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in the City of Santa Cruz Compared to Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements
City of
Santa Cruz
City of Santa Cruz
Percent of Total
Santa Cruz
County
County Percent of
Total
In the family home 151 55% 630 62%
Own apartment with
supportive services 97 35% 248 25%
Licensed Facilities 23 8% 125 12%
Other (including homeless) 4 2% 6 1%
Total Adults 275 100% 1009 100%
Note: The City of Santa Cruz population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Cruz County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.

As of November 2021, SARC reported that the family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities, with 55% of adults living in the family home.

This is lower than the County overall where 62% of adults live at home. While the family home is considered to be a community based living arrangement, as discussed below, there is an increased risk of displacement or homelessness when aging parents are no longer able to provide housing. Instead, for adults with developmental disabilities the most integrated and least restrictive living arrangement available to them is living independently in their own apartment with supportive services. In the City of Santa Cruz, only 35% of adults with developmental disabilities have been able to transition into their own apartment due to the lack of deeply affordable housing available. In addition, 8% of City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities live in licensed care facilities, a segregated housing type available to people with developmental disabilities where interaction with people without disabilities is more limited than in integrated housing settings. Without planning for more inclusive affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities to transition into when aging parents are no longer able to provide housing, the City of Santa Cruz will see more adults falling into homelessness, being displaced or being forced to live in segregated settings.

Some of the other relevant factors affecting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities that are not discussed in the Draft Housing Element are:
● Decline in Licensed Care Facilities in Santa Cruz County. The Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, there was a 7% decrease in the number of people with developmental disabilities able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Cruz County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend is the result of increased housing prices making it less financially 4 36.107
feasible for new facilities to open when old ones close as well as a decrease in demand as more adults choose to live in less restrictive settings increasing the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. The County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out of the County when their parents are no longer able to house them--unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.

Table ___ Changes in Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities from 2015-2021 in Santa Cruz County
Adult Living
Arrangements 2015 2021 Percent Change
In the family home 477 630 32%
Own apartment with
supportive services 231 248 7%
Licensed Facilities 135 125 (-7%)
Other (including
homeless) 5 6 20%
Total Adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services Quarterly Report by County. ● Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Santa Cruz County adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a well-documented annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015. The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth of the Santa Cruz County population aged 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future. This trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of Santa Cruz adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as the population can be expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than the general population.

Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in Santa Cruz County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 395 484 23%
32 to 41 185 192 4%
41 to 52 103 135 31%
52 to 61 118 114 (-3%)
62 plus 47 84 79%
Total adults 848 1009 19%
Source: Department of Developmental Services data reported at the county level in June 2021 and September 2015 5 36.108
Note: These data assume that all people with developmental disabilities under age 18 live in the family home. The impact of this assumption, if incorrect, is to underestimate the number of adults living in the family home who may need other residential living options.
● Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 79% (Table __). This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span rather than migration of seniors into high cost Santa Cruz County. Longer life spans mean that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are the largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Santa Cruz. And because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Cruz County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa Cruz to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away.
● Displacement. Notwithstanding 19% growth in Santa Cruz County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 3% decline in the age group 52 to 61 in Santa Cruz County between September 2015 and June 2021 (Table ___). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of a lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Due to increased reliance on the family home as a living arrangement (based on a 32% increase of adults remaining in the family home in Santa Cruz County between 2015-2021) this trend is expected to continue to worsen unless more inclusive affordable housing is developed during the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in the City of Santa Cruz. ● Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. According to the Department of Developmental Services 26% of Santa Cruz County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, 9% have a vision impairment and 4% have a hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities.
● Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in the City of Santa Cruz. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in the City of Santa Cruz.
● Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car so rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.

By including this data in the City’s Draft Housing Element the city can better plan to meet the current needs of residents with developmental disabilities and track changes over time in future Housing Elements.
6 36.109
The City of Santa Cruz has found a proven solution to address the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities at inclusive affordable housing projects such as Water Street Apartments, a strategy which is not included in the Draft Housing Element. At Water Street Apartments, 8 of the project's 40 units are set-aside for people with developmental disabilities allowing the developer to offer deeply affordable housing paired with on-site supportive services funded by SARC at no cost to the developer or residents with developmental disabilities. These services help people with developmental disabilities, who are typically on fixed or limited incomes and require supportive services to live independently, equitable access to find and retain stable housing thereby promoting integration and meeting HCD’s requirement to AFFH. In order to meet the increasing housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities still living in the family home or wanting to transition out of institutional settings, the city must plan for more inclusive affordable housing properties. The following considerations should guide the City of Santa Cruz in this pursuit:
● Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of the City of Santa Cruz. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location of housing near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. Per HCD guidance, the City should plan for at least 430 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units, or 50% of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities, and some of the City’s planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.

We believe that the inclusion of these missing elements would strengthen the city’s assessment of the housing needs of City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities. Furthermore, it would help the city to create more meaningful programs and policies to meet the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by Housing Element law.

Strengthening Impact of Programs
We want to thank planning staff and the consultant who developed this draft for recommending a suite of new programs, policies and goals that we believe can create a more inclusive and equitable community.

We are especially supportive of objective 2.2c. Explore additional funding mechanisms…for affordable housing such as an affordable housing bond measure as we have seen this strategy to be very effective in development of affordable housing in communities such as the City of San Jose as well as objective 2.2g Present Council with ordinance options that allow 100 percent affordable residential development to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones as shorter 7 36.110
timelines for project approvals can reduce project costs and make sure that much needed affordable housing gets built more quickly.

While we believe that the programs outlined in the Housing Element will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing we are concerned that some lack the concrete steps, timelines and measurable metrics by which to evaluate success of these programs. Without all of these elements the city is at-risk of implementing ineffective programs with little or no effect on meeting its RHNA or Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for all special needs populations and protected groups. By including objective standards by which to measure the success of each program the City can better analyze and make changes in the future to improve these programs.

Other concerns and recommendations for strengthening the effectiveness of the Draft programs to increase the city’s ability to meet its many goals and policies include:
● Objective 2.1b. Review the Inclusionary Ordinance…The City should commit to offering greater flexibility for developers to meet the inclusionary unit requirements to better serve the needs of the community. Most adults with developmental disabilities have incomes too low to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Low and Very Low Income units currently offered under the city’s inclusionary ordinance and are effectively excluded from this housing option.

California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units priced for extremely low income or targeted to special needs populations.

Such a menu would address a broader range of the City of Santa Cruz’s housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement. Example: San Mateo County Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance; Redwood City Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Sample Language: The City of Santa Cruz shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income) or special needs groups targeted, including, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Objective 2.2b Identify residential projects for City financial or regulatory incentives subject to City Council approval & Objective 4.2b Support the continuation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund- The City should commit to prioritizing local funding and resources for affordable housing development towards the development of housing at the deepest levels of affordability which are most difficult to achieve. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing development through a land trust or under an inclusionary housing ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from 8 36.111
services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Kiku Crossing in City of San Mateo; City of San Jose Housing Department NOFA; San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund NOFA Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, the City of Santa Cruz shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Policy 2.3 Support the Density Bonus. The City should commit to revising the density bonus to include additional incentives for the development of Extremely Low Income housing beyond that which is currently available for low and very low income units. Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level. However, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. The City of Santa Cruz should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law in its local density bonus ordinance or through development of an affordable housing overlay zone to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Cruz County’s high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for City of Santa Cruz residents who are Extremely Low Income.

The city should also include additional incentives for projects that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs populations who experience the greatest barriers to housing access including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. Example: Palo Alto Affordable Housing Incentive Program; Menlo Park Affordable Housing Overlay Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City of Santa Cruz shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Policy 3 Special Needs and Homelessness. As part of its commitment to meeting the housing needs of special needs populations including people who are unhoused the City should recognize that many of these special needs populations overlap with the population of Extremely Low Income households in the city. ELI households experience the highest rates of housing cost burden and are therefore at greatest risk of falling into homelessness. Without first solving the crisis of households becoming unhoused at a faster rate than new homeless housing resources are developed the City will continue to see the unhoused population growing. In order to keep more people stably housed the City should not only commit to developing at least 50% of its VLI RHNA as ELI housing but create policies and programs to specifically incentivize the development of ELI housing. Some strategies to consider are discussed above such as additional density bonuses and lowering the inclusionary requirements if deeper affordability or special needs groups are included. These new policies and programs should include measurable metrics to track progress in meeting the housing needs of specific special needs groups. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities and other special needs groups 9 36.112
is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion from the current housing supply. A goal of 70 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Santa Cruz residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Sample Language: The City of Santa Cruz shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 70 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.

By making the above recommended revisions to the Draft Housing Plan the City can better address the needs of the most vulnerable special needs populations including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities.

In addition to these policy and program changes the city should also correct the language in Policy 6.1 The City shall mitigate displacement risks and seek to remove barriers to housing choice vouchers which incorrectly states that vouchers are accepted on a voluntary basis by landlords. As currently written this statement could cause confusion for both renters and landlords and lead to the spread of misinformation as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act was amended in 2020 to include protections from source of income discrimination with specific regulations on how income from households with rental subsidies should be calculated in determining income eligibility for rental units.

We urge you to consider our recommendations and make changes to the City of Santa Cruz Housing Element so that it meaningfully addresses the housing needs of its residents with developmental and other disabilities.

Sincerely,
Kalisha Webster
Senior Housing Advocate
Email [email protected]
Cell 650-660-7088
10 36.113
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
Thank you for all the work on this Housing Element draft. It is clear that the City is committed to a Housing Plan that will work to address a housing and affordability crisis with some attention to broader issues like Climate and a focus on Fair Housing. It is also quite an accomplishment to be so close on your 5th cycle RHNA numbers.

These comments are only on the Housing Plan document - I’ll submit comments on other sections as time is available.

Scope and Timelines
A primary consideration with the Housing Plan is that many of the objectives speak to improvements and revisions but do not provide any baseline, scope or target outcome. It is hard to determine how one knows the objective has been achieved. As well, many of the programs have “ongoing” as the Metric - they lack milestones, timelines or a means to hold the City accountable for progress.

As noted in the next section, there is an opportunity to include information from the 5th cycle towards a more clear set of commitments in both scope and timeline.

Many of the objectives use vague language such as
● “Continue to…” “Expand…” “Improve…” - anything including these words should be able to establish a baseline or scope and identify milestones towards completion. ● “Facilitate…” - there are instances where the outcome of the City’s facilitation is unclear ● “Collaborate…” - any objectives with this should make clear the commitment to a shared outcome and a timeline.

There are words that are vaguely defined by context nor in the Glossary including:
● Affordable housing
● Sensitive populations
● Mixed-income (often before “neighborhoods” or “projects”) ● Alternative housing types
I recommend you look at Redwood City’s Housing Element
Leverage Past Performance in 5th Cycle
For policies that are a repeat or continuation from the 5th cycle, how can lessons learned or commitments from the 5th cycle inform more specifics on outcomes and milestones/dates? Some examples include:

April 4 2023 Page 1 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.114
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Policy 2.5 : You know from the 5th cycle (Program 2.6) that many at-risk units are Section 8 from the 5th cycle, and you have been working with individual property owners for incentives.

How can this inform more specific outcomes for 6th?
● Planned Development permits (Policy 1.6) which appeared as Program 1.4 in 5th - what was the result of the study to be done?
● Permits and Review (Policy 1.3) which appeard as Program 1.5 - what about the city-wide fee study, should that be a milestone in 6th?
● Policy 2.2 (was Program 2.2 and Program 2.4) In 5th cycle, there were taxes in the objectives - Transfer Tax and TOT - Only one of these has passed. Recommend transfer tax or vacancy tax.

As well, In the 5th cycle you mention the Pro-Housing Designation, but it is not in the 6th cycle Housing Plan. Can that be a milestone?
● Policy 3.6 (was Program 3.7) does not reflect the City’s new Homeless Services Division and all its commitments and funding which is part of the 5th Cycle progress. ● Supposedly continued from the 5th cycle (was Program 4.5) is the development of a Fair Housing Plan - I don’t see any reference in the 6th cycle Housing Plan.

Available Housing and AFFH
The word “affordable” appears in the Housing Plan 67 times. This is a very important focus for the Housing Element. Policies related to the defined “affordable” income levels should remain and there must be strong commitments to affordable housing production, serving at-risk populations and preventing displacement.

However, it is clear that Santa Cruz is increasingly unaffordable to a wider range of residents - the majority of the city is cost burdened (over 30%) (Fair Housing Assessment). According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the Two-Bedroom Housing Wage for the City of Santa Cruz exceeds $60. Therefore the Housing Plan should include policies that increase housing that is available to a full range of incomes. Santa Cruz needs more housing for everyone.

Policy 6.2 focuses on single-family zoning, which is terrific, and uses the phrase “affordable housing” to counter historical patterns of segregation. While AFFH definitely includes more affordable housing (VLI/LI) throughout the City and especially in single-family zoning which historically has reinforced segregation and exclusion,, addressing AFFH goes beyond that. If you look at HCD guidance on AFFH, they say
“The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in April 4 2023 Page 2 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.115
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.”
In a high resource area like Santa Cruz, AFFH must include housing opportunities and mobility for a range of income levels, given that median income still has many residents cost-burdened. My suggestion is that you enhance the opportunity for naturally occurring missing middle in single-family zoning- duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes - all larger than ADUs, but less than Inclusionary Ordinance.

Similarly, there is a focus on “affordable” housing for mixed-income which is seen as the path to diversity of neighborhoods. While it may be the primary way the City promotes mixed-income development (Policy 2.1), naturally occurring missing middle adds another path to get to diverse, vibrant, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. Let’s do both!
The phrase “missing middle” does not appear in the Housing Plan though the words “duplex”, “triplex” appear a lot in the community input. Making it easier to build missing middle and smaller infill projects throughout the city should be added other parts of the Housing Plan, e.g. Housing Production Policies (section 1 of the Housing Plan)
Redwood City’s Housing Element has an excellent summary of how they approach this vision (this HE is an excellent example of clear objectives and commitments to timelines as well):

Increase Housing at All Income Levels in High Resource Neighborhoods by o Implementing SB 9 duplexes in single family neighborhoods, o Continuing to encourage accessory dwelling units in single family neighborhoods, (Program H1.5)
o Increasing middle housing opportunities, and
o Studying increasing densities (upzoning) in single family neighborhoods beyond SB 9 requirements (they have this as Program H1.4)
Fees and Process
It is terrific to see an objective that includes an ordinance (Policy 2.2g) to allow ministerial approval for 100% affordable residential development. In the interest of building infill/missing middle housing faster, you should
● extend ministerial approval beyond single-family and ADUS to smaller multi-family projects (less than 50 units?) meeting Objective Standards.

April 4 2023 Page 3 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.116
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Review fees (not just to cover city costs!) with an outcome of incentivizing multi-family housing over single-family housing, including smaller multifamily projects.

Explicitly Connecting to Other City Plans
The City has worked on other plans that intersect with the Housing Element that could inform this Housing Plan more explicitly. A notable example is the Homelessness Response Action Plan which has very specific objectives/actions that could be referenced in this Housing Plan, especially Policy 3.3.

The City’s Climate Action Plan has a Measure (T1.7) which references the Housing Element and much of what it addresses, yet the only mention of the Climate Action Plan is in Policy 7.2 about green building principles.

From the Climate Action Plan:

T1.7 Efficient and Equitable Land Use (HIGH IMPACT ACTION) Accelerate housing development and support commercial and industrial development in city limits, concentrating the most intensive growth in transit corridors and central areas of the city to promote walking and biking to nearby jobs, entertainment, goods, services, and public transportation, through the General Plan Housing Element Update to be approved in 2023.

Prioritize expansion of affordable housing stock.

Partner to incentivize 15-minute neighborhoods, particularly within frontline neighborhoods communities, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services.

Renter Protections
There is a clear difference in income levels between renters and homeowners (see Table C-12). The Fair Housing Assessment also indicates that renters have overpayment rates, are a high % of residents in areas identified for displacement and at risk for homelessness.

It is great that you include anti-displacement policies in Policy 5.5, though you could be more specific with the recommendations from the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project that Santa Cruz does NOT have:
○ Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (beyond the state law)
○ Rent Stabilization or Rent Control (beyond Large Rent Increases Ordinance addition to Chapter 21.03)
○ Rent Review Board and/or Mediation
April 4 2023 Page 4 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.117
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
The other focus on renters comes in the form of rental assistance (e.g. security deposits) which is a continuation of existing work. Are there additional efforts to help renters? One example would be:
● Create a database that shows how many apartments are occupied, how many are vacant and what the rents are, and helps people eligible for rental protections (aka Rental Registry) Climate and Transit
The City’s Climate Action Plan has a Measure (T1.7) which references the Housing Element and much of what it addresses, yet the only mention of the Climate Action Plan is in Policy 7.2 about green building principles. The Climate Action Plan touches on use of transit corridors, affordable housing stock but also speaks to “15-minute neighborhoods, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services.” The 15-minute neighborhood shows up in the community outreach, but is not mentioned as a desired vision for Santa Cruz anywhere in the Housing Element.

There are some good elements related to modifications to parking. I would like to see more related to parking that affects the cost of production:
● Remove mandatory car parking requirements for new housing and allow conversion of existing parking to bike storage
● Replace traffic studies with quantifying Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a more accurate measure of project impact, aiming to reduce the amount of time people have to spend behind the wheel. (learn more: CalTrans and SB373)
● Allow condo and apartment rentals to unbundle parking, which makes the cost of a parking space a separate, opt-in item for renters. (learn more: unbundled parking) ● Mitigate traffic and parking impacts and boost pedestrian and bicyclist rights, protections and accommodations, e.g. by requiring transit and bike-share subsidies for residents.

You also highlight transit-oriented development. You should be including the Rail/Trail in your corridors that are referenced in Policy 1.2 or other transit-oriented development policies.

Special Needs
Your policies related to persons with disabilities are conflated with families. You have policies that address each of the other categories (farmworkers, students, homeless). FWIW, the word “veterans” does not appear once in your Housing Plan, should it?
April 4 2023 Page 5 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.118
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
Policy 3.1 merges families and persons with disabilities and its objectives are all over the place:
preservation, childcare, development. Is this really two policies - one for families with children and the other for persons with disabilities?
Your policies to create housing for persons with disabilities feel incomplete and primarily in AFFH Policies (section 6). Housing Choices has specific suggestions for policies to support the disabled in the Housing Production or Affordable Housing or Special Needs, which generally include development of ELI units (as Housing Choices said in the workshop)
● Policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies (and include a Quantitative goal of ELI units with preference for people with developmental disabilities). ● For any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, i.e. providing Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
● Provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.

Your policy 3.3 for the homeless includes “support housing solutions”, yet includes only one objective related to housing that is not shelter (Coral St). It is sad that you include TWO objectives related to unsanctioned camps which do nothing to house the unhoused, and your objective of waste disposal for those living in vehicles is a small step towards support of those whose only home is their vehicle. See above for the opportunity missed to connect the Housing Plan to the City’s Homelessness Action Plan April 4 2023 Page 6 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.119
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
DETAILED Feedback on Policies

POLICIES - HOUSING PRODUCTION

1.1a - could identify what buffer

1.1c - doesn’t this already exist? AFFH viewer has transit stops and area

1.2 (all of it) - most of these dates are the first two years. What is beyond that?

1.3a - What does it mean to “streamline and improve”? What’s your benchmark for “good enough” or “not good enough”? Is this objective simply to implement the system by December 2024?

1.3b - What does it mean to “promote efficiency and predictability”? What do you know now needs to improve towards greater project feasibility? Do you have any other references for best practices here? Is this objective met by simply having meetings? Or by developing an annual improvement plan?

1.3c - Great to see the date of January 2028 for elimination. Is this for housing of all types given that >97% are near transit?

1.3d - Seems the goal for fee review should go beyond making sure it covers City costs? Like the SRO in 5th cycle, what would be target or outcome desired for 6th cycle? ● Revise fees to incentivize larger multi-family housing (more bedrooms) over single family or SROs
● Consider other fee modifications that incentivize missing middle residential

1.3e - Good! Consider other options to produce housing: currently Single-Family and ADUs are ministerially approved
● Expand the types of projects eligible for ministerial approval by city staff, e.g. multifamily projects meeting objective standards that are under 50 units.

1.4 Consider moving the definition of “alternative housing types” to the Policy statement (and the Glossary!) - seems like you are considering “ co-housing, housing cooperatives, live/work” at least.

1.4b - Good! Why not commit to the annual meetings (like previous) and a resulting improvement plan? You had a stronger statement in 5th cycle:

Examine development regulations to identify potential barriers to the development of alternative types of housing and, if such barriers are found, develop actions to remove or modify them as feasible.

1.4c - is “non-traditional” the same as “alternative housing types”? Is this objective developing a proposal of sorts by some date and working with HCD? As it is, it’s really vague and hard to know when “encourage” is done. This is a repeat of Program 1.3 in 5th cycle April 4 2023 Page 7 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.120
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

1.5 General - Is “ADU” inclusive of “JADU”?

1.5b. - This is vague. Do you not already know ways you may modify the program “in a manner that facilitates the production of ADUs”? Here are some suggestions:
● Develop an ADU bonus program similar to San Diego’s, allowing the construction of one unrestricted ADU for every affordable ADU deed-restricted for 15 years. ● Reduction of parking requirements for attached or detached ADUs ● Develop an ADU ordinance that permanently removes owner-occupancy requirements beyond the sunset of state law.
● Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.
● You may also consider if the size of your ADUs/JADUs is an impediment.

1.5c -Good, though this seems to be multiple objectives, what part is new - the webpage update? The incentives? Seems you already have webpage with dev stds, fees and processes. If the incentives are new, consider it as a separate objective to identify incentives or development allowances that are more flexible. You might call it an ADU Bonus program such as:
● Develop an ADU bonus program similar to San Diego’s, allowing the construction of one unrestricted ADU for every affordable ADU deed-restricted for 15 years. ● Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.

1.5d - what is “streamlined processing” - what's the benchmark today? Aren’t they ministerially approved?

1.5f - vague - is this something you can do (develop amendments) annually?

1.5h - is this different from what you do now, which is considered an “informal, voluntary” survey?

1.5i - vague. What do you consider “applicable building standards”. What programs are you expanding? What resources are you improving?

1.6a - vague. You committed to doing a study in 5th cycle (Program 1.4)- what did you learn? What would be the targets for modifications?

1.6b - already part of your current program (1.4) - is there a new standard? What’s the new criteria? April 4 2023 Page 8 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.121
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

1.7 - How can each of these objectives be “ongoing”? Are there any milestones in the next 8 years?

POLICIES - AFFORDABLE HOUSING

2.1 - This intro: “The City recognizes that mixed-income neighborhoods provide a variety of benefits to the City including a chance for residents to learn from others of different backgrounds and interests.This helps to broaden perspectives and deepen understanding of other people’s values and points of view, leading to more respect and understanding. ” is really odd. Is it income levels that encourage greater diversity? Or is it attainable housing that allows a diverse set of people to live in neighborhoods together?

2.1a - vague.

2.1b - oddly worded. Recommend:
● Commission studies to determine at what percentage an inclusionary rate becomes an impediment to housing development. Consider the impact on size of projects as well as affordability levels.

2.2b - vague - what might be the criteria?

2.2d - There are many housing bills - why would the lobbyist be focused just on funding affordable housing? This is a repeat of 5th cycle. You don’t appear to have lobbyists focus on anything else that would help get MORE housing - missing middle, preservation, etc.

Objectives 2.2e and 2.2f seem out of scope here when the focus is on regulatory and/or financial incentives.

2.3a - good to stay up to date on the State - what are the attributes of the local DBL that you want to “further facilitate production”? In the 5th cycle you indicated that “More work will be done regarding development agreements anticipated in the 2021-2023 time period.”

2.4a - What does “Coordinate with” mean? In the 5th cycle, you talk about partnering with affordable developers to obtain additional State HCD funding.

2.4b - Might you also set a target of units built in these partnerships?

2.4c - Might you also set a target of units built in these partnerships?

2.5 - repeat of 5th cycle - you already know from the work there that “Many units that appear to be at risk are part of a Section 8 program, which renews every five years. Thus, the City has been working with individual property owners to provide incentives to maintain affordability” You don’t mention anything about individual property owners (or landlords) in this objective. Housing Authority is probably one of the “interested agencies”?
April 4 2023 Page 9 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.122
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

2.5a “Work with interested agencies and community organizations to preserve at-risk units by monitoring their status, providing technical and/or financial assistance in return for extended affordability controls, and review tenant notification prior to project conversion.” (Metric: ongoing) (AFFH)” ● Make more specific. You indicate that “Table D-15 below identifies deed-restricted, assisted rental properties within Santa Cruz, of which 444 units are at-risk of converting from affordable to market-rate units between 2023 and 2033” This objective can have a quantified target number.
● You can also consider other options for the funding - e.g. Create a publicly owned affordable housing developer non-profit that can apply for grant funding not available to government entities.

POLICIES - SPECIAL NEEDS and HOMELESSNESS
In the Past Performance, you mention the 2015 All In -Toward A Home For Every County Resident (All In) Plan https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/All-In-Santa-Cruz-County-Plan.pdf This has some very specific action strategies. Do any of them that relate to housing apply? Policy 3.1 merges families and persons with disabilities for “Special Needs”.The objectives are all over the place: preservation, childcare, development. Is this really two policies - one for families with children and the other for persons with disabilities?
Your policies to create housing for persons with disabilities is woefully inadequate. As you heard from Housing Choices during the workshop, a focus on developing ELI housing would be a good direction. ere are suggestions:
● Policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies (and include a Quantitative goal of ELI units with preference for people with developmental disabilities). ● For any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing or city housing funds, grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, i.e. providing Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.
● Provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level or which commit to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs.

3.2a - what does “assist” mean?
April 4 2023 Page 10 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.123
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

3.2b - How does the city “include childcare centers and facilities” in new residential developments and employment centers - is this on all projects - private, public, large, small? Is this on projects that have family-sized homes?
Note that 5th cycle had a more specific objective: Work with nonprofit organizations to identify proposed housing projects suitable to families with
children and consider providing financial assistance, subject to availability and City Council approval, to facilitate and encourage their development.

Overall - this policy is intended to support housing solutions in addition to supportive services. One of the objectives relates to housing if you consider the Coral St campus/navigation center housing. One relates to RV. Unsanctioned camps should not be part of the objectives, let alone two of them. In the Past Performance document, you indicate the strategic plan All In -Toward A Home For Every County Resident (All In).

3.3a - are there milestones from the three-year action plan? What does it mean to update “periodically”?

3.3c - what type of public data, system and metrics

3.3d - what is “related to homelessness response efforts” - what does it mean to “be a leader”? Is this intended to be on the model of HAP, but statewide?

3.3g - vague - what is benchmark? Is there a number of shelter spaces? What services?

3.3h - can this be more specific given that you have recently developed a team?

3.3i - what are the proactive steps? Why do you have an objective related to unsanctioned camps in HE

3.3k - Why do you have an objective related to unsanctioned camps in HE

3.4a - vague - what is “supporting” and “assistance”?

3.4b - how does the city “locate” PSH in residential setting or other locations

3.5 - check your spelling of UCSC throughout (not USCS) - phrases like “meet to collaborate on facilitating” are vague. Also, what does any of this really mean when you decide to sue the University?

3.5a - what does this mean?

3.5b - funding yes, but when it comes to facilitating construction of new student housing, what does this mean when you opposed SB886?

3.6 - OK - can you include the benchmark of $1M as approved by council?

POLICIES - HOUSING ASSISTANCE

4.1a - One of the few with a Quantitative metric!!
April 4 2023 Page 11 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.124
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

4.2a - how does helping buyers with homeownership opportunities fit under a policy of financing for construcction of new housing and supportive services?

4.2b - what does it mean to Support the continuation of the AHTF Where is this program from 5th cycle that is supposedly “Continued”: (Program 4.5): The City contracts with California Rural Legal Assistance, Senior Network Services, La Familia Center, Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center, and other organizations to provide services that improve housing opportunities.

POLICIES - NEIGHBORHOOD VITALITY
Why is the phrase “neighborhood character” anywhere in these policies? You have clearly been working to shift to objective standards (multi-family) and it may be better to shift towards a vision of walkable neighborhoods, etc.

5.1a - the 5th cycle had specific areas. What are the goals here.

5.1b - what does it mean to “increase awareness of neighbors” - awareness by neighbors of the clean-up/disposal days? Or just awareness of neighbors so folks can snitch on each other.

5.2a - do you not have any sort of metrics from the years of doing this program that you can provide?

5.2b - how will you expand? Is working with other dept, community groups, etc. the expansion? How do you know you are reaching “people in need of help who are unaware of program or benefits”? Do you have some metric to know sucess

5.3 - Past performance says that UHRP is not active.

5.3a - do you have a target # of people to serve?

5.3b - this is super hard to parse. What is an example “housing habilitation program”? How do the projects for which you want to “particularly increase energy-efficiency” and low-incomes seniors get on the radar and how are they selected? \

5.4 - The outcomes of this Policy are vague and nearly impossible to understand. The objectives seem not to be limited to housing related itesm. “Outreach…for policy initiatives and projects that may affect those areas”? Gather input and feedback…regarding residents needs?

5.5 this is all about displacement - YAY!

5.5a - this seems very similar to 2.5

5.5b - yes, there are some key anti-displacement policies that are in the UC Berkeley (see above) April 4 2023 Page 12 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.125
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)

POLICIES - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Your first policy is about removing barriers to HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS? Take a look at how HCD talks about AFFH:

The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.

6.1a - this has a metric! This seems not related to housing vouchers at all.

6.1f - ditto, not related to housing vouchers.

6..2a - this has a metric!

6.2f - Good idea, but how does this relate to affordable housing?

6.3 - the preamble to the objectives speaks to communications channels, but the objectives themselves include funding. - for 6.3b is there some benchmark?

6.4 - what is a “sensitive” population?

6.4a - how does this relate to displacement?
POLICIES - Resource Conservation and Environmental Stewardship

7.1 - Should this focus on water goals related to housing?

7.2a & b - can you refer to your Climate Action Plan which has more specific milestones to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings? Or is the point that you want to seek incentives beyond whats in the CAP?

7.3a - what does it mean to “facilitate”? What will change in GP and Zoning ordinance?

7.3b - is the outcome just collaboration - is there a way to identify more specific outcomes that relate to “link land uses and transportation systems” and promote bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods? Here are some ideas:
● Remove mandatory car parking requirements for new housing and allow conversion of existing parking to bike storage
● Replace traffic studies with quantifying Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a more accurate measure of project impact, aiming to reduce the amount of time people have to spend behind the wheel. (learn more: CalTrans and SB373)
April 4 2023 Page 13 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.126
Comments on City of Santa Cruz Housing Plan document
from Housing Element draft (see update page)
● Allow condo and apartment rentals to unbundle parking, which makes the cost of a parking space a separate, opt-in item for renters. (learn more: unbundled parking) ● Mitigate traffic and parking impacts and boost pedestrian and bicyclist rights, protections and accommodations, e.g. by requiring transit and bike-share subsidies for residents.

7.4 the last objective is clearly related to housing. The other two are more general city objectives that may not fit in the HE?
April 4 2023 Page 14 of 14 Janine Roeth, [email protected]

36.127
Notes on the Housing Element Update
The following are some notes and comments on the Housing Needs Assessment (appendix C) in the draft Santa Cruz Housing Element Update.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/92612 I found a few details in that section that were potentially inaccurate, or at least might be clarified a little for future versions of the document.

Each comment begins with a screenshot from the draft Update.

I also extended this analysis to include some demographic elements that were not covered in the draft. I’ve included a small part of that. The full study is looking at similar statistics over the entire Bay Area. It seems to me that an analysis of the entire region is required to make sense of how this is going to work.

This has been a rainy day project for me. Clearly we’ve had quite a bit of rain. ;-)

36.128
Changes in the County Age Distribution
This image is from the Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix C, sec 2 pg C-3.

First, a quibble. It is difficult to interpret that chart because the age bracket intervals are not uniform. Most are 5 year intervals but the 25 - 34, 35 - 44, and 45 - 54 brackets are 10 year intervals. Those shares will appear greater because of the longer time interval. It will be difficult to compare the chart visually to the “population pyramid” or a typical population distribution curve. See below for an example and a chart that shows the differences.

I am also not sure if the data used from the ACS S0101 table as was cited. Table DP05 in the ACS survey uses a mix of intervals that match the table above, though it includes separate brackets above the 65 yo bracket with 5 year intervals up to 85+ yo. Those could have been combined of course. See the link below for the original data. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++age&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP05 I prepared the following charts using ACS S0101 data from 2011 and 2021 using uniform 5 year increments (margin of error estimates <± 0.3%). The data are in the link below. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++age&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S0101

36.129
This chart shows the age distribution for CA and the US for 2011 and 2021. It’s a good introduction to the basic shape of an Age Distribution graph for a large population and is a useful baseline for comparisons with the age distribution in Santa Cruz. 1 Also note that CA has more people in the 25 - 45 yo brackets and slightly fewer in the 60+ yo brackets than the US. And the number of people in the <5 yo bracket is quite a bit lower. The reasons for those are obvious and well documented.

This chart above shows the specific ranges for the various age “generations” (baby boom, Gen-X, etc) for 2020.
1 Nerd note - the “boomer” and “millennial” bumps shift to the right (10 years) during the 2011 to 2021 interval in both of the graphs.

36.130
This chart shows a comparison between the age distribution for Santa Cruz County and CA for 2011 and 2021 using the data from ACS S0101. Typically this would be a column chart but I think the line graph is easier to follow.

Starting at the left side, the share of younger people in Santa Cruz is quite a bit smaller than the average in the state. That share dropped from 2011 to 2021 due to a change in the birth rate and out-migration of families in the child bearing age groups.

The very large university age population share was relatively constant during that interval. 2 The chart also shows a relatively large number of county residents in the 45 - 60 yo group in 2011, with a significant decline in that group’s population share by 2021. That is likely to be due to out-migration.

The share of city residents in the 60 - 75 yo group is relatively large compared to the state. That was also mentioned in the Housing Element Update, though I think there is a more nuanced understanding of that share than “a need for senior housing”. 2 The total enrollment at UCSC increased about 2.5k between 2011 and 2021 but that doesn’t show in these statistics. There are a few possibilities. The non-student population in the same age groups is likely to have declined about the same amount as the age groups above and below it, about 2%. That accounts for about 1.2k. It is also possible that many more students live in the county since the available rental housing supply in the city has been very low.

36.131
To give you another perspective, this chart shows the age distribution by population shares of Santa Cruz County, San Francisco County, and CA.

Note the large shares in the age brackets that are common in San Francisco, and the very low shares of people in younger age groups. San Francisco is definitely an extreme case.

36.132
Transposing the data to track the year over year changes in each age group’s share is useful.

I’ve let the vertical scale vary on the following graphs to show detail. Keep that in mind when comparing them.

The <5 and 5-9 yo age group shares are declining over the 2011 - 2021 interval.

The 10 - 14 yo age group and the 80+ yo group shares are relatively flat.

36.133
The 15 - 19 and 20 - 24 yo groups include university students so they are a relatively large share of the city’s population.

The 25 - 29 yo group includes some of the university population and the share is relatively flat.

I left in the shares for the 30 - 34 yo age group to help read the scale in this graph. The rest of the brackets are in the same area.

36.134
This chart shows a significant decline in the 30 - 59 yo brackets with the exception of the 45 - 49 yo group’s share, which is fairly flat.

These are significant. The age groups in the lower half of that range are more likely to have children. People in the 30 - 59 yo age brackets also typically contribute significantly to the local GDP.

36.135
The 60 - 74 yo group shares increased substantially between 2011 and 2021. This was also noted in the Housing Element Update.

There was a small increase in the 75 - 79 yo group share.

These year over year charts show that, other than residents in the university age groups, the share of people in all of the age categories below 60 yo are declining. I did not include the charts but I can show that the decline is monotonic year over year - e.g. each group’s share dropped a little every year.

The increase in the 60 - 74 yo groups are very likely due to migration into the city.

36.136
A study of the county shows similar patterns.

This chart from that study, with the year over year change in the highest income bracket’s share highlighted, gives a very clear idea of what is happening.

36.137
County to county domestic migration data is available here:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/
I have not studied this at the city level and I am not sure if the data is available.

The following charts show the year over year migration patterns between Bay Area counties.

There has been a fairly large migration from Santa Clara County (and, to a lesser extent, other Bay Area Counties) into Santa Cruz County over the last decade. The charts above indicate that the migration rate is accelerating. That has been happening in the other counties surrounding Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties as well.

Aside from university students coming from other counties, the increase in the 60 - 74 yo age group is likely to be accounted for by the in-migration noted above.

36.138
Household Income
This image is from the Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix C, sec 3 pg C-13. It uses data from the City.

The chart is a snapshot of household income in the city. It shows the number of households with income at various levels.

The source of the data is not cited but it seems to be from the ACS S0190 2020 table cited elsewhere in the Housing Element Update.
https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++household+income&tid=ACSST 5Y2021.S1901

36.139
I tried to reproduce the chart from that data and found that the chart above applies only to “married couple families”.

The screenshot above shows the different Household type columns in the ACS S0190 table.

Note the median income differences in each bracket as well. The median income cited in the Update is $86,618 which aligns with the “family” category. The median income of the “married couple families” group is much higher at $156,806. It is a much wealthier cohort.

36.140
The chart above shows the difference in the distribution using the two household types.

The distribution of household incomes is still heavily weighted to the higher income brackets, though the $200k+ share is now a little over 20% instead of 31%. The share of lower income households is substantially larger than the chart included in the update. This is likely to be due, in part, to the large number of university students with no or small income. But a close look at the table shows that the number of families in the lower income brackets is often about twice as large as the chart in the update indicates. And the “non-family” households have much higher shares than those shown in the update chart.

36.141
The chart above shows the city’s Household Income Distribution using all household types in the city using the income brackets in the 2021 ACS B19037 table. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Santa+Cruz+City,+California++household+income+by+age&tid =ACSDT5Y2021.B19037
I think it is a good idea to include the entire range of households in the chart and explain the complexity of the household types.

36.142
The median income varies based on the household type as well (this is county data - the city statistics are similar). And it is increasing year over year.

The charts below show a demographic explanation for that increase.

36.143
I think it is useful to consider the year over year change in the Household Income by Age distribution in this analysis. I’ve studied that for the county. I can extend this to the city easily.

The youngest group is relatively flat, which is not a surprise.

The 25 - 44 yo group shows a decline in the number of households below the housing income 3 .

And there is a significant increase in the number of households above that income. 3 The income necessary to buy or rent a house. That is difficult to define precisely but it is at least a little higher than the median income in the area.

36.144
The 45 to 64 yo group shows the same year over year changes. There are fewer households with income below the housing income and quite a few more above that income. he
The 65+ yo group was relatively flat at lower household income levels but increased significantly at the higher levels.

My (informal) thought is that it is very likely the increases in the share of households with higher income is due to the in-migration of older people at or near retirement age.

36.145
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 10:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 4.25.23 Agenda Item #36 Housing Element

4.25.23 Agenda Item #36 Housing Element
Dear Council,
While it's not the first time the government has bold faced lied to justify its agenda, this time it's really obvious.

The idea Santa Cruz must build 3736 new housing units in various categories of low income rental cost over the next 8 years to meet population growth needs :
1) is a big fat lie. Population growth peaked in California in the 80's and has trended down ever since, and has now crossed over to negative. Santa Cruz county crossed over to negative (declining population) for the LAST 5 YEARS, and the city itself negative for a few years. There is no evidence this trend won't continue.

There are plenty of reasons for declining population. Trends include an aging population, the boomer generation dying off, increasing age of first births among women, delayed child rearing generally, Covid deaths, a stubborn excess mortality co-incident with the mandated mRNA vaccinations, declining male fertility, and a realization California is anti-business, high tax no return state with an odious politic that make people want to leave and they are, in droves now.
2) is stupid beyond words. The building of new units in that quantity without actual population growth will result in massive vacancies in the worst case 3% range. There will be mass financial casualties. Mass building into a pending housing bust is near insanity. Rising interest rates are starting, but only just begun, to crush housing prices.

Think Stockton in 2009.
3) Is racist. A good chunk of the housing allocation is because Santa Cruz is "too white" which is as racist as can be. Good thing we are also not "too affluent" (the state thinks affluent communities need lots more poor people because they have some sort of magic that rubs off and are discriminating) or we would have been assigned even more low income housing. It is classic leftist drivel SJW logic, but that is California today headed for the trash bin of states.
4) Interferes with the free market in communist style central planning mandates.

Especially when government incentives are used like permanently giving away public assets like parking lots to the benefit/partnership with developers and VERY FEW citizens

36.146
2 it is not playing on a level playing field of capitalism and stealing public assets from the rest.

It pretends "governments know best" but they don't. Every serious problem we face like inflation which is the real issue here is caused by the corruption partnership of the Federal government, banks, Federal Reserve massive debt bubble creation. This doesn't solve that or even acknowledge it.
5) Is a dodge for a very different agenda. Both "affordable housing" and "climate change" are the vehicles being used to imprison the population in ultra dense urban cores without the freedom of mobility (no cars) creating 15 minutes cities where everyone works and lives out their entire lives within a 15 minute radius. It is totalitarian, it is about control.

It is not America. There is lots of open land in the US, but the government doesn't want us living there, no matter what we want.
6) Does NOT reduce overcrowding. I suppose it depends on your definition of overcrowding, but using the Food Bin example, building 59 288 sq foot units "designed for singles and couples" packs more people into an acre lot than ever before. There may be walls between the people, but they are in solitary confinement and cannot even own cars? Jail isn't much worse and even serve free food.

Economically, it is just the shrinking cereal box and is not more affordable per sq foot (we will see, but 288 sq feet isn't a lot). It is you pay for what you get.

It is possible this or a different mix of housing is desirable, but only as replacements for any existing housing that is not appropriate given a lack of population growth.

If there is any cost/affordability advantage to building density, you could allow such structures, but also demand open space so the people/acre doesn't change that much (quality of life issue). But you won't because you are part of the agenda, Agenda

21. As with the climate change energy starvation mass hysteria, the consequences are not considered. The risks not considered. 7) Catering to, subsidizing, and attracting a mass of poor people by offering them less and less for whatever money they have is not the road to prosperity. It is the road to the cesspool of government dependence.
8) The University doesn't pay property taxes, and they can house their own students many of which are out of state or foreign because they pay higher tuition. Do an analysis of city resources

36.147
3 the University sucks up they don't pay for, how they impact density and then quality of life and let me know the balance.

This place will turn into a ___hole and you're all giddy with glee and beaming with virtuosity without facing realities.

Garrett Philipp
342 Plateau
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

36.148
Santa Cruz Housing Element
City of Santa Cruz
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023

36.149
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Agenda
 Housing Element Background and
Sections
 Candidate Sites Strategy
 Housing Goals
 Community Engagement Efforts To-Date
 Next Steps

36.150
Santa Cruz Housing Element
What is a Housing Element?
Required Chapter of the City’s General Plan
Identifies projected housing needs by income
category
Provides goals, policies, programs, and quantified
objectives to address current needs and guide future
housing growth for all income levels
Requires timely certification by the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for
compliance with State laws

36.151
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Policy Plan
Appendix A – Community Engagement
Appendix B – Review of Past Performance
Appendix C – Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix D – Fair Housing Assessment
Appendix E – Housing Constraints
Appendix F – Housing Resources
Appendix G – Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix H – Glossary
Housing Element
Sections

36.152
Santa Cruz Housing Element
5th Cycle RHNA Accomplishments
Income Category 5th Cycle RHNA Permitted Units* Percent of RHNA Very Low-Income 180 196 109%
Low-Income 118 433 367%
Moderate-Income 136 233 171%
Above Moderate-Income 313 802 256%
TOTAL: 747 1,664 223%
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation
*Figures updated as of April 19, 2023.

36.153
Santa Cruz Housing Element
6th Cycle RHNA
Income Category % of Area Median
Income (AMI)
Income Range*
RHNA
Minimum Maximum (Housing Units)
Very Low-Income 0 – 50% -- $77,750 859 units
Low-Income 51 – 80% $77,751 $124,750 562 units
Moderate-Income 81 – 120% $124,751 $143,150 709 units
Above Moderate-Income >120% $143,150 -- 1,606 units
TOTAL: 3,736 units
*Income range is based on the 2022 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Cruz County of $119,300 for a family of 4.

36.154
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Candidate Site Requirements
• Sites that can accommodate the
City’s 2023-2031 RHNA
• Located near existing community
resources and transportation, and
have access to utilities
• Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

36.155
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Candidate Sites
Strategies

1. Projects in the Pipeline

2. Projected ADUs

3. Vacant Residential
Sites

4. Infill Opportunity Areas

36.156
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Infill Opportunity Areas
• Downtown
• Corridors
• Mission Street
• Ocean Street
• Soquel Avenue
• Water Street
• River Street
• Churches
• Other Sites

36.157
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Updated Draft 6th Cycle Strategies Summary
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
TOTAL
6th Cycle RHNA 859 562 709 1,606 3,736
Pipeline Projects City of Santa Cruz 691 174 1,865 2,730 UC Santa Cruz 868 217 0 1,085
Total Pipeline Projects 1,559 391 1,865 3,815
Projected ADUs 349 175 59 583
Vacant Residential Land 5 11 138 154
Mission Street Corridor 93 71 705 869
Ocean Street Corridor 51 40 176 267
Soquel Avenue Corridor 80 62 353 495
Water Street Corridor 28 23 172 223
River Street Corridor 12 9 201 222
Churches 55 25 28 108
Downtown 26 21 312 359
Downtown Expansion Plan Area 115 115 916 1,145
Other Sites 0 3 29 32
Total Projected Housing 814 555 3,089 4,457
Total Unit Potential 2,373 946 4,954 8,272
Units Over/Under 952 237 3,348 4,536
Percent Over/Under 67%36.158 33% 208% 121%
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Updates to the Public Review Draft Sites
• Re move:
• Golf Club Drive sites
• County of Santa Cruz site
• Antonelli Pond site

36.159
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Updates to the Public Review Draft Sites
• Re move:
• Existing library
site
• Add:
• City Lot 7

36.160
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Updates to the Public Review Draft Sites
• Public Review Draft Total Unit Potential –
• New Updated Total Unit Potential –
Very Low/Low Moderate Above
Moderate TOTAL
Total Unit Potential 2,373 946 4,954 8,272
Units Over/Under 952 237 3,348 4,536
Percent Over/Under 67% 33% 208% 121%
Very Low/Low Moderate Above
Moderate TOTAL
Total Unit Potential 2,344 996 5,024 8,364
Units Over/Under 923 287 3,418 4,628
Percent Over/Under 65% 40% 213% 124%

36.161
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Additional Updates to the Draft Sites
• Downtown Plan Expansion units
• Pipe line proje ct affordability e dits
• e.g. 190 We st Cliff
• Pipe line proje cts not moving forward
• e.g. 525 Ocean Street

36.162
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Ministerial and
Above ModerateOnly Sites
• Remove ministerial
sites and portion of
Above Moderate sites

36.163
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Overall Housing Goals
• Goal 1: Hous ing Production
• Facilitate housing production that meets the present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.
• Goal 2: Affordable Hous ing
• Provide an increased and protected supply of housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households.
• Goal 3: Special Ne e ds Hous ing and Home le s s ne s s • Provide accessible housing and supportive services that provide equal housing opportunities for special needs populations, including the unhoused and those at risk of homelessness.
• Goal 4: Hous ing As s is tance
• Provide increased opportunities for low- and moderate -income residents to rent or purchase homes.

36.164
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Overall Housing Goals
• Goal 5: Neighborhood Vitality
• Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas while protecting residents from displacement.
• Goal 6: Affirmatively Further Fair Hous ing
• The City shall seek to combat housing discrimination, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access to foster a more inclusive community and help achieve racial equity and fair housing choice. • Goal 7: Res ource Cons ervation and Environmental Stewards hip • Fulfill the City’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries that takes into consideration the existing and potential impacts of sea level rise and climate change, particularly on underserved communities.

36.165
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Added Policy Objectives
• Obje ctive 1.3f – Streamline and reduce costs of building plan check for residential projects of four or fewer units if the building plans have previously been submitted and approved by the City in the same Building Code cycle.
• Obje ctive 3.3l – Work with partner agencies and advocate for expanded homelessness response services within the County and outside the City’s jurisdiction.

36.166
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Added Policy Objectives
• Obje ctive 5.5c – Establish a program that promotes the rental protections that are in effect and utilize a variety of means to distribute that information widely with a focus on getting that information disseminated in lowerincome areas. (AFFH) • Obje ctive 6.3c – Apply for the AARP Age -Friendly Community designation and assemble a standing committee of City staff to coordinate projects and operations that integrate the Age -Friendly Community program pillars.

36.167
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Policy Objectives Recommendations
• Additional discussion on Extre me ly Low Income (ELI) units • Conside r refine me nts to housing pre se rvation and re nte r prote ction/displace me nt policie s

36.168
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Community Engagement
Efforts To-Date
• Community Workshop #1 (Fall 2022)
• Community Survey (Fall 2022)
• Tabling at Community Events (Fall 2022)
• Stakeholder Meetings (Winter 2022)
• City Council Housing Element Subcommittee
Meetings (Winter-Spring 2023)
• Public Review Draft Release: March 24, 2023
• Community Workshop #2: April 4, 2023
• Planning Commission Meeting: April 20, 2023
• City Council Meeting: April 25, 2023

36.169
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Public Review Draft
• Available for review March 24 – April 24
• Comments and questions will be considered
prior to submittal of the first Draft to HCD

36.170
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Summary of Community Feedback
• Facilitate more affordable housing development
• Consider impacts on water, traffic, parks, and parking • Seek State and Federal funding to assist affordable housing development and address homelessness
• Consider the design and bulk of potential developments • Plan to exceed the RHNA for lower- and moderate -income units (buffer) *All comments submitted in the Feedback Form are attached in the Staff Report. 36.171 Santa Cruz Housing Element
Summary of Community Feedback
• Recommendations to support mobile homes, particularly for seniors • Consider the effects of short-term rentals/vacation homes • Upzone single -family zones to allow multi-family development • Maintain existing City character
• Consider flooding and wildfire risk for new development *All comments submitted in the Feedback Form are attached in the Staff Report. 36.172 Santa Cruz Housing Element
Tentative Project Schedule
Public Review Draft
Release
March 24, 2023
Virtual Community
Workshop #2
April 4, 2023
Planning Commission
Meeting
April 20, 2023
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
HCD Draft Submittal
Spring 2023
90-Day HCD Review
Spring 2023
Address HCD
Comments
Summer 2023
Virtual Community
Workshop #3
Summer 2023
Second Submittal to
HCD
Fall 2023

36.173
Santa Cruz Housing Element
Thank You! Questions?
Matt VanHua, Principal Planner
[email protected]
Housing Element Update webpage:
https://tinyurl.com/santacruzhousingelement

36.174