B
)
*
@
)
%
)
G,
)
19.142
APPENDIX
133
14. What services are most needed to assist in finding and/or keeping permanent housing? :
4
)
)
&
-
!
4
!
(
%4 /
)
/
:A*523$:3
'3
#
+
!:!(
:
,
,
-
)
)
)4
A
E
)
)
%
+
2
;
HI?%H
*
:#
+
0
,
")
/
-
)
)
*/
/
4
3
)
)4
4
2
)
,
)
-
)
)
)4
A
E
)
)
%
+
2
J
:
:#
+7
:
7
(
-
4 )
)
#
:#
+7
:
2
.2222$7$*:! *&$!-!J$!AA!(!73-$ 3:
32!3!7$!A7$!&K6.*A3!#3.!AAK
!00C7&!6A$ C $C032C:$-!J$
3*-$:
32$7$ 3#7!(
(
-
:#
+
)
!
/
I
7
K
/
K
/
4
=
A$!@$:! 3!#7.L7$2$!7:!A:(!#$!AC $
(
:#
+7
:
*E:#
+4
*E
0,
2
(
:#7:
.
4
(
-
)
")
:!@$:#7:
19.143
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
134
3
:#
+7
:
A
%
3
+
3
#
:
-
(
!
;
(
3
1
)
-
84
2
)
)
)-
)
)
)4
:
!
-
)
)
)4
A
E
)
)
%
+
2
-
)
)
)4
A
E
)
)
%
+
2
3
%
)
)
*/
)
/
)
4
3
:#
&C C33!J$&C1 :! 3!#7.L7$2$!7:!A
:3.&*C:
:#7:
(
(
:#
+7
===3
=
-
2
):
)
!00C7&!6A$! &7$!:C !6A$* #C-$
C $
.
1
,
C
;
0
+
-
(
)/
(
,
:#
+7
:
!
7
-
*
/
/
*
2
%
3
:#
+
K
-
)
)
)4
A
A
:#7:
2
*E
9
)
*
*E
!
4
14. What services are most needed to assist in finding and/or keeping permanent housing?
19.144
APPENDIX
135
-
)
)
)4
A
E
)
)
%
+
-
)
)
)
-
*/
-
:
M
;
)
)
14. What services are most needed to assist in finding and/or keeping permanent housing?
19.145
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
136
15. What are the key building or site design features that would support providing these services?
!
!
"#
$
%
$
&
'
$(
&
$
)
$
$
*
&
+
"
,
-
%
&
.
,
$
$
&
/",
$
+
0
$
1
2
&
+
*
,3
4
5
&
#
%
6
7
($
+
'
)
&
4
$+&8(5
'
&
$
%
1
0
.
#
%
49%
5
+
)
0
%
!
:
%
+
#!&
#
'$
$$
$
$ $
8
*
.
*
:$
$
+
19.146
APPENDIX
137
15. What are the key building or site design features that would support providing these services? ,
$
2
+
$
+
8
.
$
+
)
0
+ +
&;<+
/
2
-
&&1=
+
+
&;<+
2
'
$
+
(
2#=#+-1&<"><#8#<+2+,%-#
2
+
&;<+
;
7
'
*
?
,
$+&<+
/
8
.
)&
)&@
.
$
=
A1&
&
B
1
&
;
$
8
<
1
@
4
&
*
5 +=#+&<+
,
+
&;<+
??C&
+
&
+
*
1
&
+
-
-
+
-!
+
)
0
1$+&
)%-%11@#)%9-+-1&<"><#8#<+2
+1")
%+
+&<+
DE+
)
0
,
+
&;<
FFF1
F
19.147
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
138
15. What are the key building or site design features that would support providing these services? 77%<)/2#-)-%1-1
8%*#2#++
$
.
"&+&
+
)
0
+&<+
&
(
+ 0
$
B
$
B
$
/
&
'
&
$
/
,
+
&;<+
+
)
$
1$+
&;
G
2 +&<+
,
)
B
$
$
$
0
.
+
$+
&;
&
'
$
$
&
+
$
7+
+
1$+&
2
+
19.148
APPENDIX
139
16. Should certain services be located in the same physical space, located adjacent to one another (or not), located in an area that’s directly accessible to the public (or not), etc.? Can certain services share space?
· How should the design and location of services relate to housing and shelter on the site? !
!
1
2
)
1+
3
0
!
)
&
'
"
"
!
3
&
!
4
!
'
$
+
5
.
3
&
&
6
2
%
6
3
#
#
&
+9
#
1
%
F
G
4
2'
)
#
)
"
5)
6
)
+29
19.149
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
140
16. Should certain services be located in the same physical space, located adjacent to one another (or not), located in an area that’s directly accessible to the public (or not), etc.? Can certain services share space?
· How should the design and location of services relate to housing and shelter on the site?
2
'
2
6
!
%
$
7
7
#
8
#
1
)
0
0
'
5
0
!
'
%
!
0
0
2
%
#
-.
#
6
5
%
$
9
&
:
:
#
+29
*
2
6
+29
&
2
;
;
+29
19.150
APPENDIX
141
16. Should certain services be located in the same physical space, located adjacent to one another (or not), located in an area that’s directly accessible to the public (or not), etc.? Can certain services share space?
· How should the design and location of services relate to housing and shelter on the site? *
&
0
'
-. /
$<'=<'6!'+9>?9<1<'9'$'+<'$
6<
6
+29
*
+9
@
A
:
',
=
#
+
)
>
+
4*
+9
5
:
+2
B
45
6
!
:
"
+
9
'
=
A5
:
4
+2
+
'
:
'=<+9
!
+29
$
!
2
!
+
5
!
+9+
9
#
+
1
<)
-. /
0
#
)
+
'
+
!
"
-
#
0
"
#
2
!
+
(
6
!!'*<(
,6'6!'+9>?9<1<'9'$
!>(
+9
CD#
&
+29
EEE!
E
'
19.151
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
142
$
)
*
+9
!
+2
&
$
+9
,
1
:
'
5)
0
+
3
#
!"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
$
*
'
+
!
,'
-. /
0
16. Should certain services be located in the same physical space, located adjacent to one another (or not), located in an area that’s directly accessible to the public (or not), etc.? Can certain services share space?
· How should the design and location of services relate to housing and shelter on the site?
19.152
APPENDIX
143
19.153
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
144
COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 2
19.154
APPENDIX
145
COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 2
19.155
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
146
>
4
C ?2/#
' $
>
2 "
$ $
>
(
&
>
(
4 1 $
$
$
>
1
@
B
@( $
$
B
>
' ,?
, ,4< C
4
1
/
)
( $ 4
$
>
(/ $ 4 1 $
$
>
'
7D#
!"!
#
#
# $ % %
$ $
&
'
$
$ $
$ # # # #
(
)
$
*+
$
,
-
. $
. /
-
0 1$ 2
3
4 !
'
5 ' 64 4 '
5 ! $
5 ,
7!
5 8
5 1
2
90::
1
5 ' 4 631 !;,
5 < 4 (
5
=5
> (
$
7-
>
6 (
4 <
71
$
>
6
8 4
?
> ! $
@1 A
B
> '7 $
1. How would you prioritize the balance between: Shelter Space, Housing, Services, Commercial Space, Open Space, and Parking?
2. If you could add one thing to the vision we haven’t discussed, what would it be?
3. Do you have a strong reaction to one of the development options? If so, Why?
4. General Feedback?
COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 2: RESPONSES
19.156
APPENDIX
147
QUESTION 1 MAP QUESTION 2 MAP
QUESTION 3 MAP QUESTION 4 MAP
COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 2
19.157
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
148
QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2
QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4
COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING 2
19.158
APPENDIX
149
ONLINE RESPONSES: CHARRETTE 2
1. If you could add one thing to the vision that we haven’t discussed, what would it be?
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
''
' ''
(
" )&*&"+!,-.
,-. ,-,
-. ,-.
/,-,-.,-.
,-.0
,-
.
1
2
32
"
/
4
5
6
7
/
/
//
"
#
8
!
/
4
9:4
;
19.159
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
150
2. How would you prioritize the balance between: Shelter space, Housing, Services Commercial Space, Open Space and Parking?
!
!
!
!"
#
$
!%
!&
%
'
(
"
)
&
#
$
)
&
%
"
"
!
!
!
!"
!&
!%
!
!
!
!"
!&
!%
19.160
APPENDIX
151
3. Do you have a strong reaction (positive or negative) to one or more of the Development Options? If so, why?:
!"
#
$
%
&
''
# (
)#
*
"
#
%
$
+
# %
)
!
# *
#
,
%
,
#
&
%
,
#
(
-
$,. !
- (/
0
1
(
# (#
$&& 2- $,3 !
- $,. !
%
$#
(
4 !
#
(
4 5
- -
#
6# 7
#
(
-
( 5
8 8
-
5
8 !
8
8 8
(
-
!
4
#
-
' $#
19.161
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
152
4. What other feedback do you have on the vision for the Coral Street homeless services campus?
:
;<
;
(
+
!
!
+
/
*
$
400
0 0
0
0/
//
/
/
/
0
:=4>4 :?5@AB
@AB @A+@
AB
@AB
!@A+@AB
@AB @AB*
@A
B
$
(
06
+ !
2
! 3
6
$
400
/
0
!
"
!
# $%
&
'
(
!
)
*
+
, -+
(
!
(
./
( 01
+ 2
3
400
/
0$5 6
-
7/
-
,
!
+
+
8
9
19.162
APPENDIX
153
19.163
CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT
19.164
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting
March 30, 2023
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Please note: As of March 1, 2023, participation in meetings for City Advisory Bodies is in-person only.
Members of the public can continue to stream the meetings from the City’s website, however public comment will no longer be taken virtually and those wishing to address the board must be in attendance at the location provided on the agenda.
The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities, we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the Planning Office at (831) 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such assistance, or email [email protected]. The Cal-Relay system number: 1-800-735-2922.
Any writing related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at the City Planning Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101 or on the City’s website at www.cityofsantacruz.com These writings will also be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting in the public review binder at the rear of the Council Chambers.
APPEALS: Any person who believes that a final action of this advisory body has been taken in error may appeal that decision to the City Council. Appeals must be in writing, setting forth the nature of the action and the basis upon which the action is considered to be in error, and addressed to the City Council in care of the City Clerk.
A written notice of appeal, together with the fee of seven hundred forty-one dollars ($741), with the exception of development projects which are appealable to the Coastal Commission where no fee will be charged, must be received by the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days following the date of the action from which such appeal is being taken.
Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The Planning Commission agenda and the complete agenda packet containing public records, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, are available for review on the City’s website: www.cityofsantacruz.com/pc and at the Planning Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours.
Agenda Materials Submitted after Publication of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, public records related to an open session agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available at the same time they are distributed or made available to the legislative body on the City’s website at: www.cityofsantacruz.com/pc and are also available for public inspection at the Planning
19.165
Office, 809 Center Street Room 101, Santa Cruz, California, during normal business hours, and at the Council meeting.
Need more information or wish to send electronic correspondence to an item on the agenda? Contact the Planning Office at [email protected]
Call to Order
Roll Call
Statements of Disqualification
General Business
Coral Street Visioning Report Project Number: FP22-0003 Recommendation: That the Planning Commission review and provide comments on the attached Coral Street Visioning Report dated March 23, 2023.
Adjournment
19.166
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 23, 2023
AGENDA OF: March 30, 2023
SUBJECT: Coral Street Visioning Report Project
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and provide comments on the attached Coral Street Visioning Report.
BACKGROUND: Services for unhoused community members have been provided at multiple sites along Coral Street for the past few decades, and recently the City has acquired the site located at 125 Coral Street. This acquisition, combined with an on-going and accelerating housing and homelessness crisis, has led the City and County to collaborate with Housing Matters, the primary service provider on Coral Street, and other service provider and community stakeholders on a longterm, high-level vision for the future of the Coral Street neighborhood.
In 2021, the City received State funding for Homelessness Response efforts, and in March of 2022, City Council approved the Homelessness Response Action Plan (HRAP) to develop goals and policies to prioritize program funding. It summarized five key “Action Areas” with goals established for each area. In the area of “Permanent Affordable and Supportive Housing,” a key goal provides direction to “work with partner agencies to deliver a plan for Coral Street campus and navigation center and acquire needed properties.” The Coral Street Visioning Report is the product of this direction. The primary goal of the Visioning Report is to help guide future housing, supportive services, and infrastructure investments in the area, particularly on sites that are under City or partner control.
DISCUSSION:
The Coral Street Visioning Report (attached) is a high-level guidance document that will help coordinate the work by the City, County, and Housing Matters over the coming decades and set priorities to apply for funding for services or development of sites within City or partner control.
This report includes no changes to land use designations at this time, involves no project entitlements, and creates no formal obligations on the part of the City or the City Council. As such, the item before the Planning Commission does not require a formal recommendation or public hearing. However, bringing the Coral Street Visioning Report to the Planning Commission provides an opportunity for the Commission to comment on the report and provide their thoughts on the future uses and land use intensities in the area. It also provides another opportunity for public comments to be recorded. The Commission may choose to convey comments to the Council through informal dialogue during the meeting or through formal motion(s).
The attached report begins by providing background information on the vision area and details the extensive engagement with service providers and the general public. The vision then outlines key opportunity sites and details development options for the recently acquired 125 Coral Street site beginning on page 32 of the report. It shows four ways the 125 Coral Street site could be used to
19.167
AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of March 30, 2023
SUBJECT: FP22-0003 – Coral Street Visioning Report
PAGE 2
meet different goals and produce different amounts of parking, housing, and space for services.
These options provide different frameworks for future development of the site depending on the timing, funding availability, and community needs at the time it is developed. At this time, staff’s preferred approach is that the City take steps to pursue Option 4. This option envisions two floors dedicated to a navigation center, and then three or more floors developed for permanent affordable housing (either permanent supportive housing or other low- or very low-income housing).
The report then details the potential for additional opportunities in the vision area beyond the key opportunity sites. These sites are mapped, and possible longer term development scenarios on the sites are shown. The report concludes with a discussion on next steps toward realizing the vision.
As detailed in the report, service providers and community members provided a wide range of ideas for additional or expanded services and amenities that would compliment the current homeless services and that could fit into the vision for the area. The report acknowledges that stakeholder input by incorporating options for different land uses and building spaces within the study area. The decisions about what services or what service providers will occupy spaces would be determined at later stages. Nevertheless, additional discussion is provided here related to potential options for two of the existing uses.
Feedback from service providers included the desire to expand the area available for the Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP) medical clinic (currently located on the ground floor of the Rebele Family Shelter building at 115 Coral Street) from approximately 4,500 square feet to approximately 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of space. The architectural consultant’s calculations for Option 4 on the 125 Coral Street site show the third floor and above having approximately 13,800 square feet of residential space each. As such, an additional alternative to the third floor and above all being residential would be for the third floor to be devoted to space for the HPHP medical clinic.
The County has indicated that they do not currently have funding for the construction of such a space. However, as is the case with the other projects contemplated in the vision, funding will need to be sought and secured to make any of the projects a reality. The County could secure funds for the medical clinic, or grant funding for the larger project could also potentially fund the medical clinic. In either scenario, the space on the third floor could be dedicated to a medical clinic rather than residential uses. Housing Matters staff could then occupy the area at 115 Coral Street where HPHP currently leases space. This sub-option is not currently included in the draft plan but may be included prior to the report being presented to Council.
The inclusion of medical office space in the 125 Coral Street project would create additional parking demand. Parking demand and supply were raised by many service provider and community stakeholders, and options for both are discussed in the report.
19.168
AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of March 30, 2023
SUBJECT: FP22-0003 – Coral Street Visioning Report
PAGE 3
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
The community outreach conducted on this project included two focus group discussions with current service providers and two community meetings. The Visioning Report incorporated extensive feedback from existing service providers that work with the unhoused community and from the community at large, including people with lived experience of homelessness, residential and business neighbors of the existing Housing Matters campus, advocates, and other community members. The results of the outreach are discussed extensively in the report on pages 9 through 28 of the report.
The comments received during both the in-person community meeting and the responses submitted to online survey are included as appendices to the Visioning Report. The responses received online address many of the same issues raised during the in-person event, with one clear a notable exception: mentions of the Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studio (SCRS) in the online survey exceeded all other topics raised in that forum. The SCRS is a local business that provides rehearsal space to local and visiting musicians who need a place to rehearse at full volume without fear of disturbing neighbors. SCRS provides four sound-proof rehearsal spaces, a unique service in the region. Most of the comments mentioning SCRS appear to come from customers who rely on the business to support their musical pursuits and who expressed concerns that, by appearing within the boundary of the study area, SCRS was being identified for removal by the City or other agency. These commenters advocated for SCRS to be removed from the study area.
The Visioning Report is a high-level document and does not create any land use or building changes on its own. The City and partners are interested in exploring options for the area that could be available on a 20-40 year time horizon and anticipate a range of potential outcomes in terms of site control. At this time, SCRS has expressed no interest in relocating or selling the property.
Similarly, the parcels at 133 Fern Street and 129 Coral Street are also currently held in private ownership by other parties not associated with any public agency or homeless services provider, and neither of those owners have expressed interest in selling their respective properties. Given that this is a long-range vision, by keeping the boundaries of the study area as presented, this Visioning Report can consider many potential future scenarios, which may or may not become available. The boundaries of the study area are based on the physical geography of the area – the rail corridor creates a natural break on the east-west street, and including all the parcels on both sides of Coral Street between River Street and the rail corridor creates logical boundaries to consider all future development options.
SCRS, Graniterock, and the owner of 133 Fern Street are not obligated to make any changes to their existing businesses as a result of this vision. The Visioning Report represents forward thinking on the part of the City and partners to prepare for an occasion when one or more of those parcels may become available to acquire sometime in the near or distant future. While the existing businesses continue their operations, the City wants to be prepared for many future scenarios, should they come to pass, and this preparation is contained in the Visioning Report.
NEXT STEPS:
This item will be presented as an informational item to the City Council on April 25, 2023. Land use changes, if sought, and the pursuit of funding awards based on the potential projects identified
19.169
AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of March 30, 2023
SUBJECT: FP22-0003 – Coral Street Visioning Report
PAGE 4
in the Visioning Report may take place within the next 12-24 months. More detailed information on next steps is included in the report.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES:
In 2019, the City adopted a Health in All Policies strategy in order to eliminate inequities in health and well-being and attain equity for all residents. The Visioning Report supports efforts that will lead to the creation of new housing, service, and shelter resources for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, which will allow more of that population to achieve permanent housing stability. This outcome is consistent with promoting health and equity. The engagement of stakeholders with lived experience of homelessness also helps ensure that the Visioning Report is responsive to the needs of that population and can create impactful change, consistent with one of the key elements of the HiAP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Coral Street Visioning Report creates no formal obligation on the part of the City and does not, in itself, include any land use changes or development approvals. As such, this item is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act and does not require further environmental review. Future implementation steps that follow this report may require such environmental analysis at the time they are considered by decision making bodies.
Submitted by:
Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua, AICP
Principal Planner
Approved by:
Lee Butler, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
Attachments:
1. Coral Street Visioning Report
19.170
To: Chair Elizabeth Birnbaum and Planning Commissioners [email protected] (sent via email)
From: Alexandra McCoy, Land Use Specialist
Date: March 23, 2023
Subject: Comments on the City of Santa Cruz Coral Visioning Report Dear Chairman and Board Members,
Graniterock is a long-standing member of the Santa Cruz community with a Concrete Batch Plant and Building Materials facility located at 303 Coral Street and a heavy equipment maintenance facility located at 129 Coral Street. The City of Santa Cruz’s Coral Street planning effort, previously referred to as a Master Plan and now referred to as a Visioning Report, aims to craft design plans for a homelessness service-oriented Coral Street and bolster funding efforts. We applaud the City’s ongoing effort to house those in need and we have worked closely with Housing Matters as our immediate neighbor. However, we have some concerns that we would like to address and offer a potential solution.
First is the issue of whether this planning effort still includes our heavy equipment maintenance shop, located at 129 Coral Street (APN 008-171-01), which is not for sale. This planning effort to-date has included our 129 Coral Street property as seen on the City of Santa Cruz’s website for the Coral Street planning effort as of the date of this letter. However, the “Notice of Special Meeting” mailed to us regarding the Planning Commission hearing of the Coral Street Visioning Report lists 4 APN’s, none of which are our parcel, so it is unclear whether our parcel is still included in the project area. In late 2022 and early 2023, Graniterock staff met with City planning staff, attended community meetings, and submitted a comment letter to the senior planner managing the project (that letter dated January 27, 2023 is included as an attachment) to express our opposition that our property be included in the project area for this planning effort. Our properties are the preferrable locations for Graniterock as well as for the City and greater Santa Cruz County, and provide materials that are essential to support the maintenance of our existing infrastructure and future growth of the region. We respectfully request that our property be excluded from the Coral Street planning effort.
Second concerns the placement of homelessness services within an existing industrially zoned area.
Graniterock’s Concrete and Building Materials location is strategically located on Highway 1 and near Highway 9 to serve this region with much needed construction materials. The only thing that physically separates our heavy industrial operation from the CSMP planning area is an approximate 40’ rail right-of-way. We would like to remind the city that this is an industrial site with a concrete plant and requires the use of mixer trucks with industry required back-up alarms.
We would now like to offer a potential solution for you to consider. The City’s goal is to expand temporary housing and homelessness services in the Coral Street area. However, there are three major existing barriers or issues raised by city staff and the community – parking, pedestrian safety, and funding. The area has been plagued with parking issues since before Housing Matters opened in 2014 and the issue continues to worsen under existing conditions. The envisioned development features a mix of services and temporary housing but will only include the minimum amount of parking (which may be none). Approval of the 119 Coral Street project
19.171
to re-develop that site into 120 units only required the provision of the minimum number required space for non-residential uses, 30 spaces in tandem, as the planning commission staff report that “state law prohibits the city from requiring parking for the residential portion of the development.” The parking situation is already terrible and will get much worse after the 119 Coral Street project is even partially occupied.
The second issue is the safety of pedestrians at the Coral Street/River Street/Highway 1 intersection. This is a major highway intersection used by local and commuter traffic, and there have been numerous deaths at this intersection in recent years with several the affected individuals having been Housing Matters clients coming and going from their facilities. The development of expanded facilities without an alternative pedestrian access route will only further exacerbate the pedestrian safety concerns at this intersection.
The final piece of the issue is that of funding to purchase real estate. City Manager Martín Bernal is cited in a 2019 Santa Cruz Sentinel article related to the Se Berg property acquisition stating in an application for funding for the site that “…the city’s single largest barrier to expanding its homeless sheltering and related services has been finding a site to do so…”. The price of real estate has increased every year for the past 11 years straight, including the Pandemic Housing Boom which spiked prices by 41%! The recently acquired 0.6-acre Sea Berg site at 125 Coral Street was purchased by the City for $3 million. The 120-unit project at 119 Coral Street is slated to cost $25 million! If the City was able to utilize lands adjacent to the Housing Matters site it already owns, that would free up scare financial resources to funnel into development of much needed homelessness services.
The solution? Public data shows the 6 parcels between Highway 1 and the Tannery (i.e. those bound by Highway 1, River Street, the Tannery, and the San Lorenzo River) are owned by the City of Santa Cruz. If the City were to focus its efforts into developing this area and creating an off-street pedestrian crossing between the parcels and the existing homelessness services along Coral Street (either with an underpass underneath Coral Street or a bridge connecting the buildings above River Street), this could eliminate the major barriers identified above in one fell swoop. The site is large enough to accommodate both provide housing and parking for large and small vehicles, would allow pedestrian access the site via the river walk pathway which they already frequent (keeping them off the street), and would allow future funding to be allocated to development of services instead of attempted acquisition of small, expensive properties. City staff acknowledged in the first and second community meetings that they have considered using this land to provide services but that they were already earmarked for long-term affordable housing. I have no envy of the difficult position your staff and commissioners are in to balance such priorities, but given the current situation and need of this specific location to provide homelessness services, it would be wish and financially prudent to locate services on these parcels and find alternative locations for long-term affordable housing (which could go literally anywhere else).
In summary, Graniterock’s properties will continue to be used for industrial and industrial supporting purposes and we request that our parcel located at 129 Coral Street be excluded from this planning effort. We would also strongly advise City planning staff to seriously consider locating the much-needed homelessness service on land the City already owns adjacent to the existing Housing Matters complex. I would like to thank the City of Santa Cruz planning staff for the opportunity to comment and participate in this process. I would be happy to meet and/or discuss this further if you wish.
Sincerely,
Alexandra McCoy
19.172
Land Use Specialist
Graniterock
350 Technology Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076
cc: Pat Mapelli, Land Use Manager – Granite Rock Company Attachment: January 27, 2023 Coral Street Master Plan Comment Letter
19.173
To: Sarah Neuse, Senior Planner
[email protected] (sent via email)
From: Alexandra McCoy, Land Use Specialist
Date: January 27, 2023
Subject: Comments on the City of Santa Cruz Coral Street Master Plan Dear Sarah Neuse,
Thank you for soliciting input from the public on this proposed Coral Street Master Plan (CSMP); a planning effort to allow for future redevelopment of the Coral St and River St project area1 to facilitate the expansion of existing buildings, programs, and homelessness services that are provided by the non-profit Housing Matters. We applaud the City’s ongoing effort to house those in need and we have worked closely with Housing Matters as our neighbor immediately across the railroad tracks.
Graniterock is a longstanding member in the Santa Cruz community with a Concrete Batch Plant and Building Materials facility with employee office space located at 303 Coral Street and a heavy equipment maintenance facility located at 129 Coral Street. Graniterock originally acquired these sites because of their General Industrial (GI) zoning designation, and our use of these sites is consistent with the City of Santa Cruz’s requirements for this zoning type. We understand that part of the CSMP planning effort is to allow for future land use changes within the project area to facilitate the future expansion of homeless services in the area. We have great concerns for the City to rezone this area and place housing immediately adjacent to heavy industry – it seems counter intuitive as the purpose of GI zoning is to intentionally keep it far away from residential uses.
Please accept the following comments:
1) Our heavy equipment maintenance shop, located at 129 Coral Street (APN 008-171-01) and currently shown within the CSMP project area, is not for sale and should not be included in the project area. Our sites are the preferrable locations for Graniterock as well as for the City and greater Santa Cruz County that provide materials that are essential to support the maintenance of our existing infrastructure and future growth of the region. We respectfully request that you remove our property from the project area. 2) Graniterock’s Concrete and Building Materials location is strategically located on Highway 1 and near Highway 9 to serve this region with much needed construction materials. The only thing that physically separates our heavy industrial operation from the CSMP project area is an approximate 40’ rail right-of-way. We would like to remind 1 The Coral Street Master Plan project area is defined as the parcels bound by Highway 1, River Street, Coral Street, and the railroad tracks in addition to the parcels on the other side of Coral Street.
19.174
the city that this is an industrial site with a concrete plant and requires the use of mixer trucks with industry required back-up alarms.
3) We suggest the City consider alternative locations adjacent to but outside of the current project area for the future planned expansion of homelessness services. Specifically, public data shows that the majority of the parcels between River Street and the San Lorenzo River (i.e. the parcels bound by Highway 1, River Street, the Tannery, and San Lorenzo River) are owned by the City of Santa Cruz.
In summary, Graniterock’s properties will continue to be used for industrial and industrial supporting purposes and requests that our parcel located at 129 Coral Street be excluded from the CSMP project area. I would like to thank the City of Santa Cruz planning staff for the opportunity to comment and participate in this process. I would be happy to meet and/or discuss this further if you wish.
Sincerely,
Alexandra McCoy
Land Use Specialist
Graniterock
350 Technology Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076
cc: Pat Mapelli, Land Use Manager – Granite Rock Company
19.175
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 7:38 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: For May 9 Meeting - Letters of Support for Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) Attachments: SCRS Letters of Support.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831-420-5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.
From: Jennifer Gallacher <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2023 9:17 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson <SKalantari‐[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; lantari‐[email protected]; Martine Watkins <[email protected]> Subject: For May 9 Meeting ‐ Letters of Support for Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
In addition to over 340 online survey responses, I have attached numerous letters of support for removing Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios from the Coral Street Visioning Report. As the current report states, there has been an “overwhelming response” from the community on this issue, yet the City and Housing Matters refuse to remove us from their future plan.
The voices of clients continue to be diminished and dismissed even as the planning commission agreed that providing support to the existing businesses in the area was an important task for the City and that “one of those primary avenues of support will relate to addressing existing and future parking concerns in the area.” We urge the City Council to hear the voices of our local businesses and 1) remove private businesses from the vision. 2) address the current parking crisis (and the future exacerbation created by the development of 125 Coral) in real terms. If the City can partner with other businesses or property owners in the area - why haven’t they done it yet? Who are these partners - can the City provide names? We all know that TDS doesn’t work, it
19.176
2 hasn’t worked at UCSC, it doesn’t work on the Housing Matters campus today, and it is not a long-term parking solution.
Jennifer and Paul Gallacher
‐‐
118 Coral Street
831‐419‐2593 (cell)
santacruzrehearsalstudios.com
19.177
Forwarded to the Santa Cruz City Council with permission from Mr. Fitzmaurice ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim Fitzmaurice <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:36 PM
Subject: Coral Vision plan
To: <[email protected]>
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your work on this important challenge. We know Coral Street needs fixing. I read the plan. As a former commission member and council member and mayor, I know you are always weighing one good idea against another in these decisions. This is a good "idea." But it is just an idea. There is a crucial "existing reality" that seems to be at stake and seems to be thought expendable. Easy to overlook. It is not. Support Art! Save the Rehearsal studios! .
The Vision plan focused on some aspects of this neighborhood but overlooked some other stakeholders. In fact the "visioning" itself said explicitly that it discovered a "major insight provided by the online response." These are people who did not show up for the charette perhaps but they matter. In office I always knew that it is never too late for the community to show up.
Somewhat buried on Page 24 of the report this comment:
"The results of the online survey that followed the first community meeting was also tallied based on the total occurrences of words throughout the evening. Shared areas of concern between the Charrette and online forums placed a heavy emphasis on Circulation and Services.
A major insight provided by the online data was an emphasis on including Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios as a voice in the design process.
An SCRS owner participated in the initial charrette, and SCRS received heightened emphasis in the online responses.
In total, Santa Cruz Recording Studios was the most mentioned subject in the online forum, with a total of 340 mentions. Engagement with this business will play an important role in the future development of the Coral Street Campus. Given this overwhelming response, further outreach to neighboring businesses is recommended as a next step of community engagement at the onset of the process to initiate any future land use changes or to develop projects."
This quote from your plan states clearly that there's a problem that needs to be solved. Artists are being overlooked in the planning and the only rehearsal/recording studio in town might be
19.178
eliminated in this admirable effort. The people impacted are young artists and musicians in our community. I know them. I have been to the studio and met the patient and exceptional owner who nurtures art.
These musicians are often minimum wage workers who play music at night and by day make some money --renters, precarious, threatened with being unhoused themselves, who live in SC and in many cases grew up here. That matters. I know them and admire their determination and have heard and love their music. Be careful about sweeping them aside. We cannot fail to support art and our young people in this community.
I am teaching prison on Thursdays so I cannot come to your meeting. I hope this three-minute email will serve. I know your job is hard. But that's why the pay is so good.
Support Art! Save the Rehearsal studios! .
Tim Fitzmaurice
107 Green St. Santa Cruz
19.179
Date:
Ilear Santa Cnz CiU Council,
//'/-"
My name is A'il" n 5+ L and lam in the band
ebra'3 I rcquestthdyou
ntmov€ Santa Cruz Rehearcal Stndloe (SCRS) ftom the Cbral Sbeot Mslonlng Rcport (fomerly knom as the Coral SUeat Mcter Plan).
Thank you,
Als ltt4\R Av€. ,ff^rTh CKqz, CA, ?sO6,4
19.180
Dare:
'{/a/*z
Dear Santa Cnz City Councfll,
My name b ArttV-* TZ, C,^sb v and I am in the band
A )-', €t4(V1 | rcques[ that you
((d
temove Santa Gruz Rehearsel Studos (SCRS) ftom the Coral SheetVhioning Report (fomerly known as the Coral Sbsct irlaeter Plan).
Thank you, _Ml[z*
b?l 'Tri - 7'l'l I
n
19.181
Datc: ilr/=s
Ilear Saila Cruz City Gouncil,
My is K,va,Pf and I am in the band
I requcetthat you
leNno\,€ Santa Cru Rehearcal Shtdlos (SCRS) ftonr thE Coral Sfreet Vrsbniry R€port (forrr€dy knq,n asthe CoralSbeet Mast€r Plan).
8gt-z<t -'g0g?
19.182
Date:
Dear Santra Cruz Cig Council,
//, o /->
My name is Vo^^* MCW\c.t br
LJ:"-[*f ra)a
and I am in the bard
| rcguest that you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studioo (SCRS) ftom the Coral Sbeet Msioning Report (formerly knoum as the Coral Sfreet Master Plan).
Thank you, G
rvlai tng kd.lnsr:
t *+6 " &.r,;l l.lolto"t f4(
!* la*onqt (4 AfOc:{
19.183
Date:
DearSanta Cruz
My name is and I am in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) ftom the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly known as the Goral Street Master Plan).
Thank you,
a/u/-u
rlloi /;nS (lAors,-
rc84 g,ROnro€t bN 5A*r9 Lat)z_ X606<
\(6A
P3 Rrr Tttew rlr FRo.sN6F 19.184 ?oUK HtU.Sg
Date:
Dear Santa Cnz CiU Council,
/ /,r /.-t
My name is \nn and lam in the band
I requestthat you
remove Santa Cru RehearsalStudios (SCRS) ftom the CoralsheetMsioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank you,
'/14
W4? k *o\'o &. q60b6
5r.nlVlr
.;l;^f ll{rors;
L.
)-r,r- $rr lxr CcrtL,fA qrh'0^/
19.185
Dare: {/ t/-z
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
c c
My name is and I am in the band
I request that you
temove Santa Cnz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) ftom the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank you,
ktai/ia6, A//r-ts, ZOB C ct
fu,\tn 2U cq
?60Q2
19.186
Date:
Dear Santa Cruz City Counci[
My name is and I am in the bandr
I requestthat you .
temovc Santa Cru Rehearsal Stndios (SCRS) fiom the Conal SUect \fsbnirg Report (formedy kniln asthe CoralSbed Master Plan).
Thank yor,
{/" /ou
rtaa2/,n6 Mlnrt.- ftlS fu)ry* rta
Ut\r') 6.
S/. oA- en6)-
Io-.. olb.rt
19.187
Dare: ilt /1)
DearSanta Cnz City Coundl,
Ctt,;, Atki^r sor"J My name b and lam in the banl
cosjrnn € I rcqueetthatyon
remo\re Senta Grtz Reheared Stndioe (SCRS) fiom thc Goral Sfreet Msioning Repoil (fomerly knorm as the Coral Sheet Master Plm).
Thankyou, ruM
/tla{ftff k/{nr,r'.
all t/*t".,f ^$e' f^ntlo C8"z/ A
"& 15o6o
19.188
Date:
Dear Santa Cnz Cig Council,
4/,/t z
My name {\A"L+hi is and lam in the band
f -tl($^-,r + I request that you
remove Santa Cru Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) from the Goral Sfreet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Sbeet Master Plan).
Thank you,
/ho;t 6 4//,rr'-,
2o6z 6wu < Co{NIL/ N
9+w,+-C)r+<t4rcn qgg
19.189
Date: (/tt /*g
tlEar Santa Cruz City Coundl,
My narr ls 34{5r}.ff {liuKntbs. KE-T{4RILL and I am in the band lreqrcstthatyot
temo\,€ Santa Cru Rehearsal Stndioe (SCRS) ftom the Coml SUed Msioning Report (brn€dy known asthe CoralSbeot Mastar Plan).
Thankyor,
Al,{ n st,
640 suvt/€l( grr'€T? *r 6
qln'A oAIE-tq\ qgobL
/ltai {ty
19.190
Date: 4/,1s
Dear Santa Cruz CiU Council,
My name is 5o\l and I am in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) ftom the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
YoU'
/?3ot /,os/''1"o D
Fe//o- 0f
?fortr
19.191
Dare: 4/, ,/us
tlear Santa Cruz City Council,
My name is aM I am in the band
I requestthat you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Stndios (SCRS) fiom the Coral Sfeet Msioning Report (formedy known as the Coral Streot Master Plan).
Thank
)
, I I
lilvlO Lli,'.r, brqJvt P4,
b""\d*r gv'dr- cA \tut'
19.192
Date:
DearSanta Cnz Council,
My F ard I am ln thc band
I requestthat yon
I€movo Cruz Rehearcal Stndloe (SCRS) ftom the Coral Sbeet Msioning Repoil (fomeily knotm as the Coral SfrEct Mder Plan).
/y',/"<
tz\ 9['t
3/"^h C
)1,
(..rr ck ?(ot,o
t
Thankyou,
19.193
Date:
Dear Santa Cnz City Council,
My name B Er+l hoo(u
T h< T.'rl c . fn,^ol-
{/rr /*<
and I am in tte bend
I rcquest that you
namone Santa Cntz RehearealStndios (SCRS) ftom the Coral ShodVblonlng Report (formerly knorvn * the Coral Sfieet llaster Plan).
Thank you,
h*( plo*-u
lgf Loy ut< br
?. lb't,4h
?fo/ Y
19.194
Dde:1[ IL Lo?-s
Dear Santra Cruz City Gouncil,
My name is \
and I am in lhe band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz RehearealStudios (SCRS) ftom the Coral SfreetMsioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Sfreet Master Plan).
Thank you,
tuai(;,f 4/I14, :
9L1e AJ..lh..\q.^r D*e
S^n Tose , CA qSt3O
19.195
""e:4fi-n
Dear Santra Crtz City Council,
My name is s90 and I am in the band
lrcquestthatyol
temo\re Santa Gruz Rehearcal Studlos (SCRS) firom the CoralSfie€t Msioning Report (formerly knovun as the Coral Sbeet Mder Plan).
Thank you,
thoi lrrf ft//rz€f :
737
hon
n4o4ro€ #
terg Gl 1 31Yo
19.196
Date: 1/ ,t/Lc;t;}
Dear Santa Cnz CiU Council,
My name b and I am in the band
I rcquestthatyou
rcmow Santa Cnz Reheareal Stndios (SCRS) fiom the Coral Sbeet Msioning Repoil (fornerly known as the Coral Stueet Master Phn).
Thank yor,
/ha;/r'1 ftll "crr
: *!Y;tT* on,
19.197
Date:
Dear Santa Cruz Gig Council,
My name is Re EE and lam in the band
I requestthat you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearcal Studios (SCRS) ftom the Coral Sfeet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Sffeet Master Plan).
"t l,b /23
fs, t <#til;'t4/4r,"'
3 llv Ln{t Dr Aptzz
fti@(rna Ck ??133
19.198
He:
Dear Santa Cnz City Council,
My name b /uldfi8acravr and I am ln th band
lil;/lL^r lrr',tnA lmqueetthatyon
removo Santa Cnz Rehear€al Strdios (SCRS) fiom the CoralSfiest Msioning Report (formerty known as the Coral Sfroot Madcr Plan).
Thart< you,
fi{ihry ,,ltilr"rr,
3\\lg LnFe-dr ^{# Mqriw^r Ce %%3
3 19.199
Date:
My name is and I am in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz RehearsalStndios (SCRS) from the CoralSbeetMsioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank
A0," / 11 ,4'o*
Dear Santa Cnz City Council,
t1'/a;/,7,4o4n> r',
/h tbo
^
N ;vw\l *qpft t\co-6 0 v\
19.200
Date: (/e -?-3
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
MY ts and lam in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) ftom the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank you,
tu;/ry4#,'rs:
/02iln4urd&_
tdnkLr!t fYoe
19.201
Date: { l3 '1-3
Dear Santa Cruz CiU Council,
My name is Aent.-,, uz_ and I am in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz RehearsalStudios (SCRS) ftom the CoralStreet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank you,
rbta;/j y *//*rE
'
4 q rl \H H6"Rrt-ldG PrdES a(L.
$coTtS vhLY I CA efD 6u
tJ 3:
19.202
Date: // n3
/^
,3
Dear Santa Cnz City
My name is
remove Santa
known as the Coral Sfreet Master Plan).
and I am in the band
I request that you
(SCRS) from the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly
Thank you, (3 Z)
R,/ qB
cu>Gevtl
19.203
Date:
DcarSanta Cnz City Coundl,
W name b c
remow Santa Gnz
known as the Coral Stseet Master Plan).
l/re/-o.-3
and I am in the band
I requcot that you
Studloe (SCRS) fiom the Goral Sheet Vlsloning Report (tormerly Thankyor,
lta (zft
1toCLslo {t'€z
5r"/- Cre>rc,,(-?fo6o
19.204
Date: I ?A z>
Dear Santa Crtz CiU Council,
2/
My name is Aara\ \?{b
l2Atr?il
and I am in the band
3 F> 4)OL- I requestthat you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) fiom the Coral Sffeet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Steet Master Plan).
Thank you,
loL u'tZANrT- 4T
1wN(K rct)z
19.205
Date: f -lj-L)
Dear Santa Cnz Cig Council,
My name is and lam in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cru Rehearsal Studios (SCRS) from the Coral Sfeet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Thank
tVla, fr
25 6 v{ila De t /ueT Lane
CoLrSma, q5o7L
WAiSortv{ll e
19.206
Date: rlrcld
Deer Santra Gruz City Gouncil,
name is and I am in the bend
I rcquectthat you
remove Cruz Rduarsal Stttdios (SCRS) from the Conal Sbcct Vbioniru Report (formerly knoum as the Coral Sfoet Master Plan).
Thank you,
//, H4arr=
6SzS Crorn D) rol
9o, hslCfr 7S|LO
19.207
Date:
Dear Santa Gruz City Coundl,
I
rs
afel*
and I am ln the band
I rcquest that you
rcmovs Santa Cruz Refiearcal Studios (SCRS) ftom the CoralSheetVftsioning R€pod (fomerly known as the Coral Sbeet llaster Plan).
Thankyor,
, 441 Vrki Cl, SeUV^ll,z tttai/i r"ry
19.208
r n
Date:
Ilear Santa Cnz
My narne
rqnorffg Santa
l<ltown asho Coral Sbed MSr Plan).
and I am intha band
I rcgueetthatyou
Stndloo (SCRS) ftom t€ Coral gtest Vbioning Report (formedy $
Nanre:
Addrcss:
iun
16o 4r^l S
19.209
Date:
Dear Santa Cnz Clty Council,
W name b in the band
thatyou
rsmov€ Santa Cruz Relparsal Silndloe ftom Coral Steet Visionlng Repon (forrnerly knryn as the Coral Sbeot Masbr Plan).
Name: ?Apr* c fu*/
Address: "po /qzqa 6U ffi, lqouq qrry
19.210
Date:
Dear Santa Cru City Council,
My name is and lam in the band
I request that you
remove Santa Cruz Rehearsal Studios ftom the Coral Steet Msioning Report (formerly known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
Signature:
Name:
Address:
M,ilro/
8n Gw^L,nr^{U
snrl^ Cnt, CfrJry5P
1I
I
19.211
Date:
Dear Santa Cru Cig Council,
My name is tht\t
remove Santa Cnz RehearsalStudios
known as the Coral Street Master Plan).
and I am in the band
I request that you
the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly
r{ euni reName: Dd.nter\ ilov^ircAddress: Lol q'*'(l e? hff * 9"t+; Ctua, c+ 75e(22
19.212
Dab: z3
tlear Santa Cnz Clg
My name is and I am ln the band
I rcquetthatyou
I€move Senta Cnz Rehearsal Studlos (SCRS) ftom the Coral Sheet Vislonlng Report (formedy knqvn as the Coral Sbeet Master Plan).
SQnilrrc:
Name: /atTY\ J€lq
,*,*",/dDt ruf^
SA"A G'1
/p'c
cil EYA62
19.213
Date:
Dear Santa Cru City Council,
My name is a and I am in the band
I request tut you
remove Santa Cnz Rehearsal Stttdios (SCRS) fiom the Coral Street Msioning Report (formerly knoun as the Coral Sbeet Master Plan).
sl(n
*""D, dl Q4'hj<
Address: Z( Lo Otrtrt* U'
"au
f,uu
t^h Cuz A 1{o&
19.214
oate' Aq l,7zz
Dear Santa Cruz CiV Council,
My name is ,&Eat G.^t and I am in the band
,.r^rot-xt- \/.y'rl8lit I request that you
remove Santa Cru Rehearsal Stndios (SCRS) ftom the Coral SUeet Msioning Report (formerty known asthe CoralSfreet Master Plan).
Signature:
Name: L**N (:t+,,rar+o'rj
Address: &pl QAvg- DQ
1oq'w, U 6q+\
19.215
19.216
19.217
19.218
19.219
19.220
19.221
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 5:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Graniterock Comments on Coral Street Visioning Report Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.gif; image004.gif; image005.gif; image006.gif; image007.gif; GRC_CSVR.CC_5.8.23.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alexandra McCoy <[email protected]>
Date: May 8, 2023 at 4:59:45 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Graniterock Comments on Coral Street Visioning Report
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Attached is Graniterock’s comment letter on the Coral Street Visioning Report scheduled for the May 9, 2023 City Council Hearing.
Alexandra McCoy | Land Use Specialist
408-309-0469 | 350 Technology Drive | Watsonville, CA 95076
19.222
To: City of Santa Cruz City Council Members
(via email [email protected])
From: Alexandra McCoy, Land Use Specialist
Date: May 8, 2023
Subject: Comments on Coral Street Visioning Report (CSVR) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council members,
Graniterock is a long-standing member of the Santa Cruz community and we have owned our Concrete Batch Plant and Building Materials facility located at 303 Coral Street and a heavy equipment maintenance facility located at 129 Coral Street for over 60 years. The City of Santa Cruz’s Coral Street Visioning Report (CSVR) aims to craft design plans for a homelessness service-oriented Coral Street and bolster funding efforts. We applaud the City’s ongoing effort to house and provide services to those in need and we have worked closely with Housing Matters as our immediate neighbor.
However, we have some concerns that we would like to address and offer a potential solution. 1) Exclusion of Graniterock Property. Our heavy equipment maintenance shop, located at 129 Coral Street (APN 008- 171-01) is currently shown within the Coral Street planning project area and identified by the CSVR as a “future opportunity site”. This parcel is not for sale and we have no intention of selling within or beyond the CSVR time frame, given that it provides essential support services to our larger operation directly across the train tracks.
Further, our properties are the preferrable locations for Graniterock and provide materials that are essential to support the maintenance of our existing infrastructure and future growth of the region. We respectfully request that our property be excluded from the Coral Street planning area. 2) Issues. The CSVR planning process has brought to the surface significant issues businesses and residents adjacent to the Housing Matters campus are experiencing under existing conditions that would be greatly exacerbated with expanded housing and services at the campus without consideration and adequate mitigations. a. Parking. The issue of parking demand and supply were raised by many service providers and community stakeholders during the CSVR planning process, but the report does not assess the amount of parking demanded generated by the prospective development. The CSVR acknowledges residential development is exempt from parking requirements under the State Density Bonus Law but will ultimately curtail its own efforts by not analyzing/including adequate off-street parking based on not square footage but the numbers of persons utilizing the facilities including staff. The existing Housing Matters campus (115 Coral Street and 801 River Street) has around 144 units able to house around 200 individuals. 115 Coral Street has a 62-space parking lot but all parking spaces were eliminated in early 2020 when the palette shelters were placed in those spots. The only off-street parking currently available to Housing Matters staff (and clients) is approximately 11 parking spaces dedicated to the leased buildings as 112/114/116 Coral Street. Post construction of the Harvey
19.223
West Studios (and assuming that the 9 palette shelters currently located on the parking spaces approved for the future development are relocated), the campus would have 216 units housing around 270 individuals with 371 parking spaces available for staff and clients. At full-build-out of the other Housing Matters/City controlled sites using the designs featured in the CSVR, newly created facilities would include 9,400-55,150 square feet of programmable space, 109-202 residential units, and 16-49 off-street parking spaces. That means that as many as 418 units out be created using CSVR key opportunity site prospective designs in addition to substantial programming space with as few as 53 parking spaces for staff, residents, and clients! The CSVR key opportunity site prospective designs feature none or minimal parking on the Housing Matters/City parcels and instead “plans” to develop the necessary parking on adjacent parcels. The CSVR acknowledges that 74% of the
0.88-acres of privately-owned parcels within over 4-acre planning area are not a “particularly viable candidate for typical multifamily residential development”, the goal of the CVSP, given their “size, shape and dimensions”.
At full-build-out of the privately-owned parcels within the project area as seen in the CSVR, newly created facilities would include an additional 5,400-17,900 sq of programmable space, 52-67 housing units, and 41-103 parking spaces. See Attachment 2 for a summary of full-build out analysis based on CSVR designs. We understand the significant need for additional services and housing but it is to the detriment of clients and operation of the campus to not plan for the amount of parking necessary to support the development. Lastly, according to the 2022 Santa Cruz County Homeless Count and Survey Report, 38% of the homeless population in Santa Cruz County (around over 870 individuals) are living in a vehicle. How are those individuals expected to access the campus or services, such as the prospective Navigation Center, without a place to park? We request the CSVR assess and plan for the number of parking spaces needed for the existing and prospective campus based on numbers of persons utilizing the facilities including staff and clients accessing services. b. Pedestrian Safety. Given that the CSVR is planning for an expended campus providing more housing and services, it should also assess how individuals are expected to physically access such. The Highway 1/River Street intersection is Santa Cruz County’s largest and highest-traffic volume intersection and there have been at least four pedestrian deaths since 2015, including one earlier this year. The number of individuals accessing the prospective housing will double even under the minimum number of prospective units alone, not including individuals accessing the prospective services. As the intent of the CSVR is to plan for a concentration of new services and housing, it is the responsibility of the CSVR to think bigger picture and longer term about what that means for that area, how the individuals walk there, and what improvements may be required to help pedestrians access the campus safely.
3) Solution? Now for a potential solution to the issues described above including lack of parking, concerns regarding pedestrian safety, and limited funding. We would like to highlight that there are 3.84-acres of publicly-owned land directly across River Street from the planning area and the City already owns 1.9-acres of that (the other property owner is CalTrans) (see Attachment 1 for map of parcels and additional information). It is not clear why these parcels are not included in the CSVR as potential for development of the expanded campus given the how they 1 The staff report for the Harvey West Studios project states that 30 parking spaces will be provided. However, the approved project plans only show 26 spaces. This analysis utilizes the lower number as a conservative measure.
19.224
could enable the campus to expand sustainably and resolve the existing issues identified by the report. First, the site could allow for a large surface parking lot with potential for over-sized vehicle (ie RV) parking and the existing palette shelters located on the 115 coral Street parking spaces could be easily relocated here in the near-term which would immediately provide off-street parking to the existing campus. Second, these parcels could provide alternative pedestrian access to the campus via the San Lorenzo River Trail when connected to the existing Housing Matters campus via a pedestrian underpass under and/or bridge over River Street. Third, these sizeable to easily allow for the creation of very-low income units, as 859 very-low housing unit are required by the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Finally, the site could allow for flexible development of provider facilities and housing as is advantageous when applying for funding from state and federal sources. We respectfully request that the planning area boundary be modified to include the parcels to be considered for expansion of the Housing Matters campus.
In summary, Graniterock’s properties will continue to be used for industrial and industrial supporting purposes and we request that our parcel located at 129 Coral Street be excluded from this planning effort. Further, as the intent of the CSVR is to plan for a concentration of new services and housing, it is the responsibility of the CSVR to think bigger picture and longer term about what that means for that area and how the City can use its limited funds to create something exemplary. We suggest that project boundary be modified to include the publicly-owned parcels located across River Street from Coral Street as it would allow for sustainable development of the expanded campus. I would like to thank the City of Santa Cruz planning staff for the opportunity to comment and participate in this process. I would be happy to meet and/or discuss this further if you wish.
Sincerely,
Alexandra McCoy
Land Use Specialist
Graniterock
350 Technology Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076
ATTACHMENT 1: CSVR Build-Out Analysis
ATTACHMENT 2: Map of Publicly Owned Parcels Across River Street
19.225
ANALYSIS OF CORAL STREET VISIONING REPORT PROSPECTIVE DESIGN BUILD-OUT
EXISTING HOUSING MATTERS CAMPUS
The existing Housing Matters campus consists of City Owned Parcels, Housing Matters owned Parcels, and parcels Housing Matters is leasing.1 The existing Housing Matters campus includes four shelters with beds for around 200 individuals; the Rebele Family Shelter (for 28 households with children/90 individuals), Paul Lee Loft (adult emergency shelter for 57 individuals), Page Smith Community House (a transitional housing program for 40 individuals), and the Recuperative Care Center (post-hospital discharge for 12 individuals).
2 In addition, the 801 River Street Apartments project that just finished construction and were to be occupied by Spring 2023 includes 7 units3, bringing the total up to approximately 144 units. 115 Coral Street has a 62-space parking lot but palette shelters were placed on those parking spots in early 2020. The only existing off-street parking for the campus is the around 11 spaces dedicated to Housing Matters leased units at 112/114/116 Coral Street.
HOUSING MATTERS PIPELINE PROJECTS
The Page Smith Community House is currently located on the 0.77 acre (33,672 SF) parcel located at 119 Coral Street. This will be deconstructed and replaced with the Harvey West Studios project; a five-story building with recuperative care beds and medical offices on the ground level and 121 units (120 units plus managers unit) on the upper 4 floors and includes 264 parking spaces. This would bring the total number of units up to 224. Note that 9 of the Palette shelters are currently located in the parking lot for the 119 project, so its not clear if they will again be placed in parking spaces or relocated. Assuming units are relocated, the Housing Matters complex would have 216 units post-construction of the Harvey West Studios and 37 off-street parking spaces. The City recently purchased 125 Coral Street; a
0.64-acre (or 27,800 SF) site for $3,000,000.
CSVR FULL BUILD-OUT SUMMARY OF HOUSING MATTERS KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES The CSVR describes the prospective amounts of future residential in square feet rather than number of units. The number of future residential units projected is estimated using a conversion factor similar to to the number of units per square feet residential in the recently approved Harvey West Studios project.
That project would provide 121-units across the four stories residential stories 12,143 SF (including the top-story exterior shared open space) resulting in 0.0025 units/residential square feet. This analysis utilizes a conversion factor of 0.002 to be conservative and assume future units are larger than the 263- 277 square foot studios featured in the Harvey West Studios project. 1 City owned Parcels include three parcels: 733 River Street, and two parcels both identified as 125 Coral Street.
Housing Matters currently owns 801 River Street, 111 Coral Street, and 119 Coral Street. 116/114/112 Coral Street and 803 River Street are currently leased by Housing Matters. 2 Housing Matters (homelessactionpartnership.org)
3 https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Press-Release_801-River.pdf 4 The staff report for the Harvey West Studios project states that 30 parking spaces will be provided. However, the approved project plans only show 26 spaces. This analysis utilizes the lower number as a conservative measure.
19.226
Complete development of “key opportunity sites” (i.e., those owned or leased by Housing Matters/City) identified in the CSVR using it’s prospective designs (referred to as test fits) could result in approximately 109-202 new residential units (an additional 50 units are possible with a 5-story RSS building) with 16-49 off-street parking spaces and 9,400-55,150 square feet of services space. Thus, the existing, pipeline, and CSVR prospective designs on Housing Matters/City property could provide roughly 325 – 418 units, able to accommodate around 500 individuals with between 53-86 off-street parking spaces.
The table below summarizes the values used to determine the estimated number of existing and projected units described above.
Lobby
(sf)
Services (sf) Residential Estimated #
units
Parking
Existing campus -- -- -- ~144 11 (62)
119 Coral St -- -- -- 121 (-49
5 ) 26
Total Existing -- -- -- 216 37
125 1 1,400 2,400 55,000 sf
13,750x4
110 33
125 2 2,200 4,200 64,100 sf
14,250x4+7,100
128 0
125 3 3,000 12,000 55,200 sf
13,800x4
110 0
125 46 2,000 27,700 69,000
13,800x5
138 11
125 4.1 3,000 44,400 27,600
13,800x2
55 11
RSS 1 0 0 60 units 60 12
RSS 2 1,600 3,750 24 units +
6,500x27
50 12
112-1168 0 7,000 0 0 0
112-116 2 0 20,000 0 0 4
803 River 0 0 4 units 4 4
Total CSVR Designs -- 9,400-55,150 -- 109-202 16-49
Total @ Buildout -- -- -- 325 - 418 53-86
5 The Harvey West Studios project will displace the existing Page Smith Community House, transitional housing program for 40 individuals, and the number parking spaces required by the use permit would displace 9 palette shelter units.
6 The CSVR projects this alternative to have two-stories dedicated to services and an additional 5 stories of residential resulting in a 7-story building.
7 CSVP provides for 6,500 sf residential per floor. This value assumes a 3-story building to match the Rebele Shetler.
8 The second option for 112-116 Coral Street features modification of the existing building which is not possible without ownership of 118 Coral Street.
19.227
“FUTURE OPPORTUNITY SITES”
The two tables below outline the full build-out of the privately owned parcels within the project area (referred to as “future opportunity sites”) using prospective designs seen in the CSVR.
Lobby (sf) Services (sf) Residential Estimated #
units
Parking
112-118 1,300 5,400 (comm) 26,000 sf
13,000x29
52 28
113 Fern 1 0 0 0 0 41
113 Fern 2 0 12,500 (prog) 0 0 13
129 Coral 1 0 0 0 0 34
129 Coral 2 0 0 15 units 15 0
Total -- 5,400-17,900 -- 52-67 41-103
9 CSVP provides for 13,000 sf residential per floor. This value assumes a 3-story building.
19.228
PUBLICLY-OWNED PARCELS ACROSS RIVER STREET
# APN Owner Size (acres)
1 008-661-11 City of Santa Cruz - Redevelopment
Agency
0.47 2 008-163-07 State of California 1.53
3 008-163-06 City of Santa Cruz 0.73
4 008-172-08 City of Santa Cruz 0.46
5 008-172-16 City of Santa Cruz 0.08
6 008-172-19 State of California 0.41
7 008-172-18 City of Santa Cruz - Redevelopment
Agency
0.16 Total 3.84
City of Santa Cruz Total 1.90
19.229
Coral Street
Visioning Report
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 9, 2023
19.230
Background
Long-standing
campus for homeless
services
Homelessness
Response Action Plan
(HRAP) 3/2022
City has acquired 125
Coral Street
Visioning Report:
guide housing,
service, infrastructure
HRAP: Permanent
Affordable and
Supportive Housing
“…work with partner
agencies to deliver a
plan for Coral Street
campus and
navigation center
and acquire needed
properties.”
19.231
City
Council
Review
Provide opportunity for
Council to contribute
to the Vision
Provide more
opportunity for public
comment
Direct Staff on Next
Steps
19.232
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
COMMUNITY MEETING. LONDON NELSON COMMUNITY CENTER. FEBRUARY 6TH, 2023.
COMMUNITY CHARRETTE. LONDON NELSON COMMUNITY CENTER. DECEMBER 12TH, 2022.
19.233
SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION
WALKABILITY
HEALTH
CHILDCARE
BUSINESS
STORAGE
TECH
GARDENS RECREATION
EDUCATION
PETS
FOOD
SEATING
CAREER
HYGIENE
HOUSING
SAFETY COMMUNITY
OUTSIDE
85 81
61 45 44 41 40
31 30 29
20 18 18 17 17 16 16
11 9 7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
# OF
TIMES MEN
TIONED
CONCERN AREA
TOP 20 AREAS OF DISCUSSION
OVERALL KEY THEMES
COMMUNITY CHARRETTE DECEMBER 12, 2022
19.234
SCRS
PARKING
SERVICES
BUSINESS
GREEN SPACE
PUBLIC
HOUSING
SAFETY
LIGHTING
TRANSIT
WALKWAY
BIKE
HEALTHCARE
DRUG
MENTAL
COMMUNITY
ART
MUSIC LOCAL
ACCESSIBILITY
340
247
194 182 178 177
158 146
120 116 114 111 106
90 81 80 78 78 72 67
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
# OF TIME
S MEN
TIONED
WORD
TOP 20 AREAS OF DISCUSSION - ONLINE RESPONSES
COMMUNITY CHARRETTE DECEMBER 12, 2022
ONLINE RESPONSES
19.235
PROJECT STUDY AREA
CITY OWNED
HOUSING MATTERS OWNED
HOUSING MATTERS LEASED
Privately Owned, No City or *
Service-Provider Control
PROJECT AREA
* *
*
19.236
HOUSING MATTER CAMPUS / USES
PROJECT AREA
HOUSING MATTERS
CAMPUS
112-116 CORAL STREET;
CURRENT LEASE AGREEMENT,
USED FOR STAGING
REBELE FAMILY SHELTER
• 28 UNITS FAMILY HOUSING
• HM ADMIN OFFICES
• HPHP CLINIC AND OFFICES
PALLET SHELTERS
801 RIVER STREET
• 7 UNITS
DAY SERVICES BUILDING
• DINING HALL
• DIENTES DENTAL
• LOFT SHELTER
• HYGIENE BAY
HARVEY WEST STUDIOS
• 120 UNITS PSH
• RECUPERATIVE CARE
• BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
19.237
KEY OPPORTUNITY SITES
PROJECT AREA
SITE 1 - 125 CORAL STREET
SITE 3 - 112-116 CORAL STREET
SITE 2 - RIVER STREET SHELTER
CURRENT HOUSING
MATTERS CAMPUS
19.238
SITE 2 - RIVER STREET SHELTER
Ground Level
60 Pallet Shelters
Community Open Space for Formal / Informal
Gathering
12 “Orchard”-style surface parking spaces
OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Ground Level
1,600 sf Lobby
3,750 sf Programmable Space
24 Pallet Shelters
12 “Orchard”-style surface parking spaces
Upper Level
6,500 sf Residential Units (per floor)
APPROX. 0.6 ACRES
19.239
SITE 3 - 112, 114, 116 CORAL STREET
Ground Level
7,000 Programmable Space
OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Ground Level
4,000 sf Programmable Space
8,000 sf Navigation Center
Upper Level
8,000 sf Navigation Center
0.46 ACRES
19.240
OPTION 1
Ground level
Upper level Upper level Upper level Upper level
SITE 1 - 125 CORAL STREET
Ground level
OPTION 2
Ground level
OPTION 3
Ground level
OPTION 4 0.64 ACRES
19.241
Second Level
5,500 sf Programmable Space
11,200 sf Navigation Center
Upper Level
13,800 sf Residential Units
(per floor)
Third Level
16,700 sf Programmable Space
Ground Level
2,000 sf Lobby
3,000 sf Programmable Space
8,000 sf Navigation Center
11 surface parking spaces
SITE 1 - 125 CORAL STREET
OPTION 4.1 0.64 ACRES
19.242
FUTURE OPPORTUNITY SITES
PROJECT AREA
118 CORAL STREET*
133 FERN STREET*
129 CORAL STREET*
FUTURE HOUSING
MATTERS CAMPUS
803 RIVER STREET*
*Privately Owned, No City or Service-Provider Control
19.243
URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE OPTIONS
North side of street -
Extend curb 6’ for wider sidewalks and add tree wells
South side of street -
Extend curb 6’ for wider sidewalks and add tree wells Create community garden pockets between tree wells for
food production Use paint and security
lighting to create a
neighborhood “beacon”
Maintain 26’ travel way to
allow for two-way traffic
and Fire Department access
Restrict right turns from River
Street to discourage cut-through
traffic
Semi-public / semi-private
“urban” space
Semi-public /
semi-private
“soft” space
19.244
Implementation
and Phasing
State Law allows for Navigation Center
and Supportive Housing
Redesignating 125 Coral for
Commercial expands options
Exploring grant funding for design,
development, and resiliency
Presents a unique opportunity to
expand Homeless Services
* Council direction on Development
Option 4.1; to begin land use
amendments; and to pursue funding.
19.245
Implementation
and Phasing
Parking
New Developments can use TDM
Additional off-site parking agreements
Partner with existing businesses to build
new parking
Acquire land for parking
* Council direction to pursue first three
strategies, focusing on identifying partners
with existing available supply.
19.246
Recommendation
Accept and file the Coral Street Visioning Report and provide direction to staff
1) regarding the preferred development option for the property at 125 Coral Street, as further recommended by staff in this report; 2) regarding the approach for addressing parking resources in proximity to the Coral Street neighborhood, as further recommended by staff in this report; and
3) to initiate land use changes that will facilitate development contemplated for 125 Coral Street.
19.247
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/03/2023
AGENDA OF: 05/09/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: 2024 Affordable Workforce Housing Bond (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct staff to initiate process to bring forward for placement of an affordable workforce housing bond measure on the March 2024 ballot, including engagement of research firm and scheduling community meetings and outreach.
BACKGROUND: For years now, housing in our wonderful community has become less and less affordable. The consequences of that fact are clear: hourly workers being priced out of the rental and ownership markets; folks growing up in Santa Cruz having to leave for more affordable environs; lower income folks have virtually no chance to gain family wealth through home ownership. It is time to change this reality. It is time to assemble an affordable workforce housing bond, with community input, and determine whether or not there is voter support to place such a bond on a 2024 municipal ballot.
DISCUSSION: In order to meet Santa Cruz’s new mandate to construct nearly 4,000 housing units (set by the State of California through the RHNA process), both the public and private sectors must increase their commitments to affordable housing. Over the past several months Mayor Keeley has engaged in extensive outreach to community groups, affordable housing advocates, non-profit home builders, community leaders and stakeholders on addressing our housing affordability crisis and meeting the need for additional workforce housing and supportive housing.
Given our urgent need, and fact that the November 2024 presidential election ballot is likely to be crowded with numerous statewide, county-wide and local (city or district) measures, it appears that the March, 2024 primary ballot may be the time to ask voters for their support of a City affordable workforce housing bond measure. In order to do so, however, much foundational work must be accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
First, additional research needs to be performed in order to further refine our understanding of community sentiment. A research firm should be engaged and a well drafted base-line poll should be undertaken in the next couple of weeks, and a series of community meetings should be conducted to ensure the process is open, transparent and inclusive. One or more tracking polls should also be considered. This will provide decision-makers with hard data for assessing the public mood and enthusiasm for the bond, and areas to emphasize when seeking voter approval.
20.1 The Mayor has begun to assemble a team that is ready to move forward including the City Manager’s Office, Economic Development and Housing, Planning, Finance, the City Attorney’s Office, bond counsel, financial advisors, and polling consultants. Council direction is required, however, in order to begin the process. In the coming weeks the Council will be regularly briefed on the outcome of these efforts, and additional Council decision-making will be required to keep the process on track, including:
• The scope of the project and the facilities to be constructed with bond proceeds; • The size of the bond and the specific bonding instrument to be selected (e.g., general obligation vs. special tax bonds);
• The mechanism for putting the measure before the voters (council action or petition).
Sizing and shaping the affordable workforce housing element of the bond should include discussions with City Planning, the Housing Authority, non-profit housing developers, Housing Santa Cruz County, and many others. Bond funds could either fund stand-alone projects or be used to leverage additional funding sources for both affordable housing and permanent supportive housing. This will incent home builders to do as much as they can, and then boost the inventory through accessing bond funds.
FISCAL IMPACT: The specific form of the bonds, the tax burden they will generate and the anticipated revenue they will generate will be further refined as the process moves forward, and Council will be involved in all significant decision-making along the way. The cost for polling and preliminary research is estimated at $35,000-$40,000.
Submitted By:
Fred Keeley
Mayor
Submitted By:
Scott Newsome
Councilmember
Submitted By:
Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
20.2 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2023 5:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 5.9.23 Agenda Item #20 Soak the property owners Socialist Bond
5.9.23 Agenda Item #20 Soak the property owners Socialist Bond Dear Council,
The very name "2024 Affordable Workforce Housing Bond" is what where I come from is know as "a load".
You don't want to adjust regulations to make housing more affordable.
What you mean by affordable housing is RENT CONTROLLED, DEED RESTRICTED, COMPLETELY SUBSIDIZED BY PROPERTY OWNERS (and eventually renters although they don't realize it yet) WITH NO BENEFIT TO THEM, in a move to destroy the free market in housing and make it socialist style government housing.
The gaul to call it workforce housing. It's people who can't afford to live here housing and will increase government dependence and invite poverty into the city, your specialty. Once dependent, they will be loath to move beyond dependence, just like welfare, which it is, but in this case you don't have the legitimacy of the Federal government to provide for the public welfare, you overstep your mission (and aren't doing that great at the real mission anyway which this just makes worse by misdirection).
The people voted Measure F down because they have had enough of TAXES, but apparently you haven't figured that out yet and will try to sell the "someone else will pay" idea but we all will except the very few that get a cheap ride on others dime with no effort.
It does nothing to address the fundamental problem, inflation which is caused by the government. It doesn't even acknowledge it.
Ask yourself "Is there a limit to how much government subsidized housing is too much subsidized government housing?"
I'll wager you haven't given it a lick of thought and would probably say no limit if you did.
I'll make it real simple.
NO
It figures the council member who couldn't wait to push Measure M on the voters even though they rejected it is part of this, but now we know who else is of a like mindset and the idea of 3+ more years of that socialist mindset is numbing.
20.3 2
The mostly broke Bernie and Cultural Marxists will be happy to fill out your biased surveys.
Has the question occurred to you if the Federal government who can PRINT MONEY itself, or the State with it's enormous credit aren't providing the funds for this.. WHY SHOULD WE?
Garrett Philipp - Westside
20.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 11:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 20 - Workforce Housing Bond
Dear Council,
I support affordable workforce housing, however I cannot support this bond proposal. Please consider the following:
1. Misleading - Workforce Housing or Permanent Supportive Housing? The agenda item is entitled 2024 Affordable Workforce Housing Bond," and the bulk of the text refers to workforce housing. However, buried in the penultimate paragraph is the phrase, "permanent supportive housing." Furthermore, in the press and other public statements, Mayor Keeley makes it clear that he wants a bond to create the latter. Which is it, "affordable, workforce housing," available to working people who are priced out of the housing market or permanent, supportive housing meant for unhoused folks with mental health and substance abuse issues? Though both types of housing are valuable and needed, they serve very different populations and are very different types of housing. Furthermore, public support for each type of housing differs greatly.
Council needs to clarify the purpose of this bond.
2. Bond not needed for Affordable Housing Production. The City recently announced that it is among only 6% of municipalities statewide to achieve its RHNA allocation in the past cycle. Furthermore, there's an unprecedented number of housing developments, affordable and market rate, both under construction and in the pipeline. Given that, I question the appropriateness and need for issuing a bond at the present time. The City is already in the top 6% statewide - aren't we already doing more than our fair share?
3. Permanent Supportive Housing Siting and Financing. There's no doubt that more is required. However, the City is already doing more than its fair share. The City has a large amount of homeless services, including housing. The homeless services campus in the Harvey West area is large and currently expanding its campus and services. The City hosts a variety of other services. The City does much more than its fair share compared to surrounding jurisdictions including Capitola, Scotts Valley and the County.
There's widespread public belief that the amount of homeless services the City provides is out of balance compared to other jurisdictions and attracts more homeless folks into the City because they know the City is where they can receive services. The public believes that more services will only incentivize more homeless folks to come to the City, creating a feedback loop requiring ever more services.
The City itself, in various federal and state court filings, has asserted that the County is derelict in providing services to the indigent.
The public is in no mood to fund additional homeless services until it sees other local jurisdictions stepping up their efforts.
4. Ineffective, not Addressing the Root Cause. The primary driver of high rents in the City is UCSC. Its exorbitant on campus housing prices rightfully drive students off campus to look for more affordable
20.5 2
housing. There are 20,000 UCSC students - half of them live off campus, almost all within the City. The campus plans to add 8,000 students in the next 5-10 years. Half of these - an additional 4,000+ students will search for off campus housing. Any initiative the City takes to add affordable rental housing will be overwhelmed UCSC's growth. The way to reduce City rents (or diminish the rise in rents) is to demand that UCSC provide affordable on campus housing for its students. Student Housing West will not be affordable.
At 2023/24 campus apartment rates, UCSC SHW apartments prices (for housing only):
Monthly Rate BR # of Occupants Model
$ 3,959 / $4,175 1 3 C (calc'd for triple and large triple) $ 6,942 2 4 D
$ 7,419 3 4 E/F
$ 7,897 4 4 G
$11,856 /$12,072 5 7 H/I (calc'd for triple and large triple)
5. Public Perception of General Neglect. Average citizens feel neglected. They believe the City government is overly focused on a small number of people and issues while neglecting basic services that benefit everyone. For example, a bond to build or rehabilitate a public swimming pool or a city wide program to replace sewer laterals (rather than arbitrarily placing that infrastructure upgrade on the backs of certain property owners) would be of general public benefit and receive a lot more public support than this bond proposal.
6. Additional Property Tax is Unpopular. There's already a long list of special assessments and parcel taxes on parcels within the City. Folks are in no mood for an additional one that they perceive benefits only a small group of people.
Regards,
-Eric Grodberg
20.6 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Steve Marcusa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 11:46 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Council meeting 5/9 Item 20 - Workforce Housing Bond Dear City Council:
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to put a housing bond on the ballot for next year, and I have two comments.
I read the article in the Sentinel written by Mayor Keeley not long ago, where he said he wanted to have a bond to pay for homeless services. It sounds like this housing bond may very well be the bond he was speaking of, in which case I find the title very misleading. If you want money for homeless services, just say so. I understand why you might want to disguise it since city residents are pretty fed up with the homelessness situation in the city and are not likely to want to spend any more than we already have on this ever growing problem.
Second, since when did it become homeowners' responsibility to pay for housing to house people who can't afford housing? As a homeowner myself, I can testify that I struggle every month to pay my own mortgage and taxes and housing costs, and I resent being asked to pay for other people's housing in addition to my own. A housing bond will be paid exclusively by homeowners to benefit people who are not homeowners and so they won't pay a penny into the program. Why not propose a sales tax, which would be more fair since at least the people who will benefit will also have to contribute at least something.
In summary, I oppose the "workforce housing bond" being proposed. It will only make housing more expensive for homeowners. We are already struggling to pay our bills.
Thank you.
Steve Marcusa
20.7 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 12:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Correspondence for inclusion in agenda packet for May 9, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Attachments: Carpenters Local Union 505_comment letter agenda item 20_City Council Regular Meeting, May 9 2023.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831-420-5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.
From: Harvey McKeon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Uzzle <[email protected]>; Sean Hebard <[email protected]>; Dan Calamuci <[email protected]> Subject: Correspondence for inclusion in agenda packet for May 9, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting To Whom It May Concern,
Please find attached a comment letter on behalf of Carpenters Local Union 505 regarding agenda item 20 for tomorrow’s Regular Meeting of the City Council.
In line with the meeting’s public participation instructions, we request that this correspondence be included in the agenda packet for tomorrow’s Regular Meeting of the City Council.
Thank you,
Harvey McKeon
Field Representative
Strategic Campaigns & Research
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
20.8 2
265 Hegenberger Rd. Ste 200
Oakland, CA 94621
(M) 510 414‐5371
20.9 20.10
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/27/2023
AGENDA OF: 05/09/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Independent Police Auditor Report (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the annual report from the City’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group.
BACKGROUND: In January 2003, Santa Cruz City Council created the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) position. The IPA is charged with assisting complainants, providing independent reviews of use of force, citizen complaints and critical incidents, reviewing and making recommendations regarding the Santa Cruz Police Department’s (SCPD) policies and practices, and reporting on findings to City Council on an annual basis.
In July 2020, the City Manager’s Office issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a new IPA. In December 2020, the RFP panel selected OIR Group, led by Michael Gennaco, a nationally recognized expert on law enforcement reform and accountability systems.
DISCUSSION: The OIR Group annually reviews cases with the City’s Public Safety Committee (PSC) and publishes at least annually a public report. The IPA’s annual reports include summaries of cases reviewed, information about misconduct complaint investigations and trends, recommendations concerning improvements to SCPD policy, procedures and training, and the results of audits since December 1, 2020.
The IPA presented its second annual report to the PSC on March 23, 2022, and then to City Council on August 23, 2022. For increased transparency, IPA recommended, to which the City Council agreed, to forgo future presentations to PSC and instead provide a public presentation of their annual report to the City Council.
The IPA’s third annual report addresses its review of thirty-three use of force and public complaint investigations completed in 2022. The report includes twenty-one recommendations that “indicate the SCPD would benefit from enhancing some existing protocols.” In response to the report, the SCPD has drafted policy to address sixteen of the twenty-one recommendations (see "SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY UPDATE 05012023").
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
21.1 Prepared By:
Catherine Brothers
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:
Bernie Escalante
Chief of Police
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR THIRD ANNUAL REPORT.PDF
2. SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY UPDATE 05012023.PDF
21.2 Michael Gennaco
Samara Marion
City of Santa Cruz
Independent Police Auditor
Third Annual Report
March 2023
21.3 323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
21.4 Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………… 1
Outreach.……………………………………………………………….. 2
Use of Force …………………………………………………………… 3
Public Complaints …………………………………………………… 38
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...40
Appendix A:
Santa Cruz Police Department Force & Complaint
Investigations Reviewed by Independent Police Auditor in 2022…41 Appendix B:
List of Independent Police Auditor Recommendations…………….48
21.5 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this annual report is to provide the Santa Cruz community our independent assessment of how the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) addresses allegations of misconduct, scrutinizes its officers’ use of force, and takes steps to foster accountability and agency improvement through review of those incidents.
As the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) for the City of Santa Cruz, our role involves several different components. First, we are available to meet with complainants who may want assistance in filing their complaint or to learn about the internal investigation process and our role in it. Second, we are in frequent contact with the SCPD’s Professional Standards Unit to access and independently review completed complaint and use of force investigations.
We review these investigations for their accuracy, completeness and timeliness, and provide our own assessment and recommendations. We also meet quarterly with the Chief and his Command staff to address policing issues and receive status updates on the progress of pending investigations.
And we report to the public annually on the cases we have reviewed accompanied by a subsequent presentation to City Council. This report constitutes our third annual report.
Much of our previous annual report focused on the Department’s system for investigating use of force and public complaints in a timely manner. Many of our recommendations addressed how to ensure that the Department was documenting, monitoring and completing its investigations without delay. In response to our recommendations, the Department took several immediate steps to address its backlog of use of force and public complaint investigations. The Department contracted with two independent investigators to complete some of its outstanding cases and assigned a new sergeant to head the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). The Chief, Deputy Chief and PSU sergeant now meet regularly to monitor the timeliness of investigations.
The Department also enhanced its complaint process to capture the time, date and manner complaints are received and require interviews of and disposition letters to complainants. Additionally, the Department sought IPA suggestions to revise its written Complaint policy.
21.6 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 2
Although the review of officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths are part of IPA’s duties, to the Department’s credit, none occurred during 2022.
This report addresses our review of 33 use of force investigations and public complaint investigations the Department completed in 2022.
The Department also received and addressed 45 informational/inquiry cases in 2022, cases that, in its determination, did not allege violations of policy and did not require a full investigation. In contrast to past practices, the PSU sergeant immediately logged complaints, contacted complainants, reviewed body worn camera footage when available and responded to concerns raised in these cases. We were impressed with how quickly the PSU sergeant addressed these cases. We agree with the Department’s current practice of addressing community members’ inquiries or concerns that do not involve policy violations that do not necessitate a full-scale investigation.
Our report includes twenty-one recommendations. These recommendations stem from the individual cases we reviewed which indicated that the Department would benefit from enhancing some of its existing protocols. For example, we recommended that the Department re-evaluate its standard for Taser use and strengthen its use of force review procedures. The Department responded positively to our suggestions and promptly drafted policy that already addresses sixteen of our twenty-one recommendations that are set out in this report.
1 We appreciate the cooperation and receptivity with which SCPD continues to approached our oversight role. Additionally, we commend the Chief and his Command staff, including the Professional Standards Unit sergeant for their diligent efforts in addressing the previous backlog of cases. 1IPA Recommendations addressed by newly drafted Department policy are asterisked throughout this Report. The remaining Recommendations are under consideration by the Department.
21.7 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 3
Outreach
Throughout the year, IPA team Michael Gennaco and Samara Marion fielded referrals and complaints regarding SCPD actions. The IPA team talked with complainants by phone and in one case, met a complainant at her home at her request. During the year, IPA also met with members from the ACLU, the NAACP, and staff from Housing Matters and Mercy Housing. Ms. Marion also attended the Chief’s Advisory Committee meeting in October where she had an opportunity to talk with the Committee about the role of the Independent Police Auditor and meet representatives from several Santa Cruz organizations.
The IPA team met quarterly with the Chief and his staff throughout the year. In August, IPA presented its 2021 Annual Report to the City Council. 2 Review of SCPD Investigations
In these next two sections, we summarize selected investigations that are particularly deserving of comment and reflection out of the 33 that we reviewed, focusing on uses of force. A chart summarizing all 33 investigations is attached to this report as an Appendix.
Use of Force
In our role as Independent Police Auditor, we examine the Department’s internally initiated use of force investigations as well as public complaints 2 In March 2022, IPA presented its 2021 Annual Report to the City Council’s Public Safety Subcommittee in a closed session, a practice established before Michael Gennaco was appointed IPA. For increased transparency, IPA recommended and the City agreed to forego future “closed session” presentations of IPA’s report to the Public Safety Subcommittee and instead simply provide a public presentation of IPA’s Annual Report to the full Council.
21.8 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 4
involving use of force allegations. While most of the force we reviewed was relatively minor and did not result in serious injuries, any use of force is an exercise of police authority deserving of attention and critical review.
Thorough scrutiny of these incidents sends a signal to both the public and to officers that the Department is paying attention to how it wields its authority, and provides an opportunity for the Department to address individual accountability as well as broader issues of performance, training, tactics, equipment, policy, or supervision.
In reviewing the Department’s use of force investigations, we look for comprehensive fact-gathering, documentation that accurately reflects the force applied and surrounding circumstances, and an objective review of the incident to determine whether the force was reasonable and consistent with Department policies, training, and expectations. We also consider whether the Department conducted an insightful analysis of the totality of each encounter to provide a holistic review with an eye toward areas of potential improvement for both the involved officers and the Department as a whole.
Case No. 10 (Use of Force Investigation) Initiated by the Department Incident Summary
In this incident, an officer was dispatched to conduct a welfare check on a person who had been yelling on the street for two to three hours. Due to a higher priority incident across town, no other units were available. Upon arrival, the officer observed an individual having trouble standing on the sidewalk, his pants down on his thighs with his buttocks exposed, and he had urinated on himself. The officer asked what was wrong. He said his leg was killing him. He did not respond when the officer asked if he needed an ambulance or medical attention. The individual was breathing heavily; as the officer approached, he said, “I’ll be fine.” The officer told the subject “nah, you’ve been getting f***ing calls on you.”3
3 The use of gratuitous profanity should have been identified here as conduct unbecoming a SCPD officer and should have also been subject to intervention.
21.9 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 5
The officer moved behind the subject, reached into the subject’s front pocket, pulled out a small folding knife, and said, “don’t want you to do anything stupid.” The officer grabbed the subject’s right arm, started to bring it behind his back and told him to give him the beer bottle he was holding. The subject fell to the ground, landing on his side and the bottle shattered. The officer told him he should not have done that. The subject yelled, “shouldn’t have done what?” The officer said “dude, you’re super, super drunk and I just wanted to get the knife out of your pocket, man. Sit up, you okay?” The subject remained lying on his side, with his head on the sidewalk.
The officer held the subject’s hands behind his back but then released them to remove a back pack the subject was wearing. The officer told the subject to sit up and tried to get him into a sitting position while the subject continued yelling “ouch, ouch.” The subject sat up with his legs extended in front of him, both his hands visible. The subject did not respond when the officer again asked if he wanted to go to the hospital. The officer told the subject to put his hands behind his back and then grabbed the suspect’s right arm. The subject said “f*** no” and put his left hand into his right hand and wove his fingers together.
The officer called dispatch and reported that the subject was “very 647 (f)4.” The officer again told the subject to put his hands behind his back; the subject leaned back down on the ground, facing away from the officer, grunting and yelling “ouch, ouch.” The officer told him he was going to jail. The officer put his hand on the subject’s right shoulder, called dispatch and asked for a cover unit, saying the subject was very uncooperative. The subject continued yelling “ouch.” With his hand on the subject’s shoulder, the officer said, “hey, you’re going to get tased, you want to get tased?” The subject said, “f***.” The officer told him to “relax, relax” and to put his hands behind his back. The subject continued lying on his side, facing away from the officer, not moving.
The officer raised the subject’s sweatshirt and placed the Taser on his back and activated it in drive-stun mode while holding the subject’s right arm. The subject yelled. The officer placed the taser a second time on the subject’s 4 Penal Code section 647(f) is a state law that criminalizes public intoxication.
21.10 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 6
lower back and activated it again. The subject’s body flipped around to the other side. The officer pushed him to the ground and told him to stay on the ground. The subject yelled “f*** no.” He remained on the ground with his back leaning away from the officer.
The officer backed up a few feet, said “Taser, Taser, Taser” and deployed the Taser in probe mode. The probes hit the subject causing him to lie flat on his back, his legs fully extended with his left hand across his chest and his right arm extended by his side. The officer next told him to turn over and put his hands behind his back or he would be tased again. The subject continued to yell “ouch, ouch” with his hands raised upward. As a police siren drew closer, the officer instructed him to stay right there.
When Officer #2 arrived, he observed Officer #1 pointing his Taser at the subject who was lying on his back, hands up in a surrender position and not moving. Officer #1 told Officer #2, “he just got tased.” The subject said “how’s it going?” Officer #2 grabbed the subject’s right arm and lifted the right side of the subject off of the sidewalk as Officer #1 continued pointing his Taser.
Officer #2 said, “no, no, no don’t resist” as the subject continued to tense his arms. Officer #2 instructed Officer #1 to Taser the subject. Officer #1 activated his Taser and placed it on the subject’s body. Officer #2 jumped back, appearing to have received a shock from the Taser. Both officers backed away from the subject. The subject, who was seated on the ground, also moved away from the officers and started pulling on the Taser wires.
Officer #2 ordered the subject to lie down on the ground. The subject did not comply and screamed that his leg was “f***ing broken” and he was “s***ting his pants.” Officer #2 radioed for cover units. As the subject sat with his legs in front of him, hands visible and facing the officers, Officer #2 deployed his Taser in probe mode. The subject immediately fell backwards and screamed.
Officer #1 attempted to grab the subject’s arm and told him to turn over on his stomach. As the subject continued to tense his arms, Officer #2 drive-stunned the subject. Officer #3 arrived on scene. Officer #3 and Officer #1 each grabbed one of the subject’s arms and handcuffed him. Officer #2 placed leg restraints on the subject. Officer #2 requested a medical assessment of the subject. A supervisor and paramedics responded to the scene.
21.11 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 7
The subject had fresh blood on his lower back and buttocks and appeared scraped from small pieces of glass where the subject was lying. The subject’s pants were below his naked buttocks that were covered with fresh feces.
Officer #2 removed three probes from the subject—one was lodged in the subject’s sweatshirt on the right shoulder blade area of his back; one from the front area of his chest and one from the subject’s jeans on the right front pant pocket area.
The subject was transported to the hospital by ambulance. The supervisor instructed Officer #2 and #3 to follow the subject to the hospital where he was medically cleared and then booked at the jail. Neither officer was injured.
All three officers activated body worn cameras during the incident. Body Worn Camera footage indicated that the subject was Tasered six times for a total of approximately 22 seconds during a two-minute span.
Supervisor Response and Report
On scene, a supervisor was briefed about the use of force during the incident.
He oversaw the probe removal from the subject’s body, collection of evidence and the transport of the subject to the hospital and the jail. The supervisor attempted to interview the subject who declined to speak to him while he awaited admission to the jail.
The supervisor’s supplemental incident report entitled “supervisor investigation” documented his observations at the scene and the investigative steps he oversaw or took. His report noted that the subject had difficulty maintaining normal dialogue with anyone trying to ask him questions or follow directions though he was responsive to his name. He became very upset, yelled and screamed and then would quickly calm down and be quiet. An Xray at the hospital determined the subject’s leg was not broken. The supervisor’s report recommended resisting arrest prosecution of the subject.
Lieutenant’s Review
Eight weeks later, after reviewing body worn camera footage of the incident, a lieutenant requested the initiation of a Use of Force investigation. He identified concerns with the officers’ on-scene decision making and tactics, the officers’ communication (with the subject and between both officers) and potential out21.12 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 8
of-policy uses of the Taser. The lieutenant recommended that the investigation include Officers #1 and #2 and the supervisor who responded to the scene.
Administrative Investigation
The administrative investigation was assigned to a SCPD sergeant outside of the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). Use of Force and Conducted Energy Device policy violations were brought against Officers #1 and #2. The investigating sergeant interviewed the involved officers, witness officer and the Department’s subject matter expert. The responding supervisor was not interviewed and no allegations were brought against the supervisor.
Department’s Investigative Report and Conclusion
The investigating sergeant concluded that based on the legality of the initial contact, probable cause to arrest and the amount of force used to overcome resistance, the officers acted within department policy.
In assessing the officers’ use of force, the investigating sergeant considered SCPD’s Taser policy. The policy authorizes Taser use when the subject is violent or physically resisting or has demonstrated by words or actions an intention to be violent or to physically resist and reasonably appears to present the potential to harm officers, him/herself or others. (Policy 304.5.1).
The policy states that the use of the drive-stun mode generally should be limited to supplementing the probe-mode to complete the circuit, or as a distraction technique to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions.5 (Policy 304.5.2)
5 A Taser fires two small electrodes that are intended to penetrate a subject’s skin like probes or darts, but remain connected to the weapon by wires. The darts deliver an electric current and, when both are fully embedded, cause incapacitation of the affected
21.13 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 9
The investigating sergeant’s report summarized interviews of the involved officers, witness officer, and the subject matter expert and discussed each of the six Taser discharges. Below are highlights from the report.
Evidence of Subject’s Violence
According to Officer #1, evidence that the subject was violent included that he had thrown himself on the ground, said “f*** no,” was tensing up, and the officer had removed a knife and broken meth pipe from the subject’s pocket.
The officer was also concerned about the glass shards on the ground and not knowing when a cover officer would arrive. Additionally, Officer #1 had not (fully) searched the subject yet and the subject was in a fetal position with his hands in his waistband.
Taser Discharge #1 (Drive Stun) Officer #1
Officer #1 said that he had pinned the subject down on the ground and did not know how much longer the subject would stay in this position. He hoped the drive stun would cause the subject to release his hold, allowing the officer to place the subject on his stomach. The subject moved his body slightly after the first drive stun but not enough for the officer to get a hold of his hands. He said the subject recovered and kept his hands locked near the glass.
Taser Discharge #2 (Drive Stun) Officer #1
Officer #1 hoped that drive stun #2 would cause the subject to lie flat on his stomach but instead, it caused the subject to spin around. He said he was muscles. It also causes considerable pain and involuntary muscle contraction that ends after an initial standard five-second cycle.
In drive stun mode, though, officers use the device to make direct contact with a subject without the darts. This causes localized pain but not incapacitation.
It is also possible to use drive stun mode to complete the electronic circuit and incapacitate an individual when a single probe has successfully made contact and the other is either ineffective or dislodged. However, the primary use of the Taser in this mode has historically been as a method of “pain compliance” in which the goal is to gain control of a subject by compelling him to surrender to stop the pain.
21.14 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 10
trying to maintain his Taser in his right hand, hold the subject down with his left, and maintain the tactical advantage of the subject’s back.
Taser Discharge #3 (Probe Mode) Officer #1
Officer #1 said the subject was in a seated position facing away from the officer and he did not have a visual of the subject’s hands. Officer #1 was standing behind the subject that provided the optimal target area—the lower back—for Taser deployment. He believed that if he missed this opportunity, the subject may get up and do something else. He said the subject was 100% resisting everything the officer did. He said he was attempting to calm down the situation by deploying the Taser for the 3rd time and that it was effective.
The subject laid back and put his hands out. This was when he started hearing the police sirens in the distance. He told the subject to stay there and not move.
Taser Discharge #4 (Drive Stun/Probe) Officer #1
When Officer #2 arrived, Officer #1 told him that the subject had just been tased. Officer #2 walked up to the subject, started to sit the subject up and told him to put his hands behind his back.
Officer #1 said the subject started wrestling with Officer #2 in the glass and he heard Officer #2 say, "no, no, no, stop resisting." The subject said "f*** no!" As the subject continued to actively resist, Officer #2 told Officer #1 to tase the subject again. Officer #1 said that he tried to activate the drive stun function but instead did the 5-second deployment through the exposed Taser wires.
He believed that during the struggle with Officer #2, the probes had disconnected. When Officer #1 pulled the trigger, he did not think it affected the subject but that Officer #2 who was touching one of the wires, received a shock and jumped back.
According to Officer #2, he approached the subject, grabbed his right hand, and as he rolled him over to his side, the subject tensed both arms. Officer #2 told him no several times and he also heard Officer #1 giving commands.
When it became clear that the subject was not going to comply, he requested Officer #1 to use his Taser again. Concerning the threat the subject posed,
21.15 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 11
Officer #2 noticed broken glass on the ground. He did not have an opportunity to talk with Officer #1 when he arrived on scene. Due to the nature of the scene, Officer #2 believed maybe the subject tried to strike Officer #1 with the bottle and possibly had thrown it at him.
Taser Discharge #5 (Probe Mode) Officer #2
Officer #2 said that he and Officer #1 had created distance and wanted to avoid re-engaging so, Officer #2 transitioned to his Taser while Officer #1 holstered his Taser and prepared himself for a hands-on approach. Both officers gave the subject direction but he continued to yell and not comply.
Officer #2 said the turning point was when the subject looked around several times as if he was looking for something to pick up. He looked down to his waistband and then put his hands down to the center of his waistband. Officer #2 said he was confident that the subject had not been searched and people carry weapons in the waistband area. Officer #2 said he did not warn the subject he was deploying the Taser because it was a split-second decision.
Taser/Drive Stun #6 (Drive Stun) Officer #2
Officer #2 said he drive-stunned the subject because he continued to resist and not follow orders. By drive-stunning him, Officer #1 was able to pull the subject’s arm out, and put one handcuff on him. Upon arrival on scene, Officer #3 grabbed the subject’s other hand and assisted in handcuffing the subject.
Department’s Use of Force Expert
The investigating sergeant interviewed as a subject matter expert the Department’s Defensive Tactics Cadre Supervisor. This sergeant oversees the training of the Defensive Tactics Instructors and the training offered to the officers. He is also a Use of Force instructor regarding firearms, less lethal kinetic energy projectiles, pepper spray, distraction devices, and pepper balls.
He had reviewed all related reports and the body worn camera footage of the incident before his interview.
Expert Opinion About Officer #1’s Actions:
The Department’s expert found that Officer #1’s use of Taser in both stun drive and probe mode was reasonable. The subject did not comply with Officer #1’s request to sit down and hand over the glass bottle. When he fell to the ground
21.16 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 12
and broke the bottle, the pieces of glass became readily usable as weapons.
The subject resisted the officer’s attempts to handcuff him. The officer was alone, had the authority to arrest the subject who could not care for himself, the subject had created a disturbance, was unsafe around other people, possessed a knife, a beer bottle, and a meth pipe, had not been searched yet, and had concealed his hands.
Expert Opinion About Officer #2’s Actions
The Department’s expert found Officer #2’s Taser deployments were within policy and the law. He pointed out that when Officer #2 attempted to go handson, the subject continued to conceal his hands and prevented Officer #2 from gaining control.
Expert Opinion About Areas for Improved Performance
Asked if things could have been done better or differently, the Department’s expert noted that when Officer #1 decided to remove a backpack from the subject, he could have handcuffed the subject. He emphasized though that no policy violation occurred by declining to handcuff the subject at that time. He suggested a conversation with Officer #1 on the following topics:
• Officer #1 did not notify dispatch of his status and location until three minutes after his arrival. By this time, Officer #1 had already engaged the subject, removed a knife from his pocket, and the subject had fallen to the ground.
• Officer #1 had several opportunities to tactically disengage from the subject and wait for additional units.
Command Staff Review and Recommendations
A Command Staff member conducted a review, and found that although the investigation exonerated Officer #1, his overall performance needed improvement. The circumstances reasonably permitted the officer to consider actions that may have increased officer safety and decreased the need for using force. Specifically, Officer #1 could have considered disengaging from the situation and summoning additional resources to respond to assist. Officer #1 was required to participate in comprehensive tactical debriefing of the
21.17 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 13
incident and take sixteen (16) hours of training on practical de-escalation and tactical conduct related to this investigation.
The Command Staff member noted that although the investigation did not include an interview of the responding sergeant (which was a Departmental decision), the sergeant’s performance as a field supervisor needed improvement. The supervisor was required to participate in comprehensive tactical debriefing of this incident, including a review of policy 300.7 (supervisor’s responsibilities).
A lieutenant conducted a debriefing and oral counseling for Officer #1 and the supervisor.
Independent Police Auditor (IPA) Assessment
As noted above, the Department initiated an investigation into this case after a lieutenant’s review of the body worn camera footage raised issues about the officers’ on-scene decision making and tactics, the officers’ communication (with the subject and between both officers) and potential out-of-policy uses of the Taser. The lieutenant’s concerns were well-founded and they were not sufficiently addressed by the Department’s subsequent evaluation of the incident. While command staff review included tactical debriefing for one of the involved officers and the supervisor, we are concerned about whether the SCPD sufficiently considered whether the application of the facts to current policy indicates the multiple deployments were consistent with that policy.
Additionally, this incident presented an opportunity for the Department to reevaluate its Taser policy and use of force review procedures.
Taser standard: Immediate Threat to Officers or Others
The responding officers and later the Department’s reviewers of the incident focused narrowly on the subject’s active resistance and did not appear to consider other significant factors relevant to assessing the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. While officers must consider the totality of the circumstances when selecting a force option, active resistance alone is typically insufficient to justify Taser use. For example, California Police Officer
21.18 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 14
Standards Training (POST)6 instructs that control holds and personal body weapons are appropriate to overcome a subject’s active resistance. However, use of devices (such as a Taser) requires assaultive conduct such as verbally or physically displaying an intention to assault the officer.7 The Ninth Circuit has held that an officer’s use of a Taser is more likely to be deemed excessive in situations where the suspect does not pose an immediate threat to the officer or others.
8 Los Angeles Police Department’s Use of Force policy
illustrates this Constitutional standard for Tasers and other less-lethal control devices: “The Taser, Baton, Beanbag Shotgun, 40mm Less-Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum are only permissible when there is an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.”9
Courts have ruled that the most important factor in evaluating the reasonableness of force is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat.10 The Department’s Use of Force policy lists “the apparent immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others” as the first of several factors when 6 POST sets minimum training standards for all California law enforcement personnel.
7 California Police Officer Standards Training (POST) Learning Domain 20, Use of Force/Deescalation Version 5.4, Chapter 3: 3-6 (April 2021). https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/basic_course_resources/workbooks/LD _20_V-5.4.pdf
8See e.g. Bryan v. McPherson (9th Cir. 2010) 630 F.3d 805, 826–30 (9th Cir. 2010) (use of a Taser unreasonable because suspect committed a minor traffic infraction and did not present an immediate threat); see also Mattos v.
Agarano (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 433, 445-46, (a fact-finder could find that the use of a Taser was excessive force when the traffic stop involved a minor offense and the suspect did not present an immediate threat to the officers, even though she refused to exit her car).
9 See LAPD Use of Force policy, Section 573
https://lapdonlinestrgeacc.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/lapdonlinemedia/2023/ 01/VOLUME-1-word.pdf
10 See Mattos v. Agarano (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3d 433, 441 (en banc); also Smith v. City of Hemet (9th Cir. 2005) 394 F.3d 689, 702.
21.19 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 15
determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable force. However, the officers’ explanations for Taser use did not articulate an immediate threat; nor did the Department’s evaluation. And SCPD’s current Taser policy does not require assaultive conduct or a threat thereof before deployment would be authorized.
In this case, the Department’s subject matter expert stated the subject was in possession of weapons (a pocketknife, 40-ounce beer bottle, meth pipe and a syringe found on the ground). However, at the time Officer #1 deployed his Taser, Officer #1 had already removed the folded knife and meth pipe from the subject’s pocket. While the shattered glass on the ground from the subject’s beer bottle and syringe could have potentially been used as a weapon, the subject did not appear cognizant of their presence.11 The BWC footage depicted a subject actively resisting the officers’ attempts to put his hands behind his back and handcuff him. However, neither the subject’s statements nor his actions indicated an intention to assault or threaten the officers.
When Officer #1 used the Taser in stun mode the first two times, the subject was lying with his head on or near the ground in a fetal position, facing away from the officer and motionless. He was neither moving nor saying anything threatening. When Officer #1 next deployed his Taser in probe mode, the subject’s back and head were leaning toward the ground and away from the officer and the officer was a few feet away from the subject. The subject did not say anything or position his body in any manner that indicated he intended to move towards or threaten the officer.
When Officer #2 arrived on scene, the suspect was lying prone on the ground, both hands visible and pointed upward while Officer #1 had his Taser pointed at him. His actions posed no immediate threat to the officers. When Officer #2 next grabbed the subject’s arm, the subject resisted and Officer #2 told Officer #1 to Taser the subject. The subject’s actions appeared to constitute active resistance. Regardless, Officer #1’s Taser activation shocked Officer #2, causing Officer #2 to jump back and away from the subject. The distance 11 Courts require objective factors that demonstrate an immediate threat. See Deorle v. Rutherford (9th Cir. 2001) 272 F.3d 1272, 1281 (“a simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern.”)
21.20 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 16
between the two officers and the subject could have provided an opportunity for the officers to reassess their next step, including the effectiveness of further Taser deployment.
Officer #2’s justification and the Department’s review of his Taser deployments did not explain how the subject posed an immediate threat. The Department’s review should have also addressed that Officer #2 did not provide a verbal warning before deployment and did not document the reason he gave no warning as required by policy.12
At the time Officer #2 deployed his Taser, both officers were standing a few feet away. The subject was sitting on the ground, with his legs in front of him; his hands were visible and he had started pulling on the Taser wires. Officer #2 told him to stop and ordered the subject to lie down on the ground.
According to Officer #2, the subject looked down and side by side, possibly looking for an impromptu weapon. He brought his hands toward his beltline which, based on Officer #2’s training and experience, can indicate a concealed weapon. The subject screamed that his leg was “f***ing broken” and he was “s***ting his pants.” Without providing a warning, Officer #2 deployed his Taser in probe mode, causing him to immediately fall backwards. When Officer #1 attempted to grab the subject’s arm and met resistance, Officer #2 drivestunned the subject. 12 Department Policy 304.4 Verbal and Visual Warning
A verbal warning of the intended use of the TASER device should precede its application, unless it would otherwise endanger the safety of officers or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances. The purpose of the warning is to:
(a) Provide the individual with a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply.
(b) Provide other officers and individuals with a warning that the TASER device may be deployed.
The fact that a verbal or other warning was given or the reasons it was not given shall be documented by the officer deploying the TASER device in the related report.
21.21 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 17
Although the BWC footage shows the subject pulling on Taser wires and looking down and to his side for a moment, he remained seated with his hands visible to the officers and made no threatening movement. Nor did BWC footage depict an urgency that justified foregoing a warning before Taser deployment. Department policy requires warning documentation including when no warning is provided. The Department’s reviewers should have evaluated whether the subject posed an immediate threat and also assessed Officer #2’s failure to warn and failure to document the lack of a warning.
RECOMMENDATION ONE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to permit Taser use only when there is an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, consisting of observable assaultive behavior or the threat thereof or flight from felony arrest.* The involved officers and the Department’s reviewers of the incident should also have considered several other factors to determine whether Taser deployment was reasonable. The Department’s Use of Force policy includes factors such as the effects of drugs or alcohol, the individual’s apparent mental state or capacity, the individual’s apparent ability to understand and comply with officer commands, and the seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the individual.
13 Neither the involved officers nor the
Department’s evaluation of the reasonableness of the officers’ force sufficiently address these important factors.
The BWC footage suggests that the subject’s level of intoxication significantly impacted his ability to understand and comply with officer commands and even control his body. Officer #1 described the subject “throwing himself” on the ground and dropping his beer bottle as an act of physical resistance. In contrast, BWC footage showed an individual staggering, often incoherent in speech, and becoming unbalanced and then falling when Officer #1 grabbed hold of the subject’s arm. Even the supervisor who on scene after the Taser deployments noted that the subject had difficulty maintaining normal dialogue with anyone trying to ask him questions or follow directions. 13 See SCPD Policy 300.3.2 for a list of nineteen factors used to determine whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable force.
21.22 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 18
Moreover, the subject’s behavior appeared to be the product of both intoxication and mental health instability—factors that both the responding officers and later the Department’s reviewers should have considered. Courts consider the reasonableness of use of force in light of whether officers knew that an individual was mentally unstable.
The severity (or lack thereof) of the crime is another important factor that SCPD’s use of force policy specifies should be considered in evaluating the legitimacy of the force. The police contact here originated as a welfare check on an extremely inebriated individual who had urinated on himself, was partially naked, and was yelling for several hours. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out two decades ago with equal relevancy to the instant case: “The problems posed . . . by an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance . . . are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal . . . . In the former instance, increasing the use of force may . . . exacerbate the situation.” Deorle v. Rutherford (9th Cir. 2001) 272 F.3d 1272, 1283.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: SCPD should ensure that when its
supervisors evaluate uses of force that they consider each of the relevant factors articulated in its policy.*
Neither the involved officers nor the Department’s reviewers addressed whether the multiple applications of the Taser were warranted. As previously discussed, after Officer #2 disengaged from the subject after being shocked by Officer #1’s Taser, the officers’ distance from the subject and his seated position on the ground provided them an opportunity to reassess. At this time, the subject had been Tasered four times by Officer #1—twice in drive-stun mode for approximately one second each, and twice in probe mode for approximately 5 seconds each time.14 SCPD’s policy states that multiple 14 This estimate is based on BWC footage. The Department’s investigative file did not include any data generated by the Taser itself concerning the number of discharges, their duration and time between discharges.
21.23 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 19
applications against a single individual are generally not recommended and should be avoided unless the officer reasonably believes that the need to control the individual outweighs the potentially increased risk posed by multiple applications. (Policy 304.5.4.). The policy also instructs officers to consider factors such as the individual’s ability and opportunity to comply and whether verbal commands, other options or tactics may be more effective before additional Taser applications. (Policy 304.5.4.).
Multiple activations and continuous cycling of a Taser have been observed to be associated with the risk of death or serious injury. The Taser manufacturer, Axon Enterprise, Inc., warns that the number and duration of energy weapon exposure should be minimized.
15 Since 2011, Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) recommend that officers be instructed that taser exposure for longer than15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent application should be independently justifiable and the risks should be outweighed by other force options.16 Other tactics—including talking with the subject or waiting for another officer—were options that merited consideration, particularly in light of the previous Taser applications, the subject’s intoxication, mental instability, and that the police response initially involved a welfare check. Notably, once Officer #3 arrived on scene, Officer #1 and #3 each grabbed one of the subject’s arms and handcuffed him, an effort that involved significantly less force than the previous multiple Taser deployments.
15 See TASER Handheld Energy Weapon Warnings, Instructions and Information: Law Enforcement, September 20, 2022, page 3. https://axon-2.cdn.prismic.io/axon-2/19c2d86c-c983-4d9f-b dd6bdb8ce29c_Law+Enforcement+Warnings+8_5x11.pdf
16 PERF & COPS, 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (March 2011), pages 19-20 20; https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtuallibrary/abstracts/electronic- control-weapon-guidelines-2011
21.24 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 20
The involved officers provided some but not complete estimates of the duration for each of their Taser activations in their police reports—a requirement of the Taser policy. However, SCPD did not download any of the Taser data concerning the number, duration and strength of activations. To the Department credit, its use of force review identified and analyzed the circumstances of each Taser activation. However, Department reviewers did not mention or consider that the subject appeared to have been Tasered for at least 22 seconds during a two-minute span. The Department’s review should identify and assess the appropriateness of each officer’s Taser activation as well as the individual and cumulative duration of Taser activations.
RECOMMENDATION THREE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require officers to document the justification for multiple applications of a Taser and Taser exposure longer than 15 seconds.* RECOMMENDATION FOUR: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require that the Department’s review of a Taser incident includes whether multiple applications of the Taser or Taser exposure for longer than 15 seconds was justified.*
RECOMMENDATION FIVE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require that post-Taser deployment, the reviewing sergeant download the Taser use data concerning the event, including but not limited to the number of discharges, amount of time for each discharge, time between discharges, and probe or stun mode application.* We have additional observations about the officers’ actions during this incident and the Department’s subsequent use of force analysis.
• The lieutenant raised concerns about the communication between the officers and the subject which was never addressed during the Department’s review. BWC footage did not show any discussion when Officer #2 arrived on scene other than Officer #1 informing Officer #2
21.25 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 21
that the subject had just been tased.17 Officer #1’s Taser was pointed at the subject and the subject was compliant. Thus, there was no urgency that required Officer #2 to grab hold of the subject without any warning or planning. Officer #2 could have attempted to gain rapport with the subject to give him an opportunity to comply before grabbing the subject. Nor did Officer #2 communicate with the subject that his failure to lie down on his stomach would result with another Tasering. We recommend that any use of force review assess the effectiveness of officer’s communication with each other and the subject during the incident.18
RECOMMENDATION SIX: The Department should adopt policy that requires use of force review to assess the effectiveness of communication by involved personnel.*
• The lieutenant who initiated the use of force investigation indicated that the inquiry should include the responding supervisor. No allegations were brought against the supervisor and the supervisor was not interviewed during the investigation. The investigative file did not explain or document why no allegations were brought against the supervisor and why the supervisor was not interviewed, other than briefly noting it was a Department decision. The Department should bring all relevant allegations of potential misconduct against involved officers and supervisors. In the circumstance where allegations are identified and then deemed inappropriate, the Department should document the reason why the allegations are no longer appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: The Department should adopt a policy that requires all relevant allegations of potential misconduct against 17 The Department’s expert said that Officer #2 communicated effectively with his partner although there is scant evidence of this on the body worn camera footage.
18 Moreover, as we discuss elsewhere in this report, a result of state legislation enacted subsequent to this incident, the Department should also review any efforts at de-escalation as part of its review of force incidents.
21.26 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 22
involved officers and supervisors be brought. Any recommendation suggesting that a member should be named as a subject but then not followed should be documented and explained in the investigative file.* • The Department’s review did not address that Officer #2 was accidentally shocked after he instructed Officer #1 to Taser the subject again and how to prevent this from occurring in the future.
We note that the Department’s Taser policy requires that a TASER instructor team should periodically analyze the reports to identify trends, including deterrence and effectiveness. (Policy 304.6). We assume that the Taser instructor team would provide useful expertise to address the accidental shocking of Officer #2 and how to avoid this undesirable result in the future. We suggest expanding the Taser instructor team’s responsibility to analyze all reports involving Taser deployment and to provide recommendations concerning tactics, decision-making, policy, training and supervision related to their subject matter expertise and incident review.
RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require the Taser instructor team to analyze all reports involving Taser deployment and to provide recommendations concerning tactics, decision-making, policy, training and supervision related to their subject matter expertise and incident review.* • Although SCPD’s policy identifies certain individuals as being more susceptible to the effect of a Taser,
19 it does not include individuals
suffering from drug intoxication. The manufacturer warns that its Taser can cause physiologic or metabolic changes that may increase the risk 19 SCPD’s policy states that the use of Tasers should generally be avoided on pregnant, elderly, juvenile, low body mass and handcuffed individuals and those recently sprayed with a flammable chemical agent or position could result in collateral injury unless other available options are ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or others and the need to control outweighs the risk of using the device. (See 304.5.2).
21.27 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 23
of death or serious injury for some particularly susceptible individuals.
Particularly susceptible individuals include people suffering from excited delirium, profound agitation, severe exhaustion, drug intoxication or chronic drug abuse, or over-exertion from physical struggle. We recommend that the Department revise its Taser policy to address the increased risks that the Taser (including single and multiple activations) poses to susceptible individuals that the manufacturer has identified.
RECOMMENDATION NINE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to address the increased risks that the Taser poses (including from single and multiple activations) to susceptible individuals that the Taser manufacturer has identified.*
• This case raises concern about the use of the Taser in drive stun mode.
SCPD policy on drive stun mode states:
Because the application of the TASER device in the drive stun mode (i.e., direct contact without probes) relies primarily on pain compliance, the use of the drive stun mode generally should be limited to supplementing the probe-mode to complete the circuit, or as a distraction technique to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions. (SCPD Policy Manual 304.5.2)
In this case, Officer #1 initially drive stunned the subject twice in his back while attempting to gain control of his arms for handcuffing; Officer #2 also described drive stunning the subject to assist Officer #1 in gaining control of the subject’s arms. These drive stun activations appeared to us as a simple pain compliance technique and not used “to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions.” This conclusion is buttressed by the officers who did not articulate that their use of the Taser in stun drive mode was an effort to gain separation from the subject.
Since 2011, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing
21.28 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 24
Services (COPS) have cautioned that using drive stun mode “to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation.”20 PERF and COPS recommend that law enforcement agencies discourage use of the Taser as a pain compliance tactic. Additionally, the manufacturer of Taser warns that drive stun use may not be effective on emotionally disturbed persons, those under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or others who may not respond to pain due to a mind-body disconnect.
Avoid using repeated drive-stuns on such individuals if compliance is not achieved.”21
We recommend that during any force review, the Department scrutinize any use of the Taser in drive stun mode to ensure that it meets the limited exceptions set out in policy.
RECOMMENDATION TEN: The Department should ensure that
careful attention be placed on the review of any Taser use in drive stun mode to ensure that it meets the limited exceptions set out in policy.* Our case review also indicated areas to enhance the Department’s review of Use of Force incidents. Currently, when a reported use of force occurs, officers are required to notify a supervisor who is expected to come to the scene. In addition to the supervisor’s onscene duties, the supervisor is also required to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and initiate an administrative investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further investigation may be appropriate. (Policy 300.7). While 20 See PERF & COPS, 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (March 2011), pages 14, 19.
21 https://axon-2.cdn.prismic.io/axon-2/19c2d86c-c983-4d9f-bac4- dd6bdb8ce29c_Law+Enforcement+Warnings+8_5x11.pdf. See also, Camden County Police Department which prohibits use of the drive stun mode unless it is “immediately necessary to protect the officer, the suspect, or another person from imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Camden County Policy Conducted Energy Devices (Dec 2020) .
21.29 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 25
the Department has talked about a debriefing practice after incidents, it does not appear that the Department has a formal system for ensuring supervisor review of force incidents. We noted that in this case, the supervisor documented the investigative steps he oversaw or performed but there was no evidence in the investigative file that the supervisor evaluated the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The Department’s review process for non-deadly force incidents would benefit by delineating the expectations and duties of reviewing supervisors and command staff in its use of force policy.
Supervisors should evaluate not only whether the force complied with policy but also identify performance and agency issues concerning tactics, decision-making, planning and coordination, choice of force options, de-escalation efforts, equipment or supervision. While this analytical process starts with the initial field supervisor—it should not end there. The supervisor’s assessment should be routed up through the chain of command for review, approval and appropriate action.
Sergeants and supervisors up the chain of command22 should be encouraged to ask probing questions as they review each force incident, including whether officers did all they could to de-escalate situations and reduce the likelihood of force. This type of holistic review signals the Department’s commitment to learn from the incidents with the goal of providing officers training, strategies, and tactics that effectively respond to the complex challenges in the field with minimal use of force.
RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to define supervisors’ duties to document and review a reportable force incident.*
22 We noted that in the current case there was no indication in the investigation file that the Lieutenant who initiated the investigation was provided the opportunity to review and provide input on the investigative findings and recommendations. We believe that this multi-tiered review process is essential to ensuring a more holistic review.
21.30 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 26
RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to identify each reviewer in the chain of command and their incident review duties.*
The supervisor’s use of force evaluation—including identifying any potential misconduct—is also critical to the Department’s ability to complete its investigation and impose discipline for misconduct within the statutory deadline—an issue we discussed at length in our 2021 Annual Report discussed. The date of the agency’s discovery of potential officer misconduct for statute of limitation purposes occurs when an officer with authority to initiate an investigation is made aware of the misconduct.23 In this case, a court would likely find that the agency’s discovery of potential officer misconduct occurred two months before the lieutenant’s initiation of the investigation when the supervisor conducted his use of force investigation.
The investigative file indicated correspondence with the involved officer in January and March 2022 about the Department’s conclusions after the oneyear statute of limitation would have expired. Had the Department determined discipline was merited, it would have been precluded from doing so. We recommend that the Department identify the one-year statute of limitations date for each administrative investigation based on the earliest date that an officer with authority to initiate an investigation knew or should have been aware of potential misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: The Department should identify the one-year statute of limitations date for each administrative investigation and actively monitor and ensure that the Department’s internal review and notification of potential discipline to involves officers are provided within the statutory period.
23 California Government Code §3304 (d)(1) states that “except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency's discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct.”
21.31 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 27
Case No. 3 (Use of Force) Public Complaint
This case involved the complainant’s allegation that an officer had used excessive force during arrest and had stolen property from the complainant’s jacket. The complainant submitted the complaint four years after the incident.
The previous PSU sergeant received the complaint but did not initiate an investigation. With the change in personnel, the new PSU sergeant initiated an investigation. The complainant’s arrest occurred before the Department equipped officers with body worn cameras (BWC) and thus, no video footage of the complainant’s arrest exists.
The PSU sergeant interviewed the complainant, the involved officer and witness officers in addition to arrest reports. The involved officer reported that while attempting to secure the complainant’s seat belt after the complainant had been placed in the patrol car, the complainant spit in his face, attempted to kick him, and spit on him a second time. The officer used a pain compliance pressure point on the complainant’s jaw and struck the complainant one time with his forearm. Witness officers and reports corroborated the involved officer’s account. No valuables in the jacket’s pocket were booked into evidence and the complainant did not advise the involved officer of any valuables. The Department concluded that the officer’s use of force was within policy and that there was no evidence of theft. Command staff review of the completed investigation noted that it had not been completed in a timely manner. IPA found that the Department’s findings of exoneration and unfounded are supported by the evidence.
Case No. 31: Use of Force (Initiated by the Department) Incident Summary
An officer (hereinafter Officer #1) responded with three cover officers to a call of a suicidal individual at a temporary homeless shelter. Staff said the individual had talked about cutting his wrists and had asked others at the shelter for a knife.
Intending to take the individual into custody for involuntary mental health detention, Officer #1 and the cover officers contacted the individual at his bed inside the shelter. Using his first name, Officer #1 asked how he was doing
21.32 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 28
and why he had been telling people he wanted to slit his wrists. The individual said he was fine and denied telling anyone that. Officer #1 said, “So you don’t want to hurt yourself or anyone else?” He said, “no.” Officer #1 said “perfect,” and then grabbed his wrist. He asked, “what are you doing?” as Officer #1 and a cover officer pulled his hands behind his back and started handcuffing him. Stating that he was handicapped, Officer #1 replied, “I don’t care if you’re handicapped.” Officer #1 asked if he needed the wheelchair that was next to his bed and he said yes. A cover officer told him they would help him get into the chair and he asked “What for?” Officer #1 told him “to go to the hospital.” As Officer #1 held onto his arm, he said, “Don’t grab me like that, bitch.” Officer #1 replied, “Actually, I prefer the word c***, so thank you.” The individual stated, “You are a c***.”
The individual yelled as Officer #1 lifted and pulled him by his right arm into the wheelchair. He turned his head toward Officer #1, said “f*** you” and spit.
He said, “Bring me my s***” (likely referring to his belongings) as Officer #1 began wheeling him out of the shelter. Officer #1 replied, “Oh, I don’t give a s*** about your s***” and continued wheeling him out to the parking lot outside.
Several feet away from the patrol car, Officer #1 brought the wheelchair to a stop. The individual said: “You’re really something” and Officer #1 replied, “yeah, you spit on me again…” and the individual said “F*** you, n*****!” Officer #1 pulled over his mouth the individual’s face mask which had been below his chin and requested a cover officer to obtain a spit mask. When the individual asked why, Officer #1 replied “Cuz you’re a dick.” As Officer #1 began searching the individual’s left side, he lunged his head in her direction. Officer #1 struck the left side of his head with her open right hand and pushed his head down. He called her a f***ing c*** and bitch. The cover officer approached and put the spit mask over his head. Asked by the cover officer if he was ready to get up, he cursed and said he could not stand.
Officer #1 and the cover officer lifted the individual to a standing position and began walking him to the patrol car which was parked about six feet away.
After moving a few feet, the individual collapsed to the ground. Officer #1 held onto the individual’s handcuffs by the chain up at her waist level as he collapsed, causing his arms to be brought up behind his back in an arm bar
21.33 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 29
position. She held his arms in this position for several seconds and said, “that’s for spitting on me” as he cried and yelled “ow, ow, ow.” 24 Officer #1 and the cover officer lifted the individual to a standing position again but were unable to lift him into the back seat. He collapsed to the ground.
With the help of the second cover officer, the individual was pulled into the passenger compartment. The individual continued to cry and yell “my feet” while being lifted into the vehicle. When the second cover officer said the individual’s toe was bleeding, Officer #1 said, “Because we dragged him…which I’m fine with, ‘cause he spat on me.”
Officer #1 drove him to a psychiatric facility. When the facility refused the individual’s admission, Officer #1’s supervisor responded and arranged the individual’s transport by ambulance to another facility. A short time later, Officer #1 was dispatched back to the psychiatric facility because the individual had become uncooperative with staff. Upon seeing Officer #1, the individual attempted to punch her which she deflected. She applied a control hold as he was secured to the gurney. The individual was transported by ambulance to another hospital.
Later that night Officer #1 told her supervisor that the individual had spit on her at the shelter and attempted to punch her when she had returned later to the psychiatric facility. She said that she deflected the punch and placed the individual in a control hold until he was secured to the gurney. The supervisor conducted a use of force investigation based on the individual’s spitting and attempted punch of Officer #1.
Officer #1 documented the individual’s psychiatric detention in an incident report. Her report did not include her open-hand strike to the individual’s head nor the raised arm maneuver she had used on him in the parking lot. She documented the individual’s assault and battery against her in a separate 24 Officer #1’s BWC footage shows the individual collapsing to the ground and he can be heard crying as Officer #1 said, “That’s for spitting on me.” One of the cover officer’s BWC footage shows Officer #1 holding the individual’s handcuffs by the chain at waist level, causing his arms to be brought up behind his back in an arm bar position for several seconds.
21.34 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 30
report with a recommendation that the individual be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office. As part of his use of force investigation, the supervisor reviewed BWC footage of Officer #1 and two cover officers. The supervisor recommended his report be forwarded to the District Attorney’s office for considerations of charges against the individual.
On May 26, 2022 after reviewing Officer #1’s BWC footage as part of the criminal filing procedure, the District Attorney contacted the Department regarding Officer #1’s conduct. The District Attorney had concerns about the manner in which Officer #1 comported herself and the language she used. A Command Staff member reviewed BWC footage of the incident, confirmed that Officer #1’s language and behavior potentially violated department policy and also noted a possible out-of-policy use of force application. The Department initiated an administrative investigation.
Administrative Investigation
The PSU sergeant conducted a comprehensive review of BWC footage from the involved and witness officers and incident reports. He interviewed the witness officers, the supervisor and the involved officer. He noted that Officer #1 neither notified her supervisor of her use of force nor documented the open-hand strike and the arm-bar technique she applied to the individual. He concluded that the officer’s language and manner in which she comported herself violated the Department’s standards of conduct. (Policy 320.3.2.). He found that the open hand strike to the individual’s head was reasonable in light of him lunging his head toward her and his prior spitting. He found that Officer #1’s holding of the individual’s handcuffs in a raised position behind his back violated the Department’s Use of Force policy and was applied to cause pain in retaliation for being spit upon. Although Officer #1’s action of dragging the individual from the distance of the wheelchair to the patrol car caused abrasions on the individual’s feet, he concluded it was not an intentional use of force and thus, recommended a not sustained finding. A Command Staff member concurred with the findings and notified the officer of the Department’s intent to discipline.
21.35 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 31
IPA’s Assessment
The Department promptly responded to concerns raised by the District Attorney, conducted a comprehensive investigation, and made sound findings in this case. It also notified the officer in a timely manner of its intent to impose discipline. For these actions, the Department is to be commended.
We note, however, that the officer’s use of retaliatory force only came to light due to the District Attorney’s concern about the officer’s language and behavior while reviewing the officer’s BWC footage for potential criminal prosecution of the individual.
From our view, this case illustrates the vital role the field supervisor should play in a use of force review that includes not only an evaluation of whether the force complied with policy but also identifies an officer’s performance issues such as communication, tactics, decision-making and de-escalation efforts. Here, Officer #1’s supervisor reviewed Officer #1’s BWC footage as part of his use of force investigation and found that the video was consistent with Officer #1’s account of being spit upon by the individual. When the supervisor reviewed Officer #1’s BWC footage, he was unaware that Officer #1 had used force on the individual at the shelter because she did not tell him about the retaliatory arm-bar and open-hand head strike. Thus, his narrow focus on confirming Officer #1’s account of being spit upon is understandable.
Nonetheless, Officer #1’s language and comportment deteriorated within the first few minutes of her interaction with the individual that preceded the spitting incident. A review of this initial footage where Officer #1 said she did not care that the individual was handicapped and her willingness to take the discourse to the coarse level that it did should have prompted concern about her ability to interact and communicate appropriately with a suicidal individual. The manner in which she reacted instead of maintaining professionalism should have resulted in further scrutiny of her conduct throughout the entire incident.
RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: The subject officer’s supervisor should be required to participate in a comprehensive debriefing about this incident, including his evaluation of his subordinate’s performance throughout the incident.
21.36 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 32
Case No. 16 (Use of Force) Public Complaint
Incident Summary
On the day of the incident, officers responded to a domestic disturbance custody call that had become physical between the subjects. Dispatch advised officers that the call might involve a custody issue and confirmed a $100,000 felony Parental Abduction warrant for the mother.
When Officer #1 arrived on scene, in the driveway of the residence, the mother was holding onto the daughter with both arms wrapped around the daughter’s body. The father was behind the mother, holding her around the hip area. Officer #1 told the parties to separate. The father complied and moved away from the mother and daughter. Officer #1 grabbed hold of the mother who tightened her grip on the daughter. Officer #2 and Officer #3 arrived on scene; Officer #2 assisted Officer #1 in handcuffing the mother. The daughter was screaming and crying for her mother. Officer #1 told Officer #3 to try to separate the daughter from the mother, and Officer #3 grabbed hold of the daughter’s arm. When Officer #3 grabbed hold of the daughter’s arm, the daughter fell to the ground. BWC footage showed that the daughter’s foot was wedged in between the mother’s legs. Officer #1 and his trainee, Officer #2 walked the handcuffed mother to a nearby patrol car.
On the ground, the daughter continued screaming for her mom, kicking and lunging with her mouth open toward Officer #3. She continued to cry and scream. After she was handcuffed, officers lifted her from the ground and attempted to have her walk but she resisted walking and continued screaming, crying and kicking. Officer #1 pushed her against a patrol car, requested shackles and then did a leg-sweep takedown on her, placing her face down on the ground with her hands cuffed behind her. Officer #3 placed shackles on her ankles.
Officers carried her to the patrol vehicle and lifted her into the back seat. She continued screaming and crying for her mother. She hit her head on the Plexiglass divider of the patrol vehicle. Officer placed a protective foam helmet on her head. When a supervisor arrived on scene, he talked with the daughter as she sat screaming and crying in the patrol vehicle. An on-scene mental health liaison placed a mental health hold on the daughter (Welfare and
21.37 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 33
Institutions Code 5585) . Another on-scene officer transported the daughter to the hospital. She had abrasions on her knee which the officer photographed.
Five days earlier, the father had contacted SCPD officers requesting assistance to regain custody of his 13-year old daughter. He explained that six weeks ago, his ex-partner (mother of his daughter) had refused to return his daughter to his home as required by their custody agreement. He provided SCPD officers copies of the out-of-county court-issued protective custody order, an arrest warrant for the mother, and explained that he had filed a missing person’s case concerning his daughter. A SCPD officer documented and confirmed the protective order, felony warrant and missing person’s case.
The on-scene supervisor informed the father that they would not take any enforcement action that day in light of the need for more resources and a strategy to take the mother into custody that would not place the daughter into danger.
Two days later, an SCPD officer observed a vehicle registered to the mother and attempted a traffic stop but the driver refused to yield. The officer initiated a pursuit that was terminated within 2 minutes due to concern that the daughter was in the vehicle. The vehicle’s description was provided to neighboring agencies but the vehicle was not located. The officer documented these actions and also indicated that he had had previous calls for service involving the mother at her residence.
The Department received a complaint from a family member alleging that the officers had used excessive force on the juvenile and that the detention, handcuffing, use of leg restraints, and custody of the juvenile were illegal. The mother also filed a civil claim against the city concerning the incident.
Supervisor Response
A supervisor responded to the scene, spoke with on-scene officers, the daughter, the father and oversaw that witnesses were interviewed. The supervisor did not complete any report or evaluation of the incident.
Department’s Investigative Report and Conclusions
The PSU sergeant reviewed and summarized BWC footage of the involved and witness officers, interviewed involved and witness officers, the father and the complainant, and documents. The PSU sergeant wrote an investigative report and concluded that the involved officer’s use of force, use of a restraint device and detention of the daughter were consistent with policy. Specifically,
21.38 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 34
the PSU sergeant found that the officer’s control hold and handcuffing were reasonable in light of the daughter kicking and attempting to bite Officer #3.
The use of leg shackles was within policy because the daughter had kicked Officer #3 at least once and tried to kick at other officers. Taking the daughter into custody was lawful due to her assaultive actions toward the officers.
Command staff review agreed with the conclusions though noted that the investigation had not been completed within the one-year statute of limitations.
No other recommendations were provided.
IPA’s Assessment
The Department’s PSU investigation was thorough and its fact-finding was able to address concerns raised by the complainant—such as the erroneous belief that the daughter had been hog-tied (an improper technique of connecting handcuffs to leg shackles.)
However, we observe that in this case the Department did not take a holistic approach to its review process and evaluate the entire course of the officers’ conduct. For example, the Department’s evaluation failed to consider whether de-escalation techniques could and should have been used. At the time of the incident, the Department had revised its Use of Force policy to align with the state law requirement that officers use de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics and other alternatives to force when feasible.”25 We recognize that the scene was chaotic and potentially volatile because of the child-custody issues at stake. Nonetheless, when Officer #1 instructed the parties to separate, the father moved away from both the mother and daughter and remained calm and at a distance. With the father’s disengagement, the officers’ focus turned to the mother’s arrest.
A more robust incident review would have considered how officers communicated with both the mother and the daughter and what efforts were 25 State law defines feasible as being capable of being done…without increasing risk to the officer or another person. (California Government Code §7286(a) (3)).
21.39 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 35
made to obtain the mother’s cooperation and address the daughter’s distress.
In this incident, the officers went hands on without communicating with either the mother or the daughter. The daughter’s extreme distress by being separated from her mother and observing her mother’s arrest was predictable.
In fact, when the supervisor met with the father days several days before he specifically did not want to take enforcement action immediately in order to devise a plan that considered the daughter’s wellbeing.
As the daughter screamed and cried for her mother, officers gave her numerous orders to comply, but none addressed her distress. When she was first handcuffed after having been pulled away from her mother and fallen to the ground, officers focused on quickly getting her on her feet and to the patrol car. The Department did not evaluate whether the number of officers standing over her, the multiple commands, and goal of getting her into the patrol car rapidly were effective strategies and whether other de-escalation or communication efforts tailored to a teenager could have resulted in less force and a less traumatizing result for the daughter. We recommend that officers document any de-escalation efforts in their incident reports and that the Department’s review of force incidents include whether de-escalation efforts were warranted and their effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: The Department should amend its Use of Force policy to require officers to document their de-escalation efforts in their incident reports.*
RECOMMENDATION SIXTEEN: The Department’s review of force incidents should include whether de-escalation efforts were warranted and their effectiveness.*
This incident provides an opportunity to enhance policy and training to address the complexity of officers’ role when arresting a parent in front of a child. The International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that Departments have a written policy to safeguard the children of arrested parents. The policy attempts to limit the trauma caused by a parent’s arrest by attempting to arrest the parent outside of the child’s presence, permitting the child to say good-bye if the parent is cooperative, and ensuring the child’s safety in the short- and
21.40 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 36
long-term.
26 We suggest that the Department consider adopting a children of arrested parents policy.27
RECOMMENDATION SEVENTEEN: The Department should consider adopting a children of arrested parents policy.
We also note that the supervisor in this case did not write any report or conduct any evaluation of the incident. As noted previously, a supervisor’s evaluation should evaluate whether the force used complied with policy and also address tactics, decision-making, planning, coordination, force options, de-escalation efforts and equipment. Here, the supervisor did not write any type of evaluation of the force used in this incident.
Additionally, this supervisor had previously met with the father and discussed formulating a plan for the mother’s arrest that considered the daughter’s wellbeing. The Department never explored whether it had taken additional planning steps and what had prevented the Department from executing their arrest plan before the circumstances escalated into a call for service.
RECOMMENDATION EIGHTEEN: The Department’s review of force incidents should include any planning efforts by the Department before the incident.
26 https://www.theiacp.org/resources/safeguarding-children-of-arrested-parentstoolkit; https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Child_Safety.pdf 27 Over sixteen years ago, the California Legislature urged law enforcement and child welfare agencies to develop protocols in collaboration with other local entities to address their response to the arrest of a parent or guardian to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. (Assembly Bill 1942 (Nava)). AB 1942 also added directed California Police Officers Standard Training to develop guidelines and training for use by state and local law enforcement officers to address child safety when a caretaker parent or guardian is arrested. https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Child_Safety.pdf
21.41 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 37
We also noted that the mother filed a claim against the city. Additionally, she provided materials for the Department’s consideration during its investigation.
The PSU sergeant considered these materials and concluded that they did not change his recommendations. Both the city claim and the materials she provided the Department indicated that she was complaining about the officer’s conduct. The Department notified the complainant (another family member) of their investigation’s conclusion but did not provide written notification to the mother. The Department should have treated her as a complainant and provided her notification of the Department’s findings at the conclusion of its case.
RECOMMENDATION NINETEEN: The Department should treat
complainants of the same incident as co-complainants and provide notification of the Department’s findings at the conclusion of its case.* Case No. 17 (Use of Force) Public Complaint
Incident Summary
On the date of the incident, officers were dispatched to a parking lot for a report of a restraining order violation. Officer #1 contacted the reportee who provided a copy of a civil harassment restraining order, pointed to the restrained party and described how the restrained party was verbally harassing her. Dispatch confirmed the validity of the order.
In the meantime, Officers #2 and #3 contacted the subject (the restrained party) and asked whether a court order prohibited contact between her and the reportee. She stated that another SCPD officer had told her no order existed, the police had lied to her, and that she was going to call the FBI right away. She started to walk away and turned with her phone. Officers #2 and #3 removed her phone, placed her hands behind her back and handcuffed her, telling her she was under arrest. Officers #2 and #3 walked her to a patrol vehicle, searched her, and placed her in the vehicle.
The subject was subsequently cited and released.
The subject subsequently complained that the officers had used excessive force, improperly arrested and cited her, searched her wallet and refused
21.42 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 38
to give her purse back. She was interviewed at the time she complained but no investigation was conducted. When the current PSU sergeant was appointed, he reviewed the officers’ BWC footage, interviewed the witness and involved officers, and made attempts to reach the complainant.
The PSU sergeant concluded that the officers’ actions had not violated the Department’s policies. We agree with the Department’s findings which the officers’ BWC footage corroborates. To the sergeant’s credit, he also noted that the reporting officer’s report did not document the complainant’s detention in handcuffs, her resistance to being handcuffed, that she was placed in a patrol car and that she was searched incident to arrest. Command staff review also noted that the investigation had not been completed in a timely manner.
We have one additional observation. Here, the officers grabbed her arms without communicating to the subject that she was being detained, and that she would be handcuffed and arrested if she walked away. Although she expressed doubt about the existence of the restraining order, she was neither confrontational nor aggressive. We suggest that the circumstances merited a warning and an opportunity to comply before applying handcuffs.
RECOMMENDATION TWENTY: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to provide when feasible a warning and time to comply before using force.
Public Complaints
Case No. 22
The complainant alleged that two years prior, a Santa Cruz Police Department officer had wrongfully issued him a citation that required a Department of Motor Vehicle Re-Examination of Driver. He alleged that the police contact and citation were retaliatory and done on behalf of his ex-girlfriend or her friend who had the same last name as the officer who had cited him.
The investigating sergeant interviewed the reportee who had called 911 and observed the complainant’s threatening behavior. The responding officer’s observations of the complainant caused him to believe he could not safely operate a vehicle. The investigating sergeant also contacted an officer with the
21.43 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 39
California Highway Patrol who opined that an officer could lawfully issue a ReExamination citation due to concerns about the individual’s mental capacity to drive without observing the individual operating a vehicle. The officer advised the investigating sergeant that he was not related to or knew the ex-girlfriend or her friend.
The investigating sergeant informed the complainant by letter that the Department found that the officer had the lawful authority to issue him the DMV Priority Re-Examination Form and thus exonerated the officer.
We found that the Department’s investigative conclusions were supported by the evidence. We also noted that the investigating sergeant discovered that the officer had not written a report regarding the handcuffing of the complainant as required by Department policy and the officer was counseled about this violation.
We suggest one area of improvement concerning the Department’s notification to the complainant of its investigation’s results. Although the Department investigated the complainant’s allegation that the police contact and citation were retaliatory, its letter to the complainant did not address this allegation.
We recommend that the Department’s letter to complainants provide findings as to each allegation raised in the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-ONE: The Department’s letter to
complainants should provide findings as to each allegation raised in the complaint.*
Case No. 23
The complainant alleged that SCPD officers had not properly investigated a reported theft of money from the complainant’s home and that the investigating officer had not responded to her emails and calls. A supervisor reviewed the complaint and identified additional investigative steps which the responding officers then completed. He also counseled the officer about responding to emails and voicemails from victims in a timely manner. The Department notified the complainant by letter that additional investigative measures had been taken in her case and that a supervisor addressed her concerns with the involved employees.
21.44 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 40
CONCLUSION
During 2022, we reviewed thirty-three of the Department’s use of force and public complaint investigations. Many of the files we evaluated reflected thorough investigations and sound conclusions. We observed the Department take significant steps to address its backlog of cases and implement recommendations we had previously made to enhance its system for documenting, monitoring and completing its investigations in a timely manner.
Our review of individual cases also indicated that the Department would benefit from re-evaluating its Taser policy and strengthening its use of force review procedures. The Department was receptive to our suggestions and promptly drafted policy that addresses sixteen of the twenty-one recommendations raised in this report. We look forward to continuing our work with the Santa Cruz City Council, the community and its Police Department.
21.45 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 41
APPENDIX A:
Santa Cruz Police Department
Force & Complaint Investigations
Reviewed by Independent Police
Auditor in 2022
21.46 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 42
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
1(2019) Complainant alleged that the officer was
rude and threatening during a bicycle
stop. The officer failed to activate his
body worn camera during the stop.
Supervisor counseled the
officer concerning
professionalism and the
body worn camera policy.
SCPD noted a long delay in
completing the
investigation.
Concur
2(2020) Complainant alleged that officers
accused her of being intoxicated and
discouraged her from making a private
person’s arrest when responding to
report that she had been battered by
security staff.
Conduct Unbecoming
Sustained (senior officer)
Exonerated (trainee)
Concur
3 (2020)
Complainant alleged that an officer
illegally arrested him, used excessive
force, failed to investigate and wrote a
false report.
Use of Force
Exonerated
Improper Arrest, False
Report and Lack of
Investigation
Unfounded
SCPD noted investigation
not completed within
statutory time.
Concur
4 (2020)
Complainant alleged that officers used
excessive force by pushing her into a
fence while detaining her and violated
her Miranda rights.
Use of Force
Exonerated
Miranda violation
Unfounded
Involved officer no longer
employed by SCPD.
Concur
5(2020) Complainant alleged that after he was
arrested, an officer took money from
him and threw his glasses and dentures
out of the police vehicle.
Conduct Unbecoming
Unfounded
SCPD noted investigation
not completed within
statutory time.
Concur
6 (2020)
Complainant alleged that officers were
biased during a traffic stop.
Conduct Unbecoming
Biased Policing
Not Sustained
Officer counseled for muting
and then failing to unmute
body worn camera.
Concur
21.47 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 43
28SCPD Use of Force Policy 300.3.7 PERSONAL IMPACT WEAPONS; STRIKES AND PUNCHES:
Strikes and punches are an approved use of force only when there is an objectively reasonable basis for use of force given the facts and totality of the circumstances. Any person using force must articulate the circumstances as objectively reasonable and apparently necessary under the totality of the circumstances, and that the use of force is proportionate to the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and the suspect’s level of resistance.
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
One officer no longer works
for SCPD.
7(2020) Complainant alleged officer used
excessive force during arrest and stole
property from his jacket.
Use of Force
Exonerated
Conduct Unbecoming
Unfounded
SCPD noted investigation
not completed within
statutory time.
Concur
8 (2020)
Department-initiated review of a use of
force incident. When the individual
resisted officers’ attempt to handcuff
him after ignoring the command to stay
in his vehicle during a traffic stop, an
officer punched and kneed the
complainant several times in the face.
At the hospital, when subject became
combative and refused to provide his
hands for handcuffing, Officer #2
punched the subject in the face and
numerous times in the torso. Ultimately,
officers used the WRAP to transport the
subject to the jail.
Use of Force
Standards of Conduct
Exonerated
Department
recommended additional
use of force training and
modified its policy
concerning strikes and
punches.28
Concur
9 (2020)
Complainant alleged that officer failed
to wear a face mask during a vehicle
tow contact.
Not Sustained Concur
21.48 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 44
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
10 (2021)
Department-initiated review of force
incident involving officers’ multiple
Taser deployments during a well-being
check on individual under the influence.
Use of Force
Exonerated
Tactical debriefing and deescalation training of officer; tactical debriefing of
supervisor.
See IPA’s discussion and
recommendations in
narrative of this Report.
11 (2021)
Complainant alleged that officers
unlawfully entered his home and used
force by tackling him during an arrest
that originated with a noise complaint.
Use of Force
Not Sustained
SCPD noted investigation
not completed within
statutory time.
Concur
12 (2021)
Complainant alleged that officers used
force by grabbing her upper arm and
improperly handcuffing her while taking
her into custody for violation of a
restraining order.
Use of force Improper
handcuffing
Not Sustained
Concur
13 (2021)
Complainant alleged that the officer
became improperly involved in a
property dispute.
Conduct Unbecoming
Sustained
Concur
14 (2021)
Complainant alleged that officers stole
money from his wallet and acted out of
control during the complainant’s arrest.
Conduct Unbecoming
Not Sustained
Concur
15 (2021)
Complainant alleged that officers used
excessive force and illegally arrested
him when he was experiencing a
seizure. He also alleged one officer was
discourteous when his wife approached
officers about his medical condition.
Use of Force
Illegal Arrest
Exonerated
Unprofessional conduct
One officer lacked
professionalism though not
warranting discipline.
Concur
16 (2021)
Complainant alleged that officers used
excessive force, improper leg restraints,
and improperly took a juvenile into
custody during the arrest of the
juvenile’s parent.
Exonerated all allegations. See IPA’s discussion and
recommendations in
narrative of this Report.
17 (2021)
Complainant alleged officers used
excessive force, improperly arrested,
searched and cited her, and did not
Exonerated all allegations. Concur; see IPA’s
discussion and
recommendations in
narrative of this Report.
21.49 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 45
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
return property during a restraining
order violation incident.
18 (2021)
Complainant alleged that a forehead
injury to the arrestee was the result of
improper police contact and use of force
when officers contacted him for
trespassing. Additional allegations
included pointing of a taser without
warning, discourtesy, false statements
of officers and supervisor.
Improper contact
Exonerated
Discourtesy
Sustained
No warning Exonerated
Use of Force
Not Sustained
False statements
Unfounded
Concur
19 (2021)
Complainant alleged that he was
improperly arrested for false
imprisonment.
Improper arrest
Exonerated
Concur
20 (2021)
Department-initiated review of force
incident involving the officer’s tasering
of an individual while taking him into
custody. The officer responded to a call
involving an individual in mental health
crisis, yelling and who had reportedly
stolen from a store.
Use of Force: Exonerated;
also recommended
improved tactics and deescalation training for officer Question SCPD’s finding;
concur with SCPD’s
recommendations;
IPA Taser
Recommendations 1,
2,5,6 and 8 apply to this
case.
21 (2021)
Complainant alleged that the officer
failed to apprehend suspects who
vandalized his truck.
Failure to enforce
Exonerated;
Officer counseled on
communication skills.
Concur
22 (2021)
Complainant alleged that an officer had
wrongfully issued him a citation
requiring driver re-examination by the
Department of Motor Vehicles and that
the citation was retaliatory.
Wrongful citation
Exonerated
Concur
See IPA discussion and
recommendation in
narrative of this Report.
23 (2022)
Complainant alleged that officers had
not properly investigated a theft from
her home and not responded to emails
and calls.
SCPD took additional
investigative steps and also
counseled the officers.
Concur
See IPA discussion in
narrative of this Report.
24 (2022)
Complainant alleged that the officer
inappropriately touched her chest when
he held her wrist to guide her back from
her close proximity to him.
Use of Force Conduct
Unbecoming Exonerated
Concur
21.50 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 46
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
25 (2022)
Complainant alleged that while arrested
he was handcuffed and not permitted to
use the restroom for 2 hours.
Cruel & Unusual
punishment: Unfounded
Concur
26 (2022)
Complainant alleged that the officer had
not accepted a private person’s arrest
and should have searched the other
party for weapons.
Concerns handled by
officer’s supervisor
Concur
27 (2022)
Complainant alleged that officer had
towed his vehicle unlawfully.
SCPD notified complainant
that photos of vehicle with
chalk marks and abatement
notice demonstrated towing
was within policy.
Concur
28 (2022)
Complainant alleged that the officer was
rude when he contacted the
complainant at his home while
conducting a welfare check concerning
a neighbor.
Concerns handled by
officer’s supervisor.
Concur
29 (2022)
Complainant alleged that the officer had
failed to investigate his report of a theft
of money from his van.
SCPD found officer had
violated policy and
counseled officer.
Concur
30 (2022)
Complainant alleged that the officer was
rude and issued a retaliatory citation to
the complainant when the complainant
requested that another individual be
issued a parking citation. Complainant
agreed that supervisor’s counseling of
officer was sufficient.
Concerns handled by
officer’s supervisor.
Concur
31 (2022)
Department-initiated review of force
incident involving officer’s use of force
and derogatory language on suicidal
individual.
Conduct Unbecoming
Sustained
Use of Force (handcuffed
arms raised behind back)
Sustained
Use of Force (open hand
strike)
Exonerated
Concur; see IPA
discussion and
recommendations in
narrative of this report.
32 (2022)
Complainant alleged officers improperly
contacted him about a report that he
was photographing children at the park
SCPD determined no policy
violation.
Concur
21.51 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 47
Case
No.
Summary SCPD Allegations and
Finding
IPA Review
and that supervisor denied his request
to file a criminal complaint against
person who made false report about
him.
33 (2022)
Complainant alleged that officer should
have initiated a mental health detention
on his son instead of arresting him on
criminal charges.
SCPD determined no policy
violation.
Concur
21.52 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 48
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF INDEPENDENT
POLICE AUDITOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
21.53 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 49
RECOMMENDATION ONE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to permit Taser use only when there is an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, consisting of observable assaultive behavior or the threat thereof or flight from felony arrest.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: SCPD should ensure that when its supervisors evaluate uses of force that they consider each of the relevant factors articulated in its policy.
RECOMMENDATION THREE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require officers to document the justification for multiple applications of a Taser and Taser exposure longer than 15 seconds.
RECOMMENDATION FOUR: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require that the Department’s review of a Taser incident includes whether multiple applications of the Taser or Taser exposure for longer than 15 seconds was justified.
RECOMMENDATION FIVE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require that post-Taser deployment, the reviewing sergeant download the Taser use data concerning the event, including but not limited to the number of discharges, amount of time for each discharge, time between discharges, and probe or stun mode application.
RECOMMENDATION SIX: The Department should adopt policy that requires use of force review to assess the effectiveness of communication by involved personnel.
RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: The Department should adopt a policy that requires all relevant allegations of potential misconduct against involved officers and supervisors be brought. Any recommendation suggesting that a member should be named as a subject but then not followed should be documented and explained in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: The Department should revise its Taser policy to require the Taser instructor team to analyze all reports involving Taser deployment and to provide recommendations concerning tactics, decisionmaking, policy, training and supervision related to their subject matter expertise and incident review.
RECOMMENDATION NINE: The Department should revise its Taser policy to address the increased risks that the Taser poses (including from single and
21.54 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 50
multiple activations) to susceptible individuals that the Taser manufacturer has identified.
RECOMMENDATION TEN: The Department should ensure that careful attention be placed on the review of any Taser use in drive stun mode to ensure that it meets the limited exceptions set out in policy.
RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to define supervisors’ duties to document and review a reportable force incident.
RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to identify each reviewer in the chain of command and their incident review duties.
RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: The Department should identify the oneyear statute of limitations date for each administrative investigation and actively monitor and ensure that the Department’s internal review and notification of potential discipline to involves officers are provided within the statutory period.
RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: The subject officer’s supervisor should be required to participate in a comprehensive debriefing about this incident, including his evaluation of his subordinate’s performance throughout the incident.
RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: The Department should amend its Use of Force policy to require officers to document their de-escalation efforts in their incident reports.
RECOMMENDATION SIXTEEN: The Department’s review of force incidents should include whether de-escalation efforts were warranted and their effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION SEVENTEEN: The Department should consider adopting a children of arrested parents policy.
RECOMMENDATION EIGHTEEN: The Department’s review of force incidents should include any planning efforts by the Department before the incident.
21.55 Independent Police Auditor Third Annual Report March 2023 Page | 51
RECOMMENDATION NINETEEN: The Department should treat complainants of the same incident as co-complainants and provide notification of the Department’s findings at the conclusion of its case.
RECOMMENDATION TWENTY: The Department should revise its Use of Force policy to provide when feasible a warning and time to comply before using force.
RECOMMENDATION TWENTY-ONE: The Department’s letter to
complainants should provide findings as to each allegation raised in the complaint.
21.56 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
1 Policy
1009
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz Police Policy Manual
Personnel Complaints
1009.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for the reporting, investigation and disposition of complaints regarding the conduct of members of the Santa Cruz Police Department. This policy shall not apply to any questioning, counseling, instruction, informal verbal admonishment or other routine or unplanned contact of a member in the normal course of duty, by a supervisor or any other member, nor shall this policy apply to a criminal investigation. 1009.1.1 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS DEFINED
Personnel complaints consist of any allegation of misconduct or improper job performance against any department employee that, if true, would constitute a violation of department policy, federal, state or local law.
Inquiries about employee conduct which, even if true, would not qualify as a personnel complaint may be handled informally by a department supervisor and shall not be considered complaints.
This policy shall not apply to any interrogation, counseling, instruction, informal verbal admonishment or other routine or unplanned contact of an employee in the normal course of duty, by a supervisor or any other employee, nor shall this policy apply to an investigation concerned solely and directly with alleged criminal activities (Cal. Govt. Code 3303(i)).
Complaints from the public shall be classified in one of the following categories:
Inquiry - A matter involving questions or concerns by community members regarding department policies or procedures and how they are applied, or improper conduct consisting of relatively minor violations of procedure, courtesy, or service, which, even if true, would not result in discipline.
Inquires need not be documented using the administrative investigative format and the responsible supervisor shall have the discretion to document the complaint in any manner consistent with this policy. A well-documented resolution in the form of an internal memorandum shall be completed within 90 days after assigned. Supervisors can extend the investigative time with the approval of a Deputy Chief based on the complexity of the complaint or extenuating circumstances. The internal memorandum will become part of the inquiry file. These complaints will be logged like all other complaints and disposition letters will be sent as per section 1009.10.2.
Formal - A matter in which the complaining party requests further investigation or which a department supervisor determines that further action is warranted (including but not limited to violations of policy or criminal activity) and if true, could result in discipline. Such complaints should be investigated by a department supervisor of rank greater than the subject employee or referred to the Professional Standards Unit depending on the seriousness and complexity of the investigation. Investigations involving a member with a ranking of a lieutenant or above shall be assigned at the discretion of the Chief of Police. A well-documented investigation in the administrative investigation format will be completed generally within 90 days. PSU can extend the investigative time with the approval of the Chief of Police based on the complexity of the complaint or extenuating circumstances.
21.57 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
2 Informational – When a complaint is received and all the evidence (i.e. body camera footage, police reports) clearly shows the allegations did not occur, the Chief of Police has the authority to designate the complaint as informational and not require additional investigation. Subject employees will be notified in writing that the complaint was received although no further investigation will take place. These complaints will be logged like all other complaints and disposition letters will be sent as per section 1009.10.2. 1009.2 POLICY
The Santa Cruz Police Department takes seriously all complaints regarding the service provided by the Department and the conduct of its members.
The Department will accept and address all complaints of misconduct in accordance with this policy and applicable federal, state and local law, municipal and county rules and the requirements of any collective bargaining agreements. Any recommendation suggesting that a department employee should be named as a subject but then not followed should be documented and explained in the investigative file.
It is also the policy of this department to ensure that the community can report misconduct without concern for reprisal or retaliation.
1009.3 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS
Personnel complaints include any allegation of misconduct or improper job performance that, if true, would constitute a violation of department policy or of federal, state, or local law, policy or rule. Personnel complaints may be generated internally or by the public.
Concerns about conduct or performance that, if true, would not violate department policy or federal, state, or local law, policy or rule may be handled informally by a supervisor and shall not be considered a personnel complaint. This does not preclude a supervisor from documenting outcomes in a written internal memorandum for through computer aided dispatch notes. Such concerns generally include clarification regarding policy, procedures, or the response to specific incidents by the Department.
1009.3.1 SOURCES OF COMPLAINTS
The following applies to the source of complaints:
(a) Individuals from the public may make complaints in any form, including in writing, by email, in person or by telephone.
(b) Any department member becoming aware of alleged misconduct shall immediately notify a supervisor.
(c) Supervisors shall initiate a complaint based upon observed misconduct or receipt from any source alleging misconduct that, if true, could result in disciplinary action. (d) Anonymous and third-party complaints should be accepted and investigated to the extent that sufficient information is provided.
(e) Tort claims and lawsuits may generate a personnel complaint. In this case, Risk Management in consultation with the City Attorney and the Chief of Police will decide if and when a complaint resulting from a claim or lawsuit will be investigated.
21.58 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
3 1009.4 AVAILABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLAINTS
Community complaint forms will be maintained in a clearly visible location in the public area of the police facility and be accessible through the department website. Complaint forms may also be mailed to a complainant upon request.
Community complaint forms in languages other than English may also be provided, as determined necessary or practicable.
1009.4.1 ACCEPTANCE
All complaints will be courteously accepted by any department member and promptly given to the appropriate supervisor. Although written complaints are preferred, a complaint may also be filed orally, either in person or by telephone. Such complaints will be directed to a supervisor. If a supervisor is not immediately available to take an oral complaint, the receiving member shall obtain contact information sufficient for the supervisor to contact the complainant. The supervisor, upon contact with the complainant, shall complete and submit a complaint form or written memorandum as appropriate.
Although not required, complainants should be encouraged to file complaints in person so that proper identification, signatures, photographs, or physical evidence may be obtained as necessary.
A complainant shall be provided with a copy of the complaining party's statement at the time it is filed with the Department (Penal Code § 832.7).
1009.4.2 AVAILABILITY OF WRITTEN PROCEDURES
The Department shall make available to the public a written description of the investigation procedures for complaints (Penal Code § 832.5).
1009.4.3 HATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST PEACE OFFICERS
Internal complaints or complaints from the public shall be accepted and investigated in accordance with this policy where it is alleged that an officer has in the previous seven years, and since 18 years of age, engaged in membership in a hate group, participated in a hate group activity, or advocated any public expression of hate (Penal Code § 13682). 1009.5 DOCUMENTATION
Supervisors shall ensure that all formal complaints are documented on a complaint form or internal memorandum. The supervisor shall ensure that the nature of the complaint is defined as clearly as possible.
Complaints should also be documented in a log that records and tracks complaints. The log shall include the nature of the complaint and the actions taken to address the complaint. On an annual basis, the Department should audit the log and send an audit report to the Chief of Police or the authorized designee.
21.59 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
4 1009.6 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS
Allegations of misconduct will be administratively investigated as follows. 1009.6.1 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
In general, the primary responsibility for the investigation of a personnel complaint shall rest with the professional standards unit. The Chief of Police or the authorized designee may also direct member's immediate supervisor or another supervisor to investigate any complaint.
A supervisor who becomes aware of alleged misconduct shall take reasonable steps to prevent aggravation of the situation.
The responsibilities of supervisors include but are not limited to:
(a) Ensuring that upon receiving or initiating any formal complaint, a complaint form or internal memorandum is completed.
1. The original complaint form or internal memorandum will be directed to the Watch Commander of the subject member, via the chain of command, who will take appropriate action and/or forward to the Chief of Police for a determination of who will have responsibility for the investigation.
2. In circumstances where the integrity of the investigation could be jeopardized by reducing the complaint to writing or where the confidentiality of a complainant is at issue, a supervisor shall orally report the matter to the member's Division Commander or the Chief of Police, who will initiate appropriate action. (b) Respond to all complainants in a courteous and professional manner.
1. Follow-up contact with the complainant should be made within 24 hours of the Department receiving the complaint. When feasible, supervisors shall respond to the scene when a complainant indicates they want to file a complaint or want to talk with a supervisor. A supervisor’s inability to respond should be documented in any supervisor report.
(c) Ensuring that upon receipt of a complaint involving allegations of a potentially serious nature, the Watch Commander and the Chief of Police are notified via the chain of command as soon as practicable.
(d) Promptly contacting the Human Resources Department and the Watch Commander for direction regarding their roles in addressing a complaint that relates to sexual, racial, ethnic or other forms of prohibited harassment or discrimination. (e) Forwarding unresolved personnel complaints to the Watch Commander, who will determine whether to contact the complainant or assign the complaint for investigation.
21.60 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
5 (f) Investigating a complaint as follows:
1. Making reasonable efforts to obtain names, addresses and telephone numbers of witnesses.
2. When appropriate, ensuring immediate medical attention is provided and photographs of alleged injuries and accessible uninjured areas are taken. (g) Ensuring that the procedural rights of the subject member are followed (Government Code § 3303 et seq.).
(h) Ensuring interviews of the complainant are timely and generally conducted during reasonable hours. Complainant interviewees should be interviewed as to each complaint allegation.
(i) Recording of all statements in a manner that complies with applicable law, policy, and procedure.
1009.6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
Whether conducted by a supervisor or a member of the Professional Standards Unit, the following applies to members covered by the Public Safety Departments Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) (Government Code § 3303):
(a) Interviews of a subject member shall be conducted during reasonable hours and preferably when the member is on-duty. If the member is off-duty, he/she shall be compensated.
(b) Unless waived by the member, interviews of a subject member shall be at the Santa Cruz Police Department or other reasonable and appropriate place. (c) No more than two interviewers should ask questions of a subject member at one time.
(d) Prior to any interview, a member shall be informed of the nature of the investigation, the name, rank and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interviewing officers, and all other persons to be present during the interview. (e) All interviews shall be for a reasonable period and the member's personal needs should be accommodated.
(f) No member should be subjected to offensive or threatening language, nor shall any promises, rewards or other inducements be used to obtain answers. (g) Any member refusing to answer questions directly related to the investigation may be ordered to answer questions administratively and may be subject to discipline for failing to do so.
1. A member should be given an order to answer questions in an administrative investigation that might incriminate the member in a criminal matter only after the member has been given a Lybarger advisement. Administrative investigators should consider the impact that compelling a statement from the member may have on any related criminal investigation and should take reasonable steps to avoid creating any foreseeable conflicts between the two related investigations. This may include conferring with the person in charge of the criminal investigation (e.g., discussion of processes, timing, implications).
21.61 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
6 2. No information or evidence administratively coerced from a member may be provided to anyone involved in conducting the criminal investigation or to any prosecutor.
(h) The interviewer should record all interviews of members and witnesses. The member may also record the interview. If the member has been previously interviewed, a copy of that recorded interview shall be provided to the member prior to any subsequent interview.
(i) All members subjected to interviews that could result in discipline for the interviewee have the right to have an uninvolved representative present during the interview. However, in order to maintain the integrity of each individual’s statement, involved members shall not consult or meet with a representative or attorney collectively or in groups prior to being interviewed. (j) All members shall provide complete and truthful responses to questions posed during interviews.
k) No member may be requested or compelled to submit to a polygraph examination, nor shall any refusal to submit to such examination be mentioned in any investigation (Government Code § 3307).
No investigation shall be undertaken against any employee solely because the employee has been placed on a prosecutor’s Brady list or the name of the employee may otherwise be subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. However, an investigation may be based on the underlying acts or omissions for which the employee has been placed on a Brady list or may otherwise be subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (Government Code § 3305.5). 1009.6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION FORMAT
Formal investigations of personnel complaints shall be thorough, complete and essentially follow this format:
Introduction - Include the identity of the members; the identity of the assigned investigators; the time and date of incident occurrence; the time, date, and manner the complaint was received; the date and time of initiation; the source of the complaint; and the manner the personnel complaint was received.
Synopsis - Provide a brief summary of the facts giving rise to the investigation.
Summary - List the allegations separately, including applicable policy sections, with a brief summary of the evidence relevant to each allegation. A separate recommended finding should be provided for each allegation.
Evidence - Each allegation should be set forth with the details of the evidence applicable to each allegation provided, including comprehensive summaries of member and witness statements.
Other evidence related to each allegation should also be detailed in this section.
Conclusion - A recommendation regarding further action or disposition should be provided.
21.62 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
7 Additional Information – List reasons for significant investigative delays and approval authority for extensions.
Exhibits - A separate list of exhibits (e.g., recordings, photos, documents) should be attached to the report.
1009.6.4 DISPOSITIONS
Each formal personnel complaint shall include findings for each allegation. Each allegation shall be classified with one of the following dispositions:
Unfounded - When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded (Penal Code § 832.8).
Exonerated - When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was justified, lawful and/or proper.
Not sustained - When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member.
Sustained - An allegation is sustained when the evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that a violation of the policy or procedure occurred; this standard of evidence is called the "preponderance of evidence”. Afinal determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing department, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Government Code 3304 and Government Code 3304.5 that the actions of the employee were found to violate law or policy (Penal Code 832.8) No Finding - If the complaint failed to disclose promised information to further the investigation; the investigation revealed that another agency was involved, and the complaint or complainant has been referred to that agency; the complainant wished to withdraw the complaint; the complainant is no longer available for clarification. The complainant, witness(es), or subject officer(s) are no longer available and their statements or evidence is crucial to fully understanding the circumstances.
If an investigation discloses misconduct or improper job performance that was not alleged in the original complaint, the investigator shall take appropriate action with regard to any additional allegations.
1009.6.5 COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS
Every investigator or supervisor assigned to investigate a personnel complaint or other alleged misconduct shall proceed with due diligence in an effort to complete the investigation within 90 days of receiving the assignment and within one year from the date of discovery by an individual authorized to initiate an investigation (Government Code § 3304).
In the event that an investigation cannot be completed within one year of discovery, the assigned investigator or supervisor shall ensure that an extension or delay is warranted within the exceptions set forth in Government Code § 3304(d) or Government Code § 3508.1.
21.63 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
8 Any required tolling exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations shall be approved by a Deputy Chief, in consultation with the City Attorney, and documented in the investigative file. Additionally, significant investigative delays, any extension requests, and authorizations for such requests shall be documented in the investigative file.
1009.6.6 NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT OF INVESTIGATION STATUS
The member conducting the investigation should provide the complainant with periodic updates on the status of the investigation, as appropriate.
1009.7 ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES
Assigned lockers, storage spaces and other areas, including desks, departments, and vehicles, may be searched as part of an administrative investigation upon a reasonable suspicion of misconduct.
Such areas may also be searched any time by a supervisor for non-investigative purposes, such as obtaining a needed report, radio or other document or equipment.
Lockers and storage spaces may only be administratively searched in the member's presence, with the member’s consent, with a valid search warrant or where the member has been given reasonable notice that the search will take place (Government Code § 3309). 1009.7.1 DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION
An employee may be compelled to disclose personal financial information under the following circumstances (Government Code § 3308):
(a) Pursuant to a state law or proper legal process
(b) Information exists that tends to indicate a conflict of interest with official duties (c) If the employee is assigned to or being considered for a special assignment with a potential for bribes or other improper inducements
1009.8 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
When a complaint of misconduct is of a serious nature, or when circumstances indicate that allowing the subject to continue to work would adversely affect the mission of the Department, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee may temporarily assign a subject employee to administrative leave. Any employee placed on administrative leave:
(a) May be required to relinquish any department badge, identification, assigned weapons and any other department equipment.
(b) Shall be required to continue to comply with all policies and lawful orders of a supervisor.
(c) May be temporarily reassigned to a different shift, generally a normal business-hours shift, during the investigation. The employee may be required to remain available for contact at all times during such shift and will report as ordered. (d) May be required to remain available for contact at any time. 1009.9 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
21.64 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
9 Where a member is accused of potential criminal conduct, a separate supervisor or investigator shall be assigned to investigate the criminal allegations apart from any administrative investigation.
Any separate administrative investigation may parallel a criminal investigation.
The Chief of Police shall be notified as soon as practicable when a member is subject of criminal conduct. The Chief of Police may request a criminal investigation by an outside law enforcement agency.
A member subject of criminal conduct shall be advised of his/her constitutional rights (Government Code § 3303(h)). The member should not be administratively ordered to provide any information in the criminal investigation.
The Santa Cruz Police Department may release information concerning the arrest or detention of any member, including an officer, that has not led to a conviction. No disciplinary action should be taken until an independent administrative investigation is conducted. 1009.10 POST-ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
Upon completion of a formal investigation, an investigation report should be forwarded to the Chief of Police through the chain of command. The Chief of Police may accept or modify any classification or recommendation for disciplinary action. 1009.10.1 NOTICE OF FINAL DISPOSITION TO THE COMPLAINANT The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure that the complainant, and all co-complainants, are notified of the disposition (i.e., sustained, not sustained, exonerated, unfounded) of the complaint (Penal Code
§ 832.7(f)) at the conclusion of the investigation. A disposition letter that provides findings as to each allegation raised in the complaint should be sent to the complainant for all complaints (formal, inquiries, and informational) received when appropriate. 1009.10.2 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
The disposition of any community complaint shall be released to the complaining party within 30 days of the final disposition. While this release shall not include what discipline, if any, was imposed (Penal Code § 832.7(f)), final disposition notices should generally describe any reform or learning that resulted from the complaint when notifying the complainant of the investigation’s conclusions.
Additionally, a copy of the notification letter sent to the complainant about the investigation’s conclusion shall be retained within the investigative file. 1009.11 RESIGNATIONS/RETIREMENTS PRIOR TO DISCIPLINE
In the event that a member tenders a written resignation or notice of retirement prior to the imposition of discipline, it shall be noted in the file. The tender of a resignation or retirement by itself shall not serve as grounds for the termination of any pending investigation or discipline (Penal Code § 13510.8).
1009.12 POST-DISCIPLINE APPEAL RIGHTS
Non-probationary employees have the right to appeal a suspension without pay, punitive transfer, demotion, reduction in pay or step, or termination from employment. The employee has the right to
21.65 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
10 appeal using the procedures established by any collective bargaining agreement, Memorandum of Understanding and/or personnel rules.
In the event of punitive action against an employee covered by the POBR, the appeal process shall be in compliance with Government Code § 3304 and Government Code § 3304.5.
During any administrative appeal, evidence that an officer has been placed on a Brady list or is otherwise subject to Brady restrictions may not be introduced unless the underlying allegations of misconduct have been independently established. Thereafter, such Brady evidence shall be limited to determining the appropriateness of the penalty (Government Code § 3305.5). 1009.13 PRE-DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEE RESPONSE
The pre-discipline process is intended to provide the subject employee with an opportunity to present a written or oral response to the Chief of Police after having had an opportunity to review the supporting materials and prior to imposition of any recommended discipline. The employee shall consider the following:
(a) The response is not intended to be an adversarial or formal hearing. (b) Although the employee may be represented by an uninvolved representative or legal counsel, the response is not designed to accommodate the presentation of testimony or witnesses.
(c) The employee may suggest that further investigation could be conducted or the employee may offer any additional information or mitigating factors for the Chief of Police to consider.
(d) In the event that the Chief of Police elects to cause further investigation to be conducted, the employee shall be provided with the results prior to the imposition of any discipline.
(e) The employee may thereafter have the opportunity to further respond orally or in writing to the Chief of Police on the limited issues of information raised in any subsequent materials.
1009.14 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MEMBERS
At-will and probationary employees and those members other than non-probationary employees may be released from employment for non-disciplinary reasons (e.g., failure to meet standards) without adherence to the procedures set forth in this policy or any right to appeal. However, any probationary officer subjected to an investigation into allegations of misconduct shall be entitled to those procedural rights, as applicable, set forth in the POBR (Government Code § 3303; Government Code § 3304).
At-will, probationary employees and those other than non-probationary employees subjected to discipline or termination as a result of allegations of misconduct shall not be deemed to have acquired a property interest in their position, but shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Chief of Police or authorized designee for a non-evidentiary hearing for the sole purpose of
21.66 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
11 attempting to clear their name or liberty interest. There shall be no further opportunity for appeal beyond the liberty interest hearing and the decision of the Chief of Police shall be final. 1009.15 REQUIRED REPORTING TO POST
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall notify POST on the appropriate POST form within 10 days of certain employee personnel events, including but not limited to (Penal Code § 13510.9):
(a) Termination or separation f r om employment or appointment. Separation from employment or appointment includes any involuntary termination, resignation, or retirement.
1. A POST affidavit-of-separation form shall be executed and maintained by the Department and submitted to POST as required by Penal Code §13510.9. and 11 CCR 1003.
(b) Events that could affect an officer’s POST certification, such as:
1. Complaints, charges, or allegations of misconduct
2. Findings of civilian review
3. Final dispositions of any investigations
4. Civil judgments or court findings based on conduct, or settlement of a civil claim against an officer or the Santa Cruz Police Department based on allegations of conduct by an officer.
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall be responsible for providing POST access to or duplication of investigation documentation (e.g., physical or documentary evidence, witness statements, analysis, conclusions) for up to two years after reporting of the disposition of an investigation (Penal Code § 13510.9).
1009.16 CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONNEL FILES
All investigations of personnel complaints shall be considered confidential peace officer personnel files. The contents of such files shall not be revealed to other than the involved employee or authorized personnel except pursuant to lawful process and/or if the contents are legally required to be disclosed.
In the event that an accused employee (or the representative of such employee) knowingly makes false representations regarding any internal investigation and such false representations are communicated to any media source, the Department may disclose sufficient information from the employee's personnel file to refute such false representations. (Penal Code 832.7(d)). “Complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints . . . shall be retained for a period of no less than 5 years for records where there was not a sustained finding of misconduct and for not less than 15 years where there was a sustained finding of misconduct.” (Penal Code § 832.5(b).)
21.67 Santa Cruz Police Department
Personnel Complaints
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
12 Discipline resulting from a sustained complaint shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file. Complaints which are unfounded, exonerated or not sustained shall be maintained by the Professional Standards Unit apart from the employee's personnel file. 1009.17 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT
The Professional Standards Unit is responsible to, and reports directly to the Chief of Police. Day to day management of the Professional Standards Unit is monitored by the Deputy Chief of the Administration Division in order to assess and manage the workload. The Deputy Chief of Administration is also responsible for monitoring the timeliness of the complaint investigations through regular status updates provided to the Chief of Police. The Professional Standards Unit and the Deputy Chief of Administration shall meet regularly with the Chief of Police (or designee) to monitor investigations.
The Professional Standards Unit will be responsible for investigating any complaint as assigned to the unit by the Chief of Police, or Deputy Chief. The Professional Standards Unit does not ordinarily conduct criminal investigations on department members but is responsible for any type of investigation assigned to the unit. In cases of police involved shootings or other serious injury cases as defined in the Santa Cruz County Critical Incident Protocol, the Professional Standards Unit will be immediately notified. Response of the Professional Standards Unit to any such incident will be at the direction of a Division Commander or the Chief of Police.
The Professional Standards Unit shall, upon the completion of an investigation, notify the complaining party by mail that the investigation has been completed and the disposition.
21.68 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
1 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Use of Force
300.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines on the reasonable use of force. While there is no way to specify the exact amount or type of reasonable force to be applied in any situation, every member of this department is expected to use these guidelines to make such decisions in a professional, impartial, and reasonable manner (Government Code § 7286).
In addition to those methods, techniques, and tools set forth below, the guidelines for the reasonable application of force contained in this policy shall apply to all policies addressing the potential use of force, including but not limited to the Control Devices and Techniques and Conducted Energy Device policies.
Retaliation prohibitions for reporting suspected violations are addressed in the Anti-Retaliation Policy.
300.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Deadly force - Any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including but not limited to the discharge of a firearm (Penal Code § 835a).
Feasible - Reasonably capable of being done or carried out under the circumstances to successfully achieve the arrest or lawful objective without increasing risk to the officer or another person (Government Code § 7286(a)).
Force - The application of physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents, or weapons to another person. It is not a use of force when a person allows him/herself to be searched, escorted, handcuffed, or restrained.
Serious bodily injury - A serious impairment of physical condition, including but not limited to the following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement (Penal Code § 243(f)(4)).
Totality of the circumstances - All facts known to the officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of force (Penal Code § 835a). 300.2 POLICY
The use of force by law enforcement personnel is a matter of critical concern, both to the public and to the law enforcement community. Officers are involved on a daily basis in numerous and varied interactions and, when warranted, may use reasonable force in carrying out their duties.
Officers must have an understanding of, and true appreciation for, their authority and limitations.
This is especially true with respect to overcoming resistance while engaged in the performance of law enforcement duties.
Policy
300
21.69 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
2 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
The Department recognizes and respects the value of all human life and dignity without prejudice to anyone. Vesting officers with the authority to use reasonable force and to protect the public welfare requires monitoring, evaluation and a careful balancing of all interests. 300.2.1 DUTY TO INTERCEDE
Any officer present and observing another law enforcement officer or an employee using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, shall, when in a position to do so, intercede (as defined by Government Code § 7286) to prevent the use of unreasonable force.
When observing force used by a law enforcement officer, each officer should take into account the totality of the circumstances and the possibility that other law enforcement officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by the subject (Government Code § 7286(b)). 300.2.2 FAILURE TO INTERCEDE
An officer who has received the required training on the duty to intercede and then fails to act to intercede when required by law, may be disciplined in the same manner as the officer who used force beyond that which is necessary (Government Code § 7286(b)). 300.2.3 FAIR AND UNBIASED USE OF FORCE
Officers are expected to carry out their duties, including the use of force, in a manner that is fair and unbiased (Government Code § 7286(b)). See the Bias-Based Policing Policy for additional guidance.
300.2.4 DUTY TO REPORT EXCESSIVE FORCE
Any officer who observes a law enforcement officer or an employee use force that potentially exceeds what the officer reasonably believes to be necessary shall immediately report these observations to a supervisor (Government Code § 7286(b)).
As used in this subsection, "immediately" means as soon as it is safe and feasible to do so. 300.3 USE OF FORCE
Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose (Penal Code § 835a).
The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness must allow for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a particular situation, with limited information and in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Given that no policy can realistically predict every possible situation an officer might encounter, officers are entrusted to use well-reasoned discretion in determining the appropriate use of force in each incident. Officers may only use a level of force that they reasonably believe is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the reasonably perceived level of actual or threatened resistance (Government Code § 7286(b)).
21.70 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
3 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
It is also recognized that circumstances may arise in which officers reasonably believe that it would be impractical or ineffective to use any of the approved or authorized tools, weapons, or methods provided by the Department. Officers may find it more effective or reasonable to improvise their response to rapidly unfolding conditions that they are confronting. In such circumstances, the use of any improvised device or method must nonetheless be objectively reasonable and utilized only to the degree that reasonably appears necessary to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
While the ultimate objective of every law enforcement encounter is to avoid or minimize injury, nothing in this policy requires an officer to retreat or be exposed to possible physical injury before applying reasonable force.
300.3.1 ALTERNATIVE TACTICS - DE-ESCALATION
As time and circumstances reasonably permit, and when community and officer safety would not be compromised, officers shall consider actions that may increase officer safety and may decrease the need for using force:
(a) Summoning additional resources that are able to respond in a reasonably timely manner.
(b) Formulating a plan with responding officers before entering an unstable situation that does not reasonably appear to require immediate intervention. (c) Communicating between officers to improve decision-making under tense circumstances and increase the effectiveness of coordinated actions.
(d) Employing other tactics that do not unreasonably increase officer jeopardy.
In addition, when reasonable, officers should evaluate the totality of circumstances presented at the time in each situation and, when feasible, consider and utilize reasonably available alternative tactics and techniques that may persuade an individual to voluntarily comply or may mitigate the need to use a higher level of force to resolve the situation before applying force (Government Code § 7286(b)(1)). Such alternatives may include but are not limited to:
(a) Attempts to de-escalate a situation.
(b) If reasonably available, the use of crisis intervention techniques by properly trained personnel.
(c) When circumstances present themselves officers shall consider the process of disengaging from the situation.
300.3.2 USE OF FORCE TO EFFECT AN ARREST
Any peace officer may use objectively reasonable force to effect an arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his/her efforts by reason of resistance or threatened resistance on the part of the person being arrested; nor shall an officer be deemed the aggressor or lose his/her right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest, prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Retreat does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation techniques (Penal Code § 835a).
300.3.3 FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF FORCE When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, as time and circumstances permit
21.71 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
4 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
(Government Code § 7286(b)). These factors include but are not limited to:
(a) The apparent immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others (Penal Code § 835a).
(b) The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived by the officer at the time (Penal Code § 835a).
(c) Officer/subject factors (age, size, relative strength, skill level, injuries sustained, level of exhaustion or fatigue, the number of officers available vs. subjects). (d) The conduct of the involved officer leading up to the use of force (Penal Code § 835a). (e) The effects of suspected drugs or alcohol.
(f) The individual's apparent mental state or capacity (Penal Code § 835a). (g) The individual’s apparent ability to understand and comply with officer commands (Penal Code § 835a).
(h) Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices. (i) The degree to which the subject has been effectively restrained and his/her ability to resist despite being restrained.
(j) The availability of other reasonable and feasible options and their possible effectiveness (Penal Code § 835a).
(k) Seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the individual prior to and at the time force is used.
(l) Training and experience of the officer.
(m) Potential for injury to officers, suspects, bystanders, and others. (n) Whether the person appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by flight, or is attacking the officer.
(o) The risk and reasonably foreseeable consequences of escape. (p) The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt resolution of the situation.
(q) Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer reasonably appears to pose an immediate threat to the officer or others.
(r) Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for violence. (s) Any other exigent circumstances.
300.3.4 PAIN COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
Pain compliance techniques may be effective in controlling a physically or actively resisting individual. Officers may only apply those pain compliance techniques for which they have successfully completed department-approved training. Officers utilizing any pain compliance technique should consider:
(a) The degree to which the application of the technique may be controlled given the level of resistance.
(b) Whether the person can comply with the direction or orders of the officer. (c) Whether the person has been given sufficient opportunity to comply.
21.72 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
5 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
The application of any pain compliance technique shall be discontinued once the officer determines that compliance has been achieved.
300.3.5 RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CAROTID CONTROL HOLD Officers of this department are not authorized to use a carotid restraint hold. A carotid restraint means a vascular neck restraint or any similar restraint, hold, or other defensive tactic in which pressure is applied to the sides of a person’s neck that involves a substantial risk of restricting blood flow and may render the person unconscious in order to subdue or control the person (Government Code § 7286.5).
300.3.6 RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF A CHOKE HOLD
Officers of this department are not authorized to use a choke hold. A choke hold means any defensive tactic or force option in which direct pressure is applied to a person’s trachea or windpipe (Government Code § 7286.5).
300.3.7 PERSONAL IMPACT WEAPONS; STRIKES AND PUNCHES
Strikes and punches are an approved use of force only when there is an objectively reasonable basis for use of force given the facts and totality of the circumstances. Any person using force must articulate the circumstances as objectively reasonable and apparently necessary under the totality of the circumstances, and that the use of force is proportionate to the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and the suspect’s level of resistance. 300.3.8 ADDITIONALRESTRICTIONS
Terms such as “positional asphyxia,” “restraint asphyxia,” and “excited delirium” continue to remain the subject of debate among experts and medical professionals, are not universally recognized medical conditions, and frequently involve other collateral or controlling factors such as narcotics or alcohol influence, or pre-existing medical conditions. While it is impractical to restrict an officer’s use of reasonable control methods when attempting to restrain a combative individual, officers are not authorized to use any restraint or transportation method which might unreasonably impair an individual’s breathing or respiratory capacity for a period beyond the point when the individual has been adequately and safely controlled. Once controlled, the individual should be placed into a recovery position (e.g., supine or seated) and monitored for signs of medical distress (Government Code § 7286.5).
300.4 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS
Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of deadly force, make reasonable efforts to identify him/herself as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts (Penal Code 835a(5) (c)(1)(B)).
If an objectively reasonable officer would consider it safe and feasible to do so under the totality of the circumstances, officers shall evaluate and use other reasonably available resources and techniques when determining whether to use deadly force. To the extent that it is reasonably practical, officers should consider their surroundings and any potential risks to bystanders prior to discharging a firearm (Government Code § 7286(b)).
The use of deadly force is only justified when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary in the following circumstances (Penal Code § 835a):
21.73 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
6 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
(a) An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(b) An officer may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended.
Officers shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to him/ herself, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person (Penal Code § 835a).
An “immediate” threat of death or serious bodily injury exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. An officer’s subjective fear of future harm alone is insufficient as an immediate threat. An immediate threat is one that from appearances is reasonably believed to require instant attention.
300.4.1 SHOOTING AT OR FROM MOVING VEHICLES
Shots fired at or from a moving vehicle are rarely effective and may involve additional considerations and risks. When feasible, officers shall take reasonable steps to move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer shall only discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the immediate threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others (Government Code § 7286(b)).
Officers shall not shoot at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle.
Officers may need to use deadly force against a vehicle and/or its driver if the vehicle is being used as a method of inflicting mass casualty.
300.4.2 DISPLAYING OF FIREARMS
Given that individuals might perceive the display of a firearm as a potential application of force, officers should carefully evaluate each tactical situation and use sound discretion when drawing a firearm in public by considering the following guidelines (Government Code § 7286(b)):
(a) If the officer does not initially perceive a threat but reasonably believes that the potential for such threat exists, firearms should generally be kept in the low-ready or other position not directed toward an individual.
(b) If the officer reasonably believes that a threat exists based on the totality of circumstances presented at the time (e.g., high-risk stop, tactical entry, armed encounter), firearms may be directed toward such threat until the officer no longer perceives such threat.
Once it is reasonably safe to do so, officers should carefully secure all firearms. 300.5 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of the incident. The officer
21.74 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
7 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
should articulate the factors perceived, why he/she believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, and any alternative tactics or de-escalation efforts employed if applicable. To collect data for purposes of training, resource allocation, analysis, and related purposes, the Department may require the completion of additional report forms, as specified in department policy, procedure, or law. See the Report Preparation Policy for additional circumstances that may require documentation.
300.5.1 NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
Any use of force by an officer, to include community service officers, shall be reported immediately to a supervisor, including but not limited to the following circumstances (Penal Code § 832.13):
(a) The application caused a visible injury.
(b) The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort. (c) The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. (d) The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation. (e) Any application of a TASER device or control device. (f) Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains.
(g) The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. (h) An individual was struck or kicked.
(i) An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
As used in this subsection, “immediately” means as soon as it is safe and feasible to do so. 300.5.2 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Statistical data regarding all officer-involved shootings and incidents involving use of force resulting in serious bodily injury is to be reported to the California Department of Justice as required by Government Code § 12525.2. See the Records Unit Policy. 300.6 MEDICAL CONSIDERATION
Once it is reasonably safe to do so, properly trained officers should promptly provide or procure medical assistance for any person injured or claiming to have been injured in a use of force incident (Government Code § 7286(b)).
Prior to booking or release, medical assistance shall be obtained for any person who exhibits signs of physical distress, who has sustained visible injury, expresses a complaint of injury or continuing pain, or who was rendered unconscious. Any individual exhibiting signs of physical distress after an encounter should be continuously monitored until he/she can be medically assessed.
Based upon the officer’s initial assessment of the nature and extent of the subject’s injuries, medical assistance may consist of examination by fire personnel, paramedics, hospital staff, or medical staff at the jail. If any such individual refuses medical attention, such a refusal shall be fully documented in related reports and, whenever practicable, should be witnessed by another officer and/or medical personnel. If a recording is made of the contact or an interview with the
21.75 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
8 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
individual, any refusal should be included in the recording, if possible.
The on-scene supervisor or, if the on-scene supervisor is not available, the primary handling officer shall ensure that any person providing medical care or receiving custody of a person following any use of force is informed that the person was subjected to force. This notification shall include a description of the force used and any other circumstances the officer reasonably believes would be potential safety or medical risks to the subject (e.g., prolonged struggle, extreme agitation, impaired respiration).
Persons who exhibit extreme agitation, violent irrational behavior accompanied by profuse sweating, extraordinary strength beyond their physical characteristics and imperviousness to pain (sometimes called “excited delirium”), or who require a protracted physical encounter with multiple officers to be brought under control, may be at an increased risk of sudden death. Calls involving these persons should be considered medical emergencies. Officers who reasonably suspect a medical emergency should request medical assistance as soon as practicable and have medical personnel stage away if appropriate.
See the Medical Aid and Response Policy for additional guidelines. 300.7 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY
It is the policy of this Department to diligently investigate and thoroughly document all incidents of a violent nature against a Police Officer or Community Service Officer. A supervisor shall respond to any reported use of force as qualified in subsection 300.5.1 Notification to Supervisors. The responding supervisor is expected to (Government Code § 7286(b)):
(a) Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers. Absent an allegation of misconduct or excessive force, this will be considered a routine contact in the normal course of duties.
(b) Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated. (c) When possible, separately obtain a recorded interview with the subject upon whom force was applied. If this interview is conducted without the person having voluntarily waived his/her Miranda rights, the following shall apply:
1. The content of the interview should not be summarized or included in any related criminal charges.
2. The fact that a recorded interview was conducted should be documented in a property or other report.
3. The recording of the interview should be distinctly marked for retention until all potential for civil litigation has expired.
(d) Once any initial medical assessment has been completed or first aid has been rendered, ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas. These photographs should be retained until all potential for civil litigation has expired. (e) Identify any witnesses not already included in related reports. Ensure that all witness interviews that were conducted were recorded.
(f) Review and approve all related reports for accuracy and completeness and ensure all relevant facts of an incident are documented and properly reported, to include any use
21.76 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
9 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
of force forms.
(g) Determine if there is any indication that the subject may pursue civil litigation.
1. If there is an indication of potential civil litigation, the supervisor should complete and route a notification of a potential claim through the appropriate channels. (h) The supervisor shall evaluate the circumstances surrounding the in c ident an d the use of force, to include an assessment the effectiveness of communication by involved personnel and whether alternative tactics or de-escalation efforts were warranted and their effectiveness, while considering each of the relevant factors articulated in applicable policy (e.g. Use of Force, Conducted Energy Device, Control Devices and Techniques, Canines, Firearms, etc.). The supervisor should promptly address any areas of concern, including notification of appropriate personnel in the chain of command, potential policy changes, training needs, weapons or equipment issues, and/or discipline (initiate an administrative investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further investigation may be appropriate).
Any recommendations to modify policy, apply remedial training beyond what can be performed by the supervisor, recommended changes to weapons or equipment, or to recommend discipline should be documented in a confidential memorandum and submitted to appropriate agency personnel.
(i) Ensure that prisoner transportation is not conducted by officers involved in the use of force. The transporting officer shall activate their body-worn camera and record during transportation.
(j) Complete a supplemental report, or when applicable any internal confidential memorandums, documenting their investigative efforts and review of the reportable use of force incident.
In the event that a supervisor is unable to respond to the scene of an incident involving the reported application of force, the supervisor is still expected to complete as many of the above items as circumstances permit. The cause for the supervisors inability to respond shall be detailed in the shift log. In all such cases, the victim officer's immediate supervisor will be responsible to ensure that a thorough and complete investigation is conducted. 300.7.2 WATCH COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY
The Watch Commander of the employee involved in the use of force incident shall review all submitted reports, to include the supervisors report for findings, and any other relevant information if necessary (e.g. body-worn camera video, photographs, and/or documents), with appropriate agency personnel to ensure compliance with applicable policy and to address any potential policy changes, training needs, weapons or equipment issues, and/or discipline (initiate an administrative investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further investigation may be appropriate). Watch commander review should occur within 30 days following the use of force incident. Any recommendations to modify policy, apply remedial training beyond what can be performed by the Watch Commander, recommended changes to weapons or equipment, or to apply discipline should be documented in a confidential memorandum and submitted to appropriate agency personnel.
300.8 USE OF FORCE COMPLAINTS
The receipt, processing, and investigation of civilian complaints involving use of force incidents should be handled in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy (Government Code § 7286(b)).
21.77 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
10 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
300.9 TRAINING
Officers, investigators, and supervisors will receive periodic training on this policy and demonstrate their knowledge and understanding (Government Code § 7286(b)).
Subject to available resources, the Training Manager should ensure that officers receive periodic training on de-escalation tactics, including alternatives to force.
Training should also include (Government Code § 7286(b)):
(a) Guidelines regarding vulnerable populations, including but not limited to children, elderly persons, pregnant individuals, and individuals with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.
(b) Training courses required by and consistent with POST guidelines set forth in Penal Code § 13519.10.
See the Training Policy for restrictions relating to [officers/deputies] who are the subject of a sustained use of force complaint.
300.10 ANIMALS
Officers are authorized to use deadly force against an animal in circumstances where the animal reasonably appears to pose an immediate threat to human safety and alternative methods to neutralize the threat are not Reasonably available or would likely be ineffective.
In circumstances in which officers have sufficient advanced notice that a potentially dangerous domestic animal (e.g. dog) may be encountered, such as in the serving of a search warrant, officers should develop reasonable contingency plans for dealing with the animal without the use of deadly force (e.g. fire extinguisher, Taser, OC Spray, animal control officer). Nothing in this policy shall prohibit any officer from resorting to deadly force to control a dangerous animal if circumstances reasonably dictate that a contingency plan has failed or becomes impractical.
With the approval of a supervisor, an officer may euthanize an animal that is so badly injured that human compassion requires its removal from further suffering and where other dispositions are impractical (Penal Code § 597.1(e)). Injured animals (with the exception of dogs and cats) may only be euthanized after a reasonable search to locate the owner has been made (Penal Code § 597.1(b)). Injured dogs and cats found without their owners shall be taken to an appropriate veterinarian for determination of whether they should be treated or humanely destroyed.
300.11 POLICY REVIEW
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should regularly review and update this policy to reflect developing practices and procedures (Government Code § 7286(b)). 300.12 POLICYAVAILABILITY
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should ensure this policy is accessible to the public (Government Code § 7286(c)).
300.13 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
Requests for public records involving an officer’s personnel records shall be processed in accordance with Penal Code § 832.7 and the Personnel Records and Records Maintenance and
21.78 ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device -
11 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police
Department
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Release policies (Government Code § 7286(b)).
21.79 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 1 Policy
304
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
304.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for the issuance and use of TASER devices. 304.2 POLICY
The TASER® device is intended to control a violent or potentially violent individual, while minimizing the risk of serious injury. The appropriate use of such a device should result in fewer serious injuries to officers and suspects.
304.3 ISSUANCE AND CARRYING TASER DEVICES
Only members who have successfully completed department-approved training may be issued and carry the TASER device.
TASER devices are issued for use during a member's current assignment. Those leaving a particular assignment may be required to return the device to the department's inventory.
Officers shall only use the TASER device and cartridges that have been issued by the Department.
Uniformed officers who have been issued the TASER device shall wear the device in an approved holster.
Members carrying the TASER device should perform a spark test prior to every shift.
Officers who carry the TASER device while in uniform shall carry it in a weak-side holster on the side opposite the duty weapon (Penal Code § 13660).
(a) All TASER devices shall be clearly and distinctly marked to differentiate them from the duty weapon and any other device.
(b) Whenever practicable, officers should carry two or more cartridges on their person when carrying the TASER device.
(c) Officers shall be responsible for ensuring that the issued TASER device is properly maintained and in good working order.
(d) Officers should not hold a firearm and the TASER device at the same time. 304.4 VERBAL AND VISUAL WARNINGS
A verbal warning of the intended use of the TASER device should precede its application, unless it would otherwise endanger the safety of officers or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances. The purpose of the warning is to:
(a) Provide the individual with a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply. (b) Provide other officers and individuals with a warning that the TASER device may be deployed.
21.80 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 2 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
The fact that a verbal or other warning was given or the reasons it was not given shall be documented by the officer deploying the TASER device in the related report. 304.5 USE OF THE TASER DEVICE
The TASER device has limitations and restrictions requiring consideration before its use. The TASER device should only be used when its operator can safely approach the subject within the operational range of the device. Although the TASER device is generally effective in controlling most individuals, officers should be aware that the device may not achieve the intended results and be prepared with other options.
304.5.1 APPLICATION OF THE TASER DEVICE
The TASER device may be used in any of the following circumstances, when the circumstances perceived by the officer at the time indicate that such application is reasonably necessary to control a person:
(a) The subject is violent or is physically resisting
(b) The subject has demonstrated, by words or action, an intention to be violent or to physically resist, and reasonably appears to present the potential to harm officers, him/herself or others.
Mere flight from a pursuing officer, without other known circumstances or factors, is not good cause for the use of the TASER device to apprehend an individual. 304.5.2 SPECIAL DEPLOYMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The use of the TASER device on certain individuals should generally be avoided unless the totality of the circumstances indicates that other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer, the subject or others, and the officer reasonably believes that the need to control the individual outweighs the risk of using the device. This includes:
(a) Individuals who are known to be pregnant.
(b) Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles.
(c) Individuals with obviously low body mass.
(d) Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained. (e) Individuals who have been recently sprayed with a flammable chemical agent or who are otherwise in close proximity to any known combustible vapor or flammable material, including alcohol-based oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray. (f) Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g., falls from height, operating vehicles).
21.81 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 3 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
Officers who anticipate the use of the taser on individuals displaying the following signs or activities should request medical resources be staged prior to engaging if practicable, and in any event following the application of the taser, should request medical resources to assess the individual once the scene has been rendered safe:
(a) Naked
(b) Profuse sweating
(c) Doesn’t feel pain
(d) Incoherence
(e) Random violence
(f) Aggression toward objects (breaking glass, etc.)
(g) Disoriented
(h) Super-human strength
(i) Emotional instability
(j) Hallucinations
(k) Inability to focus
(l) Appears drugged
(m) Difficulty breathing
Because the application of the TASER device in the drive-stun mode (i.e., direct contact without probes) relies primarily on pain compliance, the use of the drive-stun mode generally should be limited to supplementing the probe-mode to complete the circuit, or as a distraction technique to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions.
The TASER device shall not be used to psychologically torment, elicit statements or to punish any individual.
304.5.3 TARGETING CONSIDERATIONS
Reasonable efforts should be made to target lower center mass and avoid the head, neck, chest and groin. If the dynamics of a situation or officer safety do not permit the officer to limit the application of the TASER device probes to a precise target area, officers should monitor the condition of the subject if one or more probes strikes the head, neck, chest or groin until the subject is examined by paramedics or other medical personnel.
304.5.4 MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS OF THE TASER DEVICE
Officers should apply the TASER device for only one standard cycle and then evaluate the situation before applying any subsequent cycles. Multiple applications of the TASER device against a single individual are generally not recommended and should be avoided unless the officer reasonably
21.82 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 4 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
believes that the need to control the individual outweighs the potentially increased risk posed by multiple applications.
If the first application of the TASER device appears to be ineffective in gaining control of an individual, the officer should consider certain factors before additional applications of the TASER device, including:
(a) Whether the probes are making proper contact.
(b) Whether the individual has the ability and has been given a reasonable opportunity to comply.
(c) Whether verbal commands, other options or tactics may be more effective.
Multiple applications of the Taser, including the justification for each application, shall be documented in the related report. Additionally, collective Taser exposure lasting longer than fifteen seconds, including the justification for, shall also be documented in the related report.
Officers should generally not intentionally apply more than one TASER device at a time against a single subject.
304.5.7 ACTIONS FOLLOWING DEPLOYMENTS
Officers shall notify a supervisor of all TASER device discharges. Confetti tags should be collected and the expended cartridge, along with both probes and wire, should be submitted into evidence.
The cartridge serial number should be noted and documented on the evidence paperwork. The evidence packaging should be marked "Biohazard" if the probes penetrated the subject’s skin.
304.5.8 DANGEROUS ANIMALS
The TASER device may be deployed against an animal as part of a plan to deal with a potentially dangerous animal, such as a dog, if the animal reasonably appears to pose an immmediate threat to human safety and alternative methods are not reasonably available or would likely be ineffective.
304.5.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Officers are not authorized to carry department TASER devices while off-duty.
Officers shall ensure that TASER devices are secured, including while at the police department, in a manner that will keep the device inaccessible to others. 304.6 DOCUMENTATION
Officers shall document all TASER device discharges in the related arrest/crime report and the and the use of force report form. Notification shall also be made to a supervisor in compliance with the Use of Force Policy. Unintentional discharges, pointing the device at a person, and display of the device will also be documented on the use of force report form.
21.83 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 5 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
304.6.1 REPORTS
The officer shall include the following in the arrest/crime report:
(a) Identification of all personnel firing TASER devices (b) Identification of all witnesses
(c) Medical care provided to the subject
(d) Observations of the subject’s physical and physiological actions (e) Any known or suspected drug use, intoxication or other medical problems (f) The type and brand of TASER device and cartridge and cartridge serial number. (g) Date, time and location of the incident.
(h) Whether any display deterred a subject and gained compliance. (i) The number of TASER device activations, the duration of each cycle, the duration between activations, and (as best as can be determined) the duration that the subject received applications.
(j) The range at which the TASER device was used.
(k) The type of mode used (probe or drive-stun).
(l) Location of any probe impact.
(m) Location of contact in drive-stun mode.
(n) Description of where missed probes went.
(o) Whether medical care was provided to the subject.
(p) Whether the subject sustained any injuries.
(q) Whether any officers sustained any injuries.
(r) Circumstances listed in 304.5.4
304.7 MEDICAL TREATMENT
Consistent with local medical personnel protocols and absent extenuating circumstances, only appropriate medical personnel should remove TASER device probes from a person’s body. Used TASER device probes shall be treated as a sharps biohazard, similar to a used hypodermic needle, and handled appropriately. Universal precautions should be taken.
All persons who have been struck by TASER device probes or who have been subjected to the electric discharge of the device shall be medically assessed prior to booking. Additionally, any such individual who falls under any of the following categories should, as soon as practicable, be examined by paramedics or other qualified medical personnel at a medical facility:
(a) The person is suspected of being under the influence of controlled substances and/ or alcohol.
(b) The person may be pregnant.
21.84 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 6 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
(c) The person reasonably appears to be in need of medical attention. (d) The TASER device probes are lodged in a sensitive area (e.g., groin, female breast, head, face, neck).
(e) The person requests medical treatment.
Any individual exhibiting signs of distress or who is exposed to multiple or prolonged applications (i.e., more than 15 seconds) shall be transported to a medical facility for examination prior to booking. If any individual refuses medical attention while at the medical facility, such a refusal should be witnessed by another officer and/or medical personnel and shall be fully documented in related reports. If an audio recording is made of the contact or an interview with the individual, any refusal should be included, if possible.
The transporting officer shall inform any person providing medical care or receiving custody that the individual has been subjected to the application of the TASER device. 304.8 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
When possible, supervisors should respond to calls when they reasonably believe there is a likelihood the TASER device may be used. A supervisor should respond to all incidents where the TASER device was activated.
A supervisor shall review each incident where a person has been exposed to an activation of the TASER device, to include whether multiple applications of the Taser and/or Taser exposure for longer than fifteen seconds was justified and/or whether any Taser use in drive stun mode meets the limited exceptions set out in policy, and complete applicable supervisor responsibilities listed under policy 300.7.
The device’s onboard memory should be downloaded through the data port by a supervisor and saved with the related arrest/crime report. The download of the Taser use data concerning the event shall include but not limited to the number of discharges, amount of time for each discharge, time between discharges, and probe or stun mode application.
Photographs of probe sites should be taken and witnesses interviewed. 304.9 TRAINING
Personnel who are authorized to carry the TASER device shall be permitted to do so only after successfully completing the initial department-approved training. Any personnel who have not carried the TASER device as a part of their assignment for a period of twelve months or more shall be recertified by a department-approved TASER device instructor prior to again carrying or using the device.
Proficiency training for personnel who have been issued TASER devices should occur every year.
A reassessment of an officer’s knowledge and/or practical skill may be required at any time if deemed appropriate by the Training Manager. All training and proficiency for TASER devices will be documented in the officer’s training file.
21.85 Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/12/08, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Santa Cruz Police ***DRAFT*** Conducted Energy Device - 7 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
Conducted Energy Device
Officers who do not carry TASER devices should receive training that is sufficient to familiarize them with the device and with working with officers who use the device.
The Training Manager is responsible for ensuring that all members who carry TASER devices have received initial and annual proficiency training. Periodic audits should be used for verification.
The Taser Training instructor cadre should no less than annually analyze all reports involving Taser deployment and provide recommendations, through their chain of command, concerning tactics, equipment, decision-making, policy, training and supervision related to their subject matter expertise and incident review.
Application of TASER devices during training could result in injury to personnel and should not be mandatory for certification.
The Training Manager should ensure that all training includes:
(a) A review of this policy.
(b) A review of the Use of Force Policy.
(c) Performing weak-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of unintentionally drawing and firing a firearm.
(d) Target area considerations, to include techniques or options to reduce the unintentional application of probes near the head, neck, chest and groin. (e) Handcuffing a subject during the application of the TASER device and transitioning to other force options.
(f) De-escalation techniques.
(g) Restraint techniques that do not impair respiration following the application of the TASER device.
21.86 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Art de Werk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 8:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 21 of the May 9, 2023 Agenda
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Cruz City Council:
Item 21 of the May 9, 2023 Agenda of the regular City Council meeting drew my attention because of what appears to be something less than a thorough review by the auditor. Somehow the police officers were exonerated of any wrongdoing during their handling of a child custody situation on June 28, 2021. I am a retired law enforcement office of 41 years, including 26 years in the capacity of police chief. I was always a staunch supporter of the officers in my employ when their actions were deemed justified in any given situation when wrongdoing(s) were alleged. Similarly, when their actions were against agency policy or the law, I took the appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination from employment. In some cases the offending officer was arrested and booked into jail.
To do otherwise when there is wrongdoing significantly harms the community in terms of trust and respect for the agency, and it harms the effectiveness and image of the police agency itself.
I watched footage of the event at issue. The child was handled violently and in a way that shocked the conscious. What was done to that girl will have lifelong, adverse effects on her mental health and emotional well-being, let alone how she views the police. The mother in this case was also handled with an amount of force that was far more than justified. I have to wonder if the auditor actually looked at the footage that is otherwise easily accessible on the internet, and perhaps more importantly, was the body cam footage reviewed by the auditor, and were neighborhood witnesses interviewed? All of these questions should be addressed before accepting the auditor’s report.
I realize that the publicly available video may or may not cover all critical moments of the event, but on its face, it strongly suggests that the incident was grossly mishandled. I strongly urge the council to decline acceptance of the auditor’s report and find a resource, for example a law firm that has experience with matters such as this one, to conduct an independent investigation.
The footage that is now in the public domain will continue to cast a very bad light on the City of Santa Cruz and its police department. If the exoneration of the officers’ actions is justified, then show the public the evidence. Failure to do so will only lead to the continued erosion of public support and respect for the police department and city council.
21.87 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Rhonda Reyna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 12:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Public Correspondence: 5_9_2023 Council Agenda Item 21: Independent Police Auditor Report Attachments: SCPD case 21S03661 (case 21S03665) 062821 422 Woodland Wy-PHONE 3.WAV; SCPD case 21S03661 (case 21S03665) 062821 422 Woodland Wy-PHONE 4.WAV; SCPD case 21S03661 (case 21S03665) 062821 422 Woodland Wy-PHONE 2.WAV; Jan 30 2023 Johnston-Rossi v Rossi decision.pdf; Barked_Conformed_Complaint__2_.pdf; Bodycam FOIA requests SCPD.pdf; Ryan Coonerty IG statement on police officers copy.png
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council:
I state a claim of NO CONFIDENCE in this “independent” auditor’s report. It contains bold face lies, misrepresentations of facts and is nothing more than a document used to conceal wrong doing and criminal behavior of the Santa Cruz Police Department under the guise of outside review. There is no citizen review committee involved to oversee this audit for objectivity and transparency. Furthermore, the “independent” auditor revealed his bias when a comment was published to the online news media www.huffsantacruz.org article, “Police Brutality Claim Highlights City Council Censorship” by Robert Norse, Tuesday, Feb 15th, 2022 9:20am. This comment disparaged one of the complainants with information that only an insider would know.
I wrote a response to it, at which point the defamatory comment was deleted, but not before I had printed and taken screen shots of it.
I am making a complaint, in addition to providing public comment on Agenda Item #21 and I state a claim of harm and injury by this false report.
1) Page 11 claims the auditor is available to meet with complainants but I was never contacted after my June 30, 2022 complaint was filed, nor was I ever contacted throughout the “investigation” which means it’s not really an investigation
2) My case is listed as Case No. 16 (Use of Force) Public Complaint . It had two complaints filed by two different women, one on August 13, 2021 and the second by myself on June 30, 2022.
My case highlights systemic corruption by multiple government agencies regarding child trafficking and child abuse. Facts to be investigated in the Internal Affairs complaint were: domestic violence/coercive control/stalking/battery/willful malice and harm/attempted homicide/kidnapping/RICO (Racketeering Induced Corruption Organization)/child trafficking/child abuse/deprivation of rights under color of law; Federal Crimes 18 USC§§ 241,242/malicious prosecution/fraud upon the court/crimes against humanity.
The Mother, myself, requested that the bogus police reports 21S03661/21S03665 be corrected to list mother and daughter as the factual victims of the assault by the father. Michael Gennaco failed to address this.
Michael Gennaco’s report more than suggests participation in a conspiracy to kidnap a child under color of law and deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution, which is a Federal Offense 18 USC §241.
There are obvious misstatements of facts in the report:
21.88 2
a) The incident paragraph 1 fails to state that 911 calls reported that a man had his hand on a woman who was screaming she couldn’t breathe and a man was trying to hurt her, that the daughter was hiding behind the mother and that she and the daughter needed help. (listen to attached 911 calls for proof of these statements). The incident description is defamatory and meant to paint the protective mother in a negative light by intentionally and soley focusing on the allegation of a bogus parental abduction warrant, which was obtained by malfeasance of a family court judge, conspiracy to kidnap under color of law, and fraud upon the court. It states nothing about the father’s violent actions toward his daughter and her mother. The bogus parental abduction charge was dismissed by San Mateo County District Attorney after it became obvious to the Judge that it was untrue and Father was weaponizing the court against the Protective Mother. The dismissal of the bogus charges negate the fake findings under fraud upon the court by Judge Don R. Franchi of San Mateo County who issued the fake protective warrant for the child victim.
The use of the word “domestic” to absolve men of perpetrating violence to their spouses and children needs to be discontinued. Violence is violence. To couch this as a “disturbance” is a misstatement of fact. It was an attempted homicide, spousal battery, child battery and deprivation of rights and kidnapping under color of law. CA PC 273.5 and 18 USC §§§241, 242, 55.
This bogus arrest warrant was nothing more than malicious prosecution of a woman for reporting years of violence on behalf of herself and her daughter. San Mateo Sheriff’s Office has over a dozen reports and violated Title 5 of the California Penal Code by refusing to prosecute the father for his multiple crimes against the mother and child and to provide equal protection under the law. Malicious prosecution of protective mothers is a disturbing epidemic happening nationwide with the nefarious playbook posted on multiple websites; www.alienationindustry.com www.metoomoms.org https://www.womenscoalitioninternational. org/the‐family‐court‐playbook.html Mother provided an extensive report to Detective Carryn Barker who was removed from the case without warning. Barker has a lawsuit against the department with serious allegations of wrong doing (attached). Mother was threatened by Detective Joe Fava and told her case would be ignored.
b) Incident summary paragraph 2 claims “the mother was holding onto the daughter with both arms wrapped around the daughter’s body.” I am the mother and can say as a matter of fact that this statement is a lie. My daughter and I were factually defending ourselves from a violent attack by her dad. There are other untrue statements in this narrative. This incident was videotaped by two neighbors and witnessed by many. I requested bodycam footage of every officer on the scene but the SCPD has refused to provide it. The attached 911 call refutes Michael Gennaco’s report whereby the neighbor reported that the child was hiding behind the mother. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuQS6LPpeZE In the video posted to youtube, the world can clearly see the Father’s aggressive behavior towards the mother and child. His hands are on them. That is spousal battery a CA PC 273.5 violation and child battery. Why hasn’t the father been charged for those crimes? Two people are video taping the attack. The Mother was begging the postman for help and telling him repeatedly that she couldn’t breathe. She screamed “Tommy help us.” Why haven’t those videos been obtained and released to the public?
I (the mother) specifically stated to the arriving Officers “Thank God you’re here, get him off of us”. My daughter was behind me. The BWC footage would show this but the Santa Cruz Police have conspired to conceal the evidence by refusing to provide it to myself and the public at large. The public’s best interest outweighs any excuses the SCPD has falsely claimed, gives them any rights to withhold it.
Big Joe 77’s email to the City Council on Friday, February 10, 2023 5:50pm addressed
21.89 3
the lack of transparency to the public and complainants regarding BWC footage being withheld by Santa Cruz Police and Chief Bernie Escalante, which in short, renders it useless to the public as a means of watchdogging this agency, and they know it.
The misstatements of fact are a glaring example of why BWC footage was implemented first in Los Angeles to provide public transparency regarding police officer behavior.
The refusal of Santa Cruz Police to release the BWC footage to complainants or the public, means they can tell whatever lies they want, and they have in this case. The auditor references BWC footage without any proof to the public that what he claims it contains, is true.
c) paragraph 3 of this incident summary fails to describe that Officer David Deady first threw the child to the ground, pulled her hair as she sat on the ground and refused to let go of her, escalating the situation. The paragraph fails to report that Officer Ruben Badeo kneeled on the daughter’s neck as she tried to escape Officer David Deady’s assault, which prompted her to continue to try to defend herself from an attempted homicide and a near death experience by police violence. This narrative is a disgrace. It seeks to disparage the child and paint her in a false light for implementing justified self‐defense. Not even an attempt at explaining Badeo’s kneeling on an innocent child, causing her to scream that she could not breathe (a life and death situation) is mentioned in this narrative which is one of the main complaints by Mother to Internal Affairs. This false narrative fails to report the numerous times the child screamed “please” “ow it hurts” “it hurts” as can be heard in the video evidence of the factual events of this incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJf8KgT4G_U
d) paragraph 4 of the Incident summary falsely describes the officers of carrying the child to the vehicle.
Factually, they forced her against her will as she struggled and screamed “NO!” and “where is my mother?”.
This is the hallmark of a child kidnapping. The report fails to state how many times the child screamed “I don’t want to go with him” (her dad). Under Family Law 3042 a child may state a preference, and this child clearly stated she wanted to stay with her mother which should have halted all police violence to force her with her dad.
This report fails to state that an officer said to the mother “we are not going to make your daughter go with her father”. And the officer told the mother “your daughter is hyperventilating”. This will be on the officer’s bodycam footage that the public needs to see. The mother stated “thank God”. However, the officer did not tell the mother where the daughter was being taken. The mother has dozens of family members in the area whom could have taken the daughter for her safety. Instead a mental health worker put the child on a mental health hold? What for? This is child abuse beyond imagination. According to a recorded conversation with Dr.Rebecca Bailey, the daughter was locked up in isolation for three days. The kind of psychological and emotional abuse and trauma this would cause an innocent child is something any legitimate mental health worker would know. The child was treated like a prisoner of war. Grown men are shattered by this type of psychological warfare. The child experienced a terrorist kidnapping by being forced into a black SUV,having her head covered, being injected with a needle, then locked up in isolation for 3 days. Who could mentally survive such a thing? Furthermore, Dr. Bailey said, in a recorded conversation, that she saw all the bruises on the daughter and that what the daughter described was terrible.
Michael Gennaco’s report fails to mention mother’s complaint that a neighbor saw someone inject the child with a needle. Mother filed public records requests to obtain the name of the person who did this and what drug was administered to the minor child without parental consent. Drugging a child victim of a violent crime is child abuse and someone needs to be arrested and prosecuted.
21.90 4
There is a conspiracy to deprive the mother and child of their secured rights to be safe from harm under the Constitution and to perpetrate kidnapping under color of law 18 USC 241 by the mental health worker, who has trafficked this innocent child into the nefarious “Reunification Therapy”, child psychological torture scheme perpetrated by Dr. Rebecca Bailey who has been under investigation for two decades. So harmful are these abuses that Senator Susan Rubio drafted Piqui’s law to ban them. This case highlights the conspiracy of the California Board of Psychology to shield Dr. Rebecca Bailey who is an alleged co‐conspirator in the child kidnapping under color of law. Michael Gennaco fails to address that Mother included documentation and evidence submitted to the Board of Psychology for investigation.
The police department more than failed to use critical thinking skills at the scene and so did the mental health worker. Mother attempted to obtain information through a public records request about the mental health worker, but the City of Santa Cruz has refused to provide that information.
This case and investigation should have delved into the fraud perpetrated by domestic violence agencies throughout the Bay Area. Mother and daughter sought help from CORA (Community Outreach against Relational Abuse), Walnut Avenue Women’s Center in Santa Cruz and Women SV in Palo Alto. All agencies failed to competently assist the Mother and daughter. Worse yet, investigations into Silicon Valley Court Corruption revealed a BBMP (BenchBarMediaPolice) collusion of secret meetings being held for 30 years.
Investigative reporters Susan Bassi and Robert J Hansen have published their research in a 15 piece article posted to the Davis Vanguard. https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/02/tainted‐trials‐tarnished‐headlines‐ stolen‐justice‐part‐three‐ex‐wives‐of‐silicon‐valley/
It is obvious that the mental health worker participated in acute child abuse by locking up the daughter on a bogus mental health hold. The psychological injuries will likely last a life time.
The recent ruling in the Johnston‐Rossi vs Rossi 2nd appellate decision (attached) demonstrates the need for law enforcement to refrain from enforcing unconstitutional orders in child custody proceedings involving allegations of abuse and maternal protection, in order to facilitate the proper court involved remedies under trial by jury and/or the appeals process. https://casetext.com/case/johnston‐rossi‐v‐rossi The Rossi ruling raises the issue that Dr. Rebecca Bailey’s reunification therapy is unscientific, unproven and therefore cannot be force on children. This ruling is supportive of the mother and daughter to never have been forced into isolation from one another and the child to be trafficked by the Santa Cruz Police Department into an unscientific, unproven mind altering psycho‐therapy. This is criminal behavior.
The child’s wishes should have taken precedent and been the determining factor on scene. This daughter clearly stated she wanted to stay with her mother and it is on the video. Family Court code 3042 is the statute.
Clearly, police officers need training in family law and Constitutional law.
e) paragraph 5 This paragraph fails to state that on May 21, 2021, Officer Parker Rhoades spoke to the mother and daughter and did not make her go with her dad after they stated allegations of domestic violence, requiring protections under Title 5 of the California Penal code. This report fails to cite the report taken and written on May 21, 2021 by Officer Parker Rhodes, documented that the child feared her dad, wanted to stay with her mother and that the father stated he had no concerns that the child was factually unsafe with her mother. The mother requested the BWC footage of Parker Rhodes but the City Clerk and Police Department have failed to respond.
21.91 5
The incident summary fails to report that mother alleged the “protective order” and “felony warrant” were obtained by perjury, false reports by police officers, judicial misconduct and fraud upon the court, that she provided evidence and therefore they were void and of no legal force or effect.
Paragraph 5 fails to state that the mother complained of collusion and conspiracy to deprive her of her rights by Officer Adam Riddell who told Father to report the child as missing, in order to provide false evidence in support of the bogus warrant, when factually speaking, the child was never missing. Neighbors and friends could corroborate that the mother and child were home and on camping trips. Mother believes a private investigator was hired to follow her, because a strange black man interrogated her claiming to be a kitesurfer at a kitebeach, but acted very suspiciously. He asked many unusual questions not consistent with a legitimate kitesurfer. He made the mother and daughter very uncomfortable.
The daughter’s horse trainer was also in contact with mother proving the child was never missing. Thus, Officer Adam Riddell’s “missing person’s” report is a fraud. Michael Genacco’s report fails to address this part of the Internal Affairs complaint.
The recent similar case of Brynlee and Ty Larsen in Utah, is an example of honest peace officers upholding the Constitution by pausing to assess and not enforce unconstitutional orders before taking actions to destroy a child’s life, the way Santa Cruz Police have done to the Mother and daughter in this case and a big part of the complaint. https://www.propublica.org/article/parental‐alienation‐utah‐livestream‐judge
f) paragraph 6 is an example of Santa Cruz police fabricating false evidence, is part of the complaint and is a crime. On that day, the Mother (myself) had been pulling a 22 ft camping trailer behind her vehicle and had no idea an officer was attempting to pull her over. Officer Serrano made no attempt to get in front of and wave me over. A retired police sergeant read his report and said “there is no way you could have seen him”. Furthermore, it takes hours to load a trailer so the officer could have simply driven by the house to discuss the alleged, bogus, fake arrest warrant. Mother has a previous complaint about this officer, so he has motive to harm her.
It is so obvious that Officer Angel Serrano was attempting to add fake charges to pad the information to paint mother in a negative light and perpetrate defamation of her character. Fabricating false evidence and committing perjury is a crime. Michael Gennaco’s report does not address this part of the Internal Affairs complaint.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023‐03‐20/lapd‐officer‐convicted‐filing‐false‐report‐dui‐arrest‐ hollywood#:~:text=LAPD%20Officer%20Alejandro%20Castillo%20was%20convicted%20on%20Monday.&text= A%20Los%20Angeles%20police%20officer,guilty%20on%20two%20felony%20counts.
This report does not address the allegation that the officer is incompetent, corrupt or both.
g) Department’s Investigative Report and Conclusions
The PSU sergeant never interviewed the Mother (myself). The public outcry on social media disagrees with the PSU Sergeant’s findings. The public has called for the arrests of the involved officers. To falsely claim that the child victim of a violent crime was assaultive to police officers when she was using justified self‐defense after being strangled and attacked by them, is criminal, shameful, disgraceful and disgusting.
Michael Gennaco’s report demonstrates gender biased, mysogeny and patriarchy.
21.92 6
The Change.org petition has over 300 signature on it now. https://chng.it/Dq8qkYt7ZR
The Susan Bassi Tik tok video has over 400 comments on it https://www.tiktok.com/@susanbassi/video/7171649622744599851?lang=en
The Robert J Hansen video has terse public comment regarding the police misconduct https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eqw9‐kelJw
The Family Court Anti‐Corruption Coalition video has multiple comments outraged by the Police misconduct https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUgZhHEwonVNc2i1f_RhhfZtMfEYxTA89 The Ignorance is Bliss video reminds everyone what Supervisor Ryan Coonerty said about “serious consequences if we saw police officers putting their hands on children”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_RsJ1Gq0Hk The public expects to see the police officers charged and prosecuted. Ryan Coonerty made a statement that the public can and should expect accountability. There will be no trust in public officials if this does not happen. h) IPA’s assessment paragraph 3 couches dad’s behavior as being benign and cooperative when in truth he backed away only because the police officers had grabbed the child and mother by force, even though they were the factual victims. Dad was never handcuffed for the 911 reports of his assaults on the mother and daughter or charged for spousal battery, child battery and attempted homicide, which is the crux of the Mother’s complaint. The 911 calls from several neighbors support dad’s arrest under CA PC 273.5 and not mother’s.
The narrative in paragraph 5 of this section is categorically refuted by the video evidence seen worldwide. The officers repeatedly threw the traumatized child to the ground, sat on her, held her down and the father held her face down repeatedly while she screamed that she could not breathe
i) The IPA’s assessment fails to recommend survivor led domestic violence training for police staff and the use of domestic violent advocates on scene as part of a comprehensive domestic violence incident investigation.
The second complaint specifically asked for these remedies.
j) with regard to recommendation seventeen, a parent being arrested has a presumption of innocence and this does not prevent them from having custody of their children. In the case of this type of violence by men to their children and the mother of their children, Title 5 of the California Penal Code is meant to examine the pattern of practice which was well established in this case, and ignored by both San Mateo Sheriff’s Office and Santa Cruz Police. The priority to keep this mother and daughter safe falls under The Constitution. Santa Cruz Police displayed patriarchal bias, an issue this report fails to address. This case is rife with unequal access to justice and unequal protection under the law.
Furthermore, it fails to address Mother’s complaints regarding psychological fitness of the police officers who failed to use critical thinking. They are nothing more than a bunch of violent thugs who enjoy hurting people.
One must consider why an arrest warrant leads police officers to assume that it must be performed by violent means? What could have and should have been done differently is that mother should have been texted or emailed that a warrant had been issued and she should have been offered the peaceful remedy of going down to the jail, being booked and processed, posting bail, being released on bail, then working with her lawyer to resolve the false allegations peacefully. The child was not under threat of harm and could have
21.93 7
remained with her mother pending the outcome of appeal as demonstrated in the Johston Ross v Rossi case mentioned below.
It is obvious that there are problems with the cognitive capabilities of the Santa Cruz Police Department.
Psychological evaluations should be the first step of remedy, training by survivors of domestic violence should be required, extensive education in Constitutional law should be required and as some suggest, even a college degree specifically focusing on Law vs legal, fraud upon the court, the rulings of Marbury v Madison, survivor led domestic violence training etc. The mother offered these remedies in her complaint, however Michael Gennaco has ignored addressing any of this in his report.
k) The recent ruling in the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Johnston‐Rossi v Rossi, highlights the need for law enforcement to pause “protective orders” and “Parent abduction warrants” when a child is screaming for their mother and stating she does not want to go with her father. The narrative in this report is totally bias in favor of the dad and defamatory to the mother’s true character. Not once does it state the child did not want to go with the dad. https://casetext.com/case/johnston‐rossi‐v‐rossi
The alienation industry website describes this type of case and should be utilized for further training of legitimate peace officers. It must be a priority to end violence to women and children. https://www.alienationindustry.com/
l) This bogus report fails to address Mother’s (my) complaint that Officer David Deady committed three counts of perjury on the Emergency Protective Order he issued dad,who was the assailant and suspect, against me, the victim. Perjury is a serious crime and the officer should be prosecuted. This bogus EPO was used to isolate the daughter and cut off contact so she could be harmed by Dr. Rebecca Bailey using child abusing tactics described on www.alienationindustry.com. It is obvious that this was a pre‐planned attack on the mother to attempt to fabricate false evidence against the mother, but it failed miserably. Michael Gennaco’s report wreaks of conspiracy to conceal the crimes and participate in kidnapping under color of law and deprivation of rights 18 USC 241.
This bogus report fails to address the complaint against Officer Angel Serrano for fabricating false evidence and fabricating a false police report.
This bogus report fails to address the complaint against Officer Adam Riddell for fabricating a false report regarding the daughter being a missing person. She was never missing. Anyone could have spoken to the neighbors. The fact that the mother and daughter came home from a trip and were assaulted by the dad is evidence that daughter was never missing and dad knew their comings and goings. Police officers fabricating false evidence and false reports is a crime. Officer Riddell is the one who told father to file a missing person’s report. Dad already knew the child wasn’t missing because the child’s horse trainer was in communication with mother. It was Officer Riddell’s false missing person’s report which was used to escalate the violence perpetrated to the mother and daughter by providing the false evidence used to obtain the bogus “protective” order and “parental abduction” warrant. Officer Riddell colluded with San Mateo Deputy Inspector James Haggarty who also committed perjury and filed false police reports with deliberate misstatements that are provable facts and contained in the complaint by the Mother. The injuries caused by the Santa Cruz Police Officers to the Mother and Daughter are severe and irreversible.
The conviction of officer Alejandro Castillo for perjury and filing false police reports in Los Angeles should be a template for what should factually happen to all of these officers.
21.94 8
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023‐03‐20/lapd‐officer‐convicted‐filing‐false‐report‐dui‐arrest‐ hollywood#:~:text=LAPD%20Officer%20Alejandro%20Castillo%20was%20convicted%20on%20Monday.&text= A%20Los%20Angeles%20police%20officer,guilty%20on%20two%20felony%20counts.
m) This report acknowledges that Mother was not given the required notification that the “investigation” was concluded in violation of law, so why hasn’t Deputy Chief Jon Bush and Sergeant Eric Hoppe been charged with violating CA Penal Code section 832.7(f)(1), described in the Independent Auditor’s report of March 2022 and held on the City Council Agenda February 14, 2023 Item #27?
In conclusion, the fact that there is a backlog of complaints against the Santa Cruz Police Department is a big red flag and proves this agency has serious violence against the community problems.
This “indendent” auditor report is full of bias, untruths, misstatements of facts, lacking in facts, and fails to address all the issues described in Mother’s June 2022 complaint. This is an insufficient report and looks like a cover up of severe child abuse, conspiracy to kidnap under color of law, conspiracy for deprivation of rights secured under the Constitution and police and command staff misconduct.
Michael Gennaco works for multiple law enforcement agencies, recently being hired by the County of Santa Cruz, and seems to be the man who covers up police misconduct. His submitted report proves that he is untrustworthy. I recommend he be fired and prosecuted.
Concealing BWC footage from the public so that they cannot corroborate victim statements and to enable the police department to lie is an issue that needs immediate resolution.
Furthermore, We the People of Santa Cruz, deserve more notice than Friday before the Tuesday meetings. I have had to give up my holiday weekend to respond to this without adequate time to deal with the symptoms of my injury, in order to post this response and that is unfair and unreasonable.
Is it a coincidence that this agenda item was posted on a holiday weekend when many people would be distracted by parties and related activities? I doubt it.
Regards
Rhonda Reyna
21.95 Filed 1/30/23; Certified for Publication 3/1/23 (order attached)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
KERRY ANN JOHNSTONROSSI,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
PAUL ROSSI,
Defendant and Respondent.
B318522
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BD542090)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Steven A. Ellis, Judge. Reversed.
Summers Levine & Kretzmer, Michael J. Kretzmer;
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robert A. Olson, Cynthia Tobisman, Eleanor S. Ruth, Tina Kuang; Hall Family Law and Stefanie Hall for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Arbogast Law, David M. Arbogast; Ovando Bowen and
Chumahan B. Bowen for Defendant and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *
21.96 2
Plaintiff and appellant Kerry Ann Johnston-Rossi (mother) appeals from the postjudgment order modifying the parenting plan between her and her former husband, defendant and
respondent Paul Rossi (father) with respect to their two minor children. Mother contends the family court abused its discretion in ordering the children to participate with father in a therapy program operated by Family Bridges which mandated no contact with mother for a minimum of 90 days.
We agree the court abused its discretion and reverse the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and father married in 2004. During their marriage, they had two children, a daughter B.R. and a son D.R. Mother and father separated after six years of marriage, and their final judgment of dissolution was entered on October 16, 2012. At the time of dissolution, both mother and father lived in Los Angeles, and the court ordered joint legal and physical custody of the children.
In April 2015, mother obtained a domestic violence
restraining order against father and an order allowing her to relocate with the children to Canada. The court ordered that B.R. and D.R. “shall reside” with mother “at all times except for the custodial parenting time awarded to [father].” Father was given time with the children during breaks in their school year, and he shared alternating holidays with mother, in addition to regular weekly visitation via telephone or videochats (e.g., FaceTime). Mother subsequently was allowed to relocate with the children to New York, their current state of residence. B.R. and D.R. are now in high school.
21.97 3
The Orders by Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman
After mother relocated with the children to New York, both mother and father sought postjudgment modifications to the parenting plan and related orders. In the fall of 2020, Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman heard several days of testimony,
including from mother, father, B.R., Dr. Stan Katz, and Jayne Roberman.
Dr. Katz, who was appointed to conduct child custody
evaluations, testified he felt additional monitored visitation with father in New York was warranted and that the family would also benefit from the appointment of a parenting coach. In discussing different family therapy programs that might be considered, Dr. Katz told the court he was familiar with and approved of a program run by Rebecca Bailey. Dr. Katz said her program was flexible, could be customized to fit the specific needs of the family, and allowed both parents to participate. Dr. Katz was less familiar with the Family Bridges program, but said he understood it had success in cases of severe parental alienation.
He described the program as “the most extreme” because it required removal of the child from the custody of the parent with whom the child was aligned (in this case, mother). Dr. Katz said Family Bridges “doesn’t allow for the aligned parent to be involved at all.” Dr. Katz believed the Family Bridges program lasted about five to seven days which was usually followed by a period of time where the aligned parent was not allowed any contact with the child, except potentially therapeutic contact.
Dr. Katz was not in favor of restrictive programs like Family Bridges unless “nothing else ha[d] worked” to help rebuild a child’s relationship with an alienated parent. He said he did not
21.98 4
think such a program was necessary for B.R. and D.R. and hoped it would not become necessary.
Ms. Roberman, who was appointed to provide reunification therapy for the family, believed both children were resistant to spending time with father, and that a team approach was warranted. She told the court “the family needs a more
intensive, family-focused therapy to include relationships the children have with both parents, addressing effective means for the parents to resolve conflict and more effectively communicate.” Mother and father each presented an expert who critiqued the recommendations made by Dr. Katz.
After the hearing, Judge Gould-Saltman issued an order
requiring additional counseling for the children. Because of the pandemic, the court allowed the sessions to be completed remotely. The court also awarded father additional visitation time with the children in New York on the first and third weekends of each month. Because the pandemic was making travel and contact between different households difficult in the winter of 2020, the court ordered that a review hearing be set to monitor whether the parties were complying with its order and to see how father’s visitation and the children’s therapy sessions were going.
The review hearing was held July 22, 2021. The court
heard testimony from B.R., mother, father, and father’s girlfriend, primarily focused on how father’s visits with the children in New York had been going since the last hearing.
Father had been unable to make several of the visits. The visits that had occurred had not gone well, but there had been some enjoyable time spent bike riding and visiting a museum.
21.99 5
On August 17, 2021, Judge Gould-Saltman issued a written order that addressed various matters. As relevant here, the court ordered that father was allowed to have a week vacation time during the summer with the children in Los Angeles. Further, the court ordered that father was permitted to enroll himself and the children in “a week-long program such as Family Bridges or Turning Point” and in the event he chose to do so, father was entitled to have “the children during the week-long program” in Los Angeles in addition to his one week of summer vacation time with them in Los Angeles.
Mother filed an appeal from the August 17, 2021 order
which she subsequently dismissed.
The Order by Judge Steven A. Ellis
About a month later, father filed a new motion requesting further orders modifying the parenting plan in order to allow him uninterrupted time with B.R. and D.R. to complete both the inperson portion of the Family Bridges program and the “Family Bridges required post aftercare.” According to father’s declaration, the program starts with a four-day in-person therapy component followed by a minimum of 90 days of “aftercare” which would require no contact between the children and mother.
Father submitted paperwork from Family Bridges confirming the scope of the program. Father testified he was advised by Dr. Randy Rand of Family Bridges that he could not enroll in the program without a court order requiring the children’s
participation in the 90-day aftercare portion of the therapy.
Father said he had no interest in taking custody from mother and “fully expect[ed] for custody to return to 50/50 in [New York] once the program is successfully completed.”
21.100
6 Mother opposed father’s request for an order requiring the children to participate in the Family Bridges program and requiring them to be removed from her custody for 90 days or more. Mother filed notice, pursuant to Family Code section 217, of her intent to present live testimony at the hearing, including the testimony of B.R. and D.R. Mother contended that, as teenagers, they were entitled to testify about the prospect of being ordered out of their home and excluded from talking to their mother.
The hearing on defendant’s motion was held on
November 8, 2021 before a different judge, Judge Ellis. Judge Ellis denied mother’s request to present witnesses. The court found good cause to deny an evidentiary hearing on the basis that Judge Gould-Saltman, in her August 2021 order, had “already resolved” the substantive issues regarding the Family Bridges program. The court then heard argument from the parties on how the Family Bridges program could be completed without interfering with the children’s schooling and whether it was feasible for the program to be completed in Los Angeles.
On December 22, 2021, Judge Ellis issued a nine-page
order allowing father to have custody of the children for the time necessary to complete the Family Bridges program and outlining alternative procedures depending on whether the program was completed in Los Angeles or New York. Judge Ellis ordered that participation in the Family Bridges program was not to interrupt the children’s regular schooling in New York. If the program, including the minimum 90-day aftercare portion, could not be completed in Los Angeles during the summer break, then it would have to be completed in New York with father arranging
21.101
7 for a residence in New York during the school year where he and the children would reside.
Judge Ellis found it was in the best interest of the children to have no contact with mother during the Family Bridges program unless the parties otherwise agreed or by further order of the court. “Contact” was defined to include telephone calls, text messages, letters and all forms of digital contact or correspondence. Judge Ellis ordered that once the Family Bridges program was completed, B.R. and D.R. “will be able to move back with mother and the prior custody order will be reimplemented subject to any further order of the court.” This appeal followed. We granted mother’s writ of
supersedeas, staying the order pending resolution of this appeal.
DISCUSSION
1. Applicable Law
The overarching concern of California’s child custody and visitation law is the best interest of the child. (Montenegro v.
Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 (Montenegro).) Where, as here, there is a final custody determination in place, a postjudgment request to modify custody requires the moving party to
demonstrate not just the best interest of the child but changed circumstances. (Id. at p. 256.) “Under the so-called changed circumstance rule, a party seeking to modify a permanent custody order can do so only if he or she demonstrates a significant change of circumstances justifying a modification.” (Ibid., italics added.)
Once a final custody determination has been made, “the
paramount need for continuity and stability in custody
arrangements—and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the
21.102
8 primary caretaker—weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32–33.) The changed circumstances rule “ ‘fosters the dual goals of judicial economy and protecting stable custody arrangements.’ ” (Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 256; accord, In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955–956 & In re Marriage of McKean (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1089.)
Unlike postjudgment modifications of custody orders,
postjudgment modifications of visitation and the parenting plan are governed by the statutory best interest of the child test, and the changed circumstance rule does not apply. (In re Marriage of Lucio (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1077; accord, In re Marriage of Furie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 816, 827 [the appropriate standard for ordering a modification in parenting authority that does not rise to the level of a change in custody is the best interests test].) Relevant factors for the court to consider in determining the best interest of the child include the health, safety and welfare of the child, any history of physical or substance abuse by either parent, and the nature and amount of contact with each parent. (Fam.
Code, § 3011, subd. (a).)
We review custody and visitation orders under the
deferential abuse of discretion test. (Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 255; accord, In re Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 & Chalmers v. Hirschkop (2013)
213 Cal.App.4th 289, 299.) The “precise measure” of whether the family court abused its discretion is whether the court “could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child.” (In re Marriage of Burgess, at p. 32.) To the extent mother’s appeal challenges the trial court’s
21.103
9 factual findings, our review is governed by the substantial evidence test. (Chalmers, at p. 300.)
2. The Family Court Abused Its Discretion in Ordering
the Children to Participate in the Family Bridges
Program with Father.
Mother contends Judge Ellis erred by failing to apply the changed circumstance rule. She says father did not show a significant change in circumstances that warranted B.R. and D.R. being removed from her custody to participate in the Family Bridges program, and the court abused its discretion by granting father’s modification request without requiring such a showing.
She also claims the court abused its discretion in denying her request to present testimony at the hearing, and that the record does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating the modification was in the children’s best interest.
Father argues Judge Ellis, in ordering the Family Bridges program in December 2021, was merely implementing Judge Gould-Saltman’s order of August 17, 2021. He contends we should affirm Judge Ellis’s order but also says that given the passage of time, we should remand for further proceedings to allow the family court the opportunity to reconsider what type of program is in the best interests of the children at this time.
The practical effect of the December 2021 modification
order was to remove B.R. and D.R. from mother’s custody for at least 90 days. The order concedes as much by concluding with the language that after completion of the Family Bridges program “the prior custody order will be reimplemented subject to any further order of the court.” Judge Ellis ordered this modification without any evidence of changed circumstances.
21.104
10 Nothing in the record supports the court’s finding that this significant disruption to the children’s established living arrangement with mother was in their best interest. The order requires the children, for a minimum period of three months, to be moved out of their home and either moved across the country to Los Angeles if the Family Bridges program can be completed during a school break, or moved into a new home in New York with father until the program can be completed there during the school year. The children would not be allowed any contact with mother during this disruptive period.
The order was based on the incorrect assumption that
Judge Gould-Saltman had already ordered the children to participate in the Family Bridges program. Judge GouldSaltman’s order did not direct the children to participate in Family Bridges, or in any other program that might last more than one week. The order granted father one week of vacation time with the children in Los Angeles during their summer break, and also permitted father to enroll himself and the children in “a week-long program such as Family Bridges or Turning Point.” In the event father chose to enroll himself and the children in a conjoint therapy program in Los Angeles, the court ordered that he was entitled to have “the children during the week-long program” in addition to his one week of summer vacation with the children. (Italics added.)
The fact Judge Gould-Saltman was apparently under the
mistaken impression the Family Bridges program was one of the therapy programs that could be completed in one week
underscores the fact that all of the details related to Family Bridges had not been fleshed out and resolved by Judge Gould21.105 11 Saltman, let alone the factual issues related to removing the children from mother’s custody for a minimum of 90 days.
In denying mother’s request for an evidentiary hearing, Judge Ellis prevented mother from offering evidence relevant to the propriety of ordering the children to participate in a 90-day Family Bridges program during which they would be deprived of all contact with mother. The court’s finding that good cause supported the denial of an evidentiary hearing because
Judge Gould-Saltman had already resolved the substantive issues regarding the Family Bridges program is not supported by the record as we already explained above.
Without evidence that it is in the best interest of the children to remove them from mother’s custody for a period of at least 90 days in order to participate in the Family Bridges program, the court abused its discretion in issuing its order of December 22, 2021. (In re Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32.)
We deny mother’s requests to take judicial notice of records related to father’s 2020 felony conviction for a violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) as the records are not relevant to our decision.
DISPOSITION
The order of December 22, 2021 ordering the children to participate in the Family Bridges program is reversed. Plaintiff and appellant is awarded costs on appeal.
GRIMES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J. VIRAMONTES, J.
21.106
Filed 3/1/23
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
KERRY ANN JOHNSTONROSSI,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
PAUL ROSSI,
Defendant and Respondent.
B318522
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BD542090)
ORDER CERTIFYING
OPINION
FOR PUBLICATION
[No change in judgment]
THE COURT:
The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on
January 30, 2023, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause, it now appears that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.
There is no change in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________ STRATTON, P. J. GRIMES, J. VIRAMONTES, J.
21.107
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
COMPLAINT
Zak Franklin (SBN 302042)
FRANKLIN LAW P.C.
100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (424) 258-5129
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Carryn Barker
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Carryn Barker, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
San Mateo County, a California municipality;
and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Hostile Work Environment
Based on Sex
2. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Discrimination Based on Sex
3. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Retaliation
4. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Failure to Prevent Harassment
5. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Failure to Engage in the
Interactive Process
6. Violation of Government Code §
12940; Failure to Accommodate
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22-CIV-04691
11/9/2022
21.108
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Carryn Barker (“Plaintiff”) hereby brings this complaint against her employers and defendants, San Mateo County (“Defendant SMC”) and Does 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in this Court because Defendants maintain or maintained offices in and does or did business in California at all times relevant to this action, Defendants employ(ed) Plaintiff in San Mateo County, California, Plaintiff is and was a citizen of California at all relevant times, and the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in San Mateo County, California.
2. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff is a decorated and accomplished Deputy Sheriff and SWAT team member with over six years of exemplary service working for Defendants on behalf of the people of San Mateo County. She has received several awards for her service, including a Medal of Honor, which is the highest honor awarded within law enforcement. She leads Defendants’ sex crimes unit and she has received frequent praise for her work on behalf of victims of sex crimes. Plaintiff is also the only woman on the San Mateo County SWAT team and the only woman detective in her unit. She is a single mother and the primary caretaker for her mother, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Plaintiff is a California resident living and working in San Mateo County.
4. Defendant San Mateo County is a chartered subdivision of the State of California, a public entity, with the capacity to sue and be sued. Defendant SMC is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of its various agents and agencies, including the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO), and its agents and employees, and is sued in accord with the California Tort Claims Act, Gov. Code §§ 910 et seq.,
21.109
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 COMPLAINT
for the acts and omissions of public employees Does 1 through 100, and each of them. At all times relevant to the facts alleged, Defendant SMC were responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of SMCSO and its employees and agents complied with the laws of the State of California. Defendant SMC had at least five employees at all times relevant to this litigation.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Does 1 through 50 are corporations, individuals, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, general partnerships, sole proprietorships, public entities, or are other business entities or organizations of a nature not currently known to Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of Defendants Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff sues said defendants by said fictitious name, and will amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are ascertained or when such facts pertaining to liability are ascertained, or as permitted by law or by the Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is in some manner responsible for the events and allegations set forth in this complaint.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned each Defendant, including all Defendants sued under fictitious names, was the agent, employee, or representative of each of the remaining Defendant, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was at times acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment, and at other times, acting in his or her own individual capacity. In the alternative, each of the individually named Defendants, acted in concert and in furtherance of a fraudulent plan and scheme and each actively participated in the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER FEHA
8. Each Defendant is an employer as that term is defined under 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11008(d)(1), subjecting it to the terms and obligations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), codified at California Government Code, section 12960 et seq. Plaintiff has met all of the jurisdictional requirements for proceeding with her claims under the FEHA by: (a) timely
21.110
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 COMPLAINT
filing administrative complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and receiving a Notice of Case Closure and a Right to Sue letter (“Right To Sue Letter”) dated November 8, 2022.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
Plaintiff is a Six-Year Employee with an Excellent Record at SMCSO
9. Plaintiff began her employment at Defendants in 2016. Plaintiff is the only woman detective in her unit at SMCSO and the only woman on SMCSO’s SWAT team. Plaintiff oversees the investigation of all of San Mateo County’s sex crimes cases. Plaintiff loves her work as a detective and takes great pride in helping crime victims obtain justice.
10. Plaintiff has consistently and exclusively received high performance evaluations at Defendants, with one lieutenant referring to Plaintiff as a “rockstar”. Plaintiff has also received numerous professional accolades, including the Medal of Honor, which is the highest honor given in law enforcement and is given for extreme bravery, courage, and devotion to duty.
Plaintiff later received the Universal Emergency Medical Services Delivery Award for her heroism in going beyond the call of duty to save a life, as well as commendations from the San Mateo County Board for her outstanding commitment and service to the people of San Mateo County. Plaintiff has achieved this professional success while being the sole caretaker for her two-year-old son and her mother, who has Parkinson’s disease.
San Mateo County Sherriff’s Department is Rife with Sex Harassment and Discrimination and Many of its Worst Offenders Have Been Promoted to Positions of Power
11. SMCSO is a boys’ club where sexism and corruption exist throughout the organization. High ranking men who work at SMCSO openly engage in sexist behavior at work with encouragement from other senior men at SMCSO, none of whom face any meaningful repercussion.
12. SMCSO’s boys’ club not only covers up the bad behavior of its harassers and assailants, but it also elevates them to even higher positions of authority. On information and
21.111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 COMPLAINT
belief, bad actors who have been promoted at SMCSO after engaging in sexual misconduct include without limitation:
a. High ranking officers at SMCSO, including Deputy Sheriff Association President D.J. Wozniak, SMCSO Captain Frank Dal Porto, and Deputy Sherriff Nino Costa, exchanging pornographic videos and images over their SMCSO email accounts that depicted violent fantasies such as rape and had titles like “rah rah rah stick it in her a**”. The behavior became so pervasive that SMCSO’s technology department circulated an email instructing high-ranking officials at SMCSO to stop storing or sharing pornographic videos on SMCSO’s servers.
b. Assistant Sheriff Edward A. Wood sexually harassed a 911 operator by repeatedly touching her without her consent, forcing her to sit next to him for hours at a time for no professional reason, and telling her that she could only address him by smiling, calling him “sir”, and asking what she “could do for him”. Wood received a promotion to Assistant Sherriff and the 911 operator was forced to resign to protect herself from further abuse and retaliation.
c. Larry Schumaker, nicknamed “Captain Stalker”, stalked, harassed, and intimidated a woman lieutenant at SMCSO who rejected his sexual advances. Despite initially being demoted as a result of the substantiated allegations, Schumaker was quickly repromoted to and allowed to supervise the entire detective’s bureau, including being involved in the handling of internal sexual harassment claims. SMCSO even selected Schumaker to attend the highly prestigious four-month LAPD Leadership Academy, leading a former SMCSO Deputy Sherriff to say “this shows you can’t keep a good man down”.
d. Sherriff Carlos Bolanos, who was questioned and detained by the FBI during a raid of an underage sex trafficking hub. Bolanos later claimed to believe the brothel—a single-family home in a residential neighborhood with no public advertising—was a legitimate massage parlor. Days after Bolanos’s arrest, San Mateo County District
21.112
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 COMPLAINT
Attorney Steve Wagstaffe emailed Bolanos to tell him the incident was a “non-story”, and it would be “irrelevant by tomorrow”.
e. Marcos Dowdy, who was demoted from sergeant to officer following substantiated sexual harassment claims. Dowdy was ultimately promoted to the even-higher position of lieutenant and then allowed to retire gracefully and with benefits after SMCSO received yet another substantiated sexual harassment claim against Dowdy.
13. Plaintiff, like the other women employees at SMCSO, knew about Defendants’ sexist culture and its protection of harassers.
Defendants Continually Subjected Plaintiff to Gender Discrimination and a Hostile Work Environment Based on Plaintiff’s Sex
14. In 2018, Plaintiff joined the San Mateo County SWAT team, reporting directly to Sergeant Andre Moniot. Throughout their working relationship, Moniot has made various inappropriate comments to or about Plaintiff, including:
a. “I bet I’ll be the first on the team to f**k you”;
b. “I bet [Plaintiff] looks good naked”;
c. “I hope [another woman candidate for the SWAT team] makes the team so I can watch you two scissor”;
d. Staring at Plaintiff body while wearing eyeglasses, and saying “damn, these aren’t xray glasses”.
15. Moniot made these comments in front of multiple other employees of Defendants, including supervisors at SMCSO. Rather than attempt to stop Moniot from engaging in sexual harassment, SMCSO employees encouraged Moniot’s harassment of Plaintiff, including by making jokes about Moniot’s behavior such as asking Plaintiff “what’s Moniot’s comment of the day” and “what did Moniot say to you this time”. Plaintiff has asked that Defendants cease making sexist and demeaning comments, but Defendants continue to subject Plaintiff to sexist and demeaning comments.
21.113
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 COMPLAINT
16. In 2019, after enduring months of sexual harassment from Moniot, Plaintiff and another officer approached a supervisor at Defendants to report Moniot’s sexual harassment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s supervisor then notified the head of Defendants’ SWAT team, who addressed the SWAT team, including Moniot, and told them team that “if anything weird was going on with the team, it needs to stop.” Defendants did not specifically reference sexual harassment or mistreatment of Plaintiff. Defendants did not take any further action to protect Plaintiff. Moniot and Defendants did not cease their harassment of Plaintiff.
17. In Summer 2021, Moniot’s sexual harassment of Plaintiff escalated to Moniot sexually assaulting Plaintiff in front of their colleagues during a gathering of the SWAT team.
After Moniot made a rude comment to Plaintiff, Plaintiff responded by expressing that she did not appreciate the comment. Moniot then grabbed Plaintiff, wrestled her to the ground, and pinned her to the floor in front of their colleagues. During this encounter, Moniot grabbed Plaintiff’s buttocks and stuck his hand in Plaintiff’s groin area. Multiple members of the SWAT team witnessed this behavior and at least one member of the SWAT team submitted a written statement confirming that Moniot touched Plaintiff inappropriately. Nobody intervened to protect Plaintiff and Moniot was never punished.
18. In December 2021, Lieutenant Jacob Trickett, Detective Sergeant Donnie Burnett, and Detective Sergeant Jeffrey Carr began working in Plaintiff’s department as Plaintiff’s direct supervisors. Carr was already widely known to be sexist and to have left his previous position due to his harassing behavior towards a woman employee of Defendants. Before Carr’s transfer to Plaintiff’s department, Carr harassed a second woman employee so severely that she was forced to resign from SMCSO. Carr’s sexist behavior towards Plaintiff and other women includes without limitation:
a. Refusing to hire a highly qualified woman applicant for a detective position because Carr did not want another woman in his unit;
b. Criticizing women correctional officers at SMCSO, and Plaintiff, because Carr did not like that they wore their hair down or painted their nails;
21.114
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 COMPLAINT
c. Treating women at SMCSO in a rude and condescending manner that he did not employ when communicating with men;
d. Mocking and humiliating Plaintiff on a radio call with all of Plaintiff’s colleagues when Plaintiff suggested a safer course of action for a dangerous planned takedown of a suspect;
e. Providing additional benefits and perks to men while refusing to extend those same perks and benefits to women, including buying dinner for every man at SMCSO one evening, including the suspects who were in detention, but refusing to buy dinner for the one woman assisting the investigation; and
f. Avidly supporting the promotion or elevation of other known sex harassers at SMCSO.
19. After their arrival in Plaintiff’s department, Trickett, Carr, and Burnett quickly went to work creating an even more sexist work environment for Plaintiff at SMCSO. They started a sexist campaign to attempt to force Plaintiff, the only woman in their unit, to resign or transfer to another department. Trickett, Carr, and Burnett’s discriminatory and harassing conduct towards Plaintiff included:
a. Overwhelming Plaintiff with large volumes of work and insisting that Plaintiff complete the work in unreasonably short timeframes, then telling her to “suck it up” when she asked for additional support for the sex crimes unit. b. Subjecting Plaintiff to higher standards and more scrutiny than her man colleagues, including reprimanding Plaintiff for being unable to complete the unreasonable workload assigned to her.
c. Telling Plaintiff that she could not handle being in the investigations unit and should transfer to another department.
d. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of time fraud and forcing Plaintiff to send daily text messages to Carr and Burnett saying when she would be leaving and arriving to work.
21.115
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 COMPLAINT
e. Refusing to allow Plaintiff to flex her hours despite allowing all of Plaintiff’s coworkers, who are men, to flex their hours. Carr, Trickett, and Burnett knew that Plaintiff needed to flex her hours to care for her two-year-old son and disabled mother. They nevertheless refused to allow Plaintiff even slight scheduling accommodations. Carr, Burnett, and Trickett allowed other detectives to flex their hours without any comment, including one detective who regularly left work during the middle of the day to work out. In fact, Carr, Trickett, and Burnett flexed their own hours to care for their children or address personal matters such as renovating their homes.
f. Interfering with Plaintiff’s ability to use her FMLA leave. Following Carr’s refusal to allow Plaintiff to flex her hours, Plaintiff obtained part-time FMLA leave to care for her mother on around September 9, 2022. Later that day, Carr walked up to Plaintiff in the open-floor Detective’s Bureau and loudly stated that he knew Plaintiff applied for FMLA leave but he wasn’t sure if Plaintiff’s request was “functional for the unit”.
A few days later, Carr, Trickett, and Burnett falsely informed Plaintiff that her FMLA paperwork was not filled out properly. Carr, Trickett, and Burnett also began writing up Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s significant other for petty concerns a few days after Plaintiff applied for FMLA leave.
SMCSO Forced Plaintiff to Participate in a Retaliatory Internal Affairs Investigation and Then Refused to Protect Her from Retaliation
20. Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiff’s supervisors, knew and joked about Moniot’s sexual harassment of Plaintiff for years. However, in August 2022, someone at SMCSO leaked to media information about Sherriff Bolanos’s misconduct in a high-profile case.
Many of the commanding officers suspected that Moniot leaked this information to the media and began searching for pretext to punish Moniot and set an example for other officers who did not conform.
21.116
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9 COMPLAINT
21. On about August 23, 2022, Lieutenant Sebring informed Plaintiff that there was an Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigation regarding Moniot’s behavior. Plaintiff did not want to participate in the investigation due to fear of retaliation, but Sebring told Plaintiff she would be formally reprimanded if she did not cooperate with the investigation. Plaintiff then provided a statement about the incident.
22. A few days after Plaintiff indicated that she did not want to discuss Moniot’s behavior, IA forced Plaintiff to attend a second interview. Plaintiff witnessed the retaliation that other women at SMCSO experienced when they complained about sexual harassment and she did not want to face the backlash she knew would occur if the IA investigation continued, especially given her position as the only woman on the SWAT team. IA nevertheless interviewed three other deputies about the incidents between Plaintiff and Moniot. Those three witnesses confirmed to Defendants that Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination.
23. IA required Plaintiff to participate in a third interview regarding Moniot on September 1, 2022. The investigator forced Plaintiff to answer questions about Moniot’s repeated sexual harassment of her. The investigator then informed Plaintiff that multiple SWAT team members saw Moniot sexually assault Plaintiff in August 2021 while Plaintiff and Moniot were wrestling and interrogated Plaintiff on the circumstances surrounding the sexual assault.
Plaintiff required frequent breaks during the interrogation as she was deeply distressed by the questions about Moniot’s sexual harassment and sexual assault of her. During this interview, Plaintiff expressed concern over the fact that she needed to take a weeklong overnight training trip with Moniot for the SWAT team in late September 2022. IA responded that they would attempt to work quickly as it could be “uncomfortable” for Plaintiff to work with Moniot.
Plaintiff was so distressed from this interview experience that she had to go to the emergency room that evening for a stress migraine that caused her to lose vision.
24. Despite aggressively forcing Plaintiff to participate in its investigation and multiple witnesses confirming Moniot’s harassment of Plaintiff, Defendants took no efforts to separate Plaintiff from Moniot. When Plaintiff asked about the status of the investigation, the
21.117
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
10 COMPLAINT
investigator told Plaintiff that Plaintiff should not ask questions. Plaintiff had to take leave from the SWAT team on September 6, 2022 in order to avoid working with her assailant. To date, Moniot remains Plaintiff’s direct supervisor on the SWAT team and on information and belief Moniot has faced no corrective action from Defendants.
Defendants Retaliated Against Plaintiff Following Her Protected Complaints About Discrimination and Harassment
25. Plaintiff first complained about Carr’s discriminatory and harassing conduct on around September 1, 2022 to Lieutenant Myers. Myers promised Plaintiff that he would speak to Trickett so that Carr would modify his behavior. Carr only escalated his misogynistic treatment of Plaintiff following this Plaintiff’s conversation with Myers. On September 7, 2022, Carr told Plaintiff she could not handle being in the unit and that he believed she was committing time fraud.
26. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff informed the Director of Human Resources at SMCSO that she wanted to initiate a formal complaint for gender-based discrimination and harassment due to Carr, Burnett, and Trickett’s behavior. The Director told Plaintiff she would start the investigative process. On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff learned that her assigned HR caseworker was Katy Roberts, a personal friend of Trickett’s. Plaintiff reiterated to Roberts that she was being harassed and discriminated against based on her gender as well as being retaliated against for her protected complaints and her requesting accommodation and/or FMLA leave to care for her disabled mother. Roberts ignored all of Plaintiff’s complaints except those related to FMLA.
27. On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff contacted Roberts to reiterate that she was still being sexually harassed. Roberts responded by telling Plaintiff that her harassers were willing to work with her and she should just “stick it out”.
28. Less than one week later, on around September 20, 2022, Carr, Burnett, and Trickett pulled Plaintiff into Trickett’s office. Carr wrote up Plaintiff for failing to notify him that she was taking time off on September 2, 2022. Plaintiff did not take time off on September
21.118
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
11 COMPLAINT
2nd, but instead left at 3pm after working a ten-hour shift and receiving pre-approval from Carr to leave at 3pm. Plaintiff reminded Carr that other officers were not required to inform the supervisors of every time they left work but received no response from Carr, Burnett, or Trickett.
Carr, Burnett, and Trickett then insisted she needed a set, consistent schedule and told her to change or withdraw her request for FMLA leave or accommodation to care for her disabled mother.
29. Directly after this conversation with Carr, Burnett, and Trickett, Plaintiff called Roberts and informed her that she continued to face harassment and discrimination. Plaintiff also informed Roberts that she was now facing retaliation from Carr, Burnett, and Trickett due to her previous complaints. Plaintiff told Roberts that she was suffering substantial emotional distress as a result of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and that Carr, Burnett, and Trickett’s actions were preventing Plaintiff from getting her work done. Roberts told Plaintiff that she would get back to her about the FMLA papers, but Roberts once again avoided addressing any of Plaintiff’s other claims.
30. On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff followed up with Roberts. Roberts replied that she was “working on it” and did not further elaborate. Realizing that Roberts would not help her, Plaintiff reached out to Lieutenant Allen, who works in another department at SMCSO. Allen told Plaintiff he would help her make a formal complaint and would tell Trickett to get Carr and Burnett to stop harassing Plaintiff.
31. Hours after Allen spoke to Trickett, Carr and Burnett wrote up Plaintiff’s significant other for a petty offense. Trickett then emailed Plaintiff that the solution to Plaintiff’s complaints was for Plaintiff and her harassers to have a private meeting where they could voice their concerns with each other.
32. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff contacted Allen about Trickett’s solution and asked to proceed with filing a formal complaint. Allen agreed to help her and initiated a phone call between himself, Plaintiff, and Roberts. Allen told Roberts that he was initiating an internal investigation. Roberts replied that she was trying to handle the situation on the lowest possible
21.119
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
12 COMPLAINT
level and that the FMLA issues were already resolved so there was nothing to further discuss.
Plaintiff replied that HR was not doing its job as Plaintiff had already made four complaints and was still working with her harassers who continued to harass her nearly every day. Allen and Roberts offered Plaintiff the opportunity to transfer units. Plaintiff replied by stating that she loved her job and did not want to be punished by having to leave because of her harasser’s conduct. Plaintiff did, however, request to have minimal contact with Carr, Trickett, and Burnett and asked to not be required to meet privately with Carr, Trickett, and Burnett.
33. On September 23, 2022, Trickett, Carr, and Burnett once again pulled Plaintiff into Trickett’s office to discuss her need to take care of her disabled mother. Plaintiff asked why this issue required all three supervisors and she stated that she very rarely saw the three supervisors together to have routine meetings with any of the other detectives. Trickett, Carr, and Burnett did not deny that their behavior was atypical.
34. Plaintiff completed a formal written complaint on October 3, 2022. To date, Burnett, Carr, and Trickett are still Plaintiff’s supervisors and she is still forced to work with them on a near-daily basis. Trickett learned of Plaintiff’s complaint on around October 26, 2022 and he has since escalated his retaliation against Plaintiff, including by glaring at her throughout the day to attempt to intimidate her.
35. On about November 3, 2022, Plaintiff learned that Moniot was not going to be placed on administrative leave for his sexual assault or harassment of Plaintiff despite other officers corroborating Moniot’s illegal behavior. Defendants continue to require Plaintiff to report to Moniot.
Plaintiff Has Suffered Substantial Emotional Distress as a Result of Defendants’ Egregious Conduct
36. Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ egregious conduct, including anxiety, stress, stress-induced migraines, depression, crying spells, irritability, and difficulty sleeping. Plaintiff’s emotional distress became so severe that she needed to begin seeing a therapist whom she continues to see to this day. At one point,
21.120
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
13 COMPLAINT
Defendants’ conduct distressed Plaintiff so much that she had to go to the emergency room because she had a migraine so intense she nearly went blind. The doctor informed her the incident was very likely due to her work-related stress.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940;
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT BASED ON SEX
(Against All Defendants)
37. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
38. At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code §§ 12940 et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants.
39. These statutes provide that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to harass an employee because of the employee’s sex. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq.
40. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), in full compliance with these sections, and received a right to-sue letter on November 8, 2022.
41. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff’s supervisors and managing agents of Defendants, among others, created a hostile work environment based on sex around Plaintiff.
42. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress and loss of wages, pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
43. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees according to proof.
44. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above and requests relief as hereafter provided.
21.121
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
14 COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940;
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX
(Against All Defendants)
45. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
46. At all times herein mentioned, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants.
47. These statutes provide that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to harass an employee because of the employee’s sex. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq.
48. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), in full compliance with these sections, and received a right to-sue letter on November 8, 2022.
49. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff’s supervisors and managing agents of Defendants, among others, created a hostile work environment based on sex around Plaintiff.
50. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress, loss of wages and benefits, pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
51. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees according to proof.
52. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above and requests relief as hereafter provided.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940; RETALIATION
(Against All Defendants)
21.122
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
15 COMPLAINT
53. Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
54. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code §§ 12940 et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants.
55. These statutes provided that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because that employee complains about sex discrimination or harassment in the workplace. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq.
56. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in full compliance with these sections, and received a right-tosue letter on November 8, 2022.
57. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff engaged in multiple protected activities, including without limitation: objecting to Defendants’ gender-based discrimination; objecting to Defendants’ gender-based harassment; and objecting to Defendants’ illegal FMLA interference and retaliation. As a result of Plaintiff engaging in a protected activity, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by refusing to allow Plaintiff to use flex hours despite permitting the rest of the department to use flex hours, intimidating Plaintiff including with frequent meetings with the entire leadership team in which the leadership team told Plaintiff that she couldn’t handle her job and should consider switching departments, fabricating reasons to discipline Plaintiff, fabricating reasons to discipline Plaintiff’s partner, subjecting Plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, attempting to overload Plaintiff with work, and behaving in a hostile manner towards Plaintiff.
58. The unlawful conduct alleged above was engaged in by the officers, directors, supervisors and/or managing agents of Defendant SMC who were acting at all times relevant to this Complaint within the scope and course of their employment. Defendant SMC and/or Does 1- 25, and each of them, are therefore liable for the conduct of said agents and employees pursuant to Government Code section 12926(d).
21.123
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
16 COMPLAINT
59. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress and loss of wages, pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
60. As a further direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees according to proof.
61. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth and requests relief as hereafter provided.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940;
FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT
(Against all Defendants)
62. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
63. Under FEHA, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring.” Cal.
Gov’t Code § 12940(k).
64. As set forth more fully above, Sergeant Andre Moniot, Sergeant Jeffrey Carr, Sergeant Donnie Burnett, and Lieutenant Jake Trickett, as Plaintiff’s supervisors and as managing agents of Defendants, subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment based on sex.
65. Defendants provided nothing more than meaningless platitudes to remedy or prevent the harassment Plaintiff faced at the hands of Sergeant Moniot, Sergeant Carr, Sergeant Burnett, and Lieutenant Trickett.
66. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress and loss of wages pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
21.124
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
17 COMPLAINT
67. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) in full compliance with these sections, and received a right-to-sue letter on November 8, 2022.
68. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees according to proof.
69. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above and requests relief as hereafter provided.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ.;
FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (Against All Defendants)
70. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
71. At all times herein mentioned, the FEHA, Government Code §§ 12940 et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants.
72. These statutes provide that employers have an obligation to engage in a good faith interactive process with an employee to determine whether it would be possible to implement effective reasonable accommodation(s) so the employee may perform their essential job functions. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(n).
73. Defendants failed to engage in a good faith interactive process, as required by law, following Plaintiff’s informing Defendants that her mother suffered from a disability and she needed flexible work hours to care for her.
74. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of Plaintiff’s mother’s disabilities but Defendants failed to engage Plaintiff in an interactive process to determine whether Plaintiff could be accommodated. Rather than engage Plaintiff in a good faith interactive process, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff.
21.125
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
18 COMPLAINT
75. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in full compliance with these sections, and received a right-tosue letter on November 8, 2022.
76. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress, loss of wages and benefits, pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
77. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees according to proof.
78. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above and requests relief as hereafter provided.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940 ET SEQ;
FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA
(Against All Defendants)
79. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint as if fully alleged herein.
80. At all times mentioned herein, the FEHA, Government Code §§ 12940 et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants.
81. These statutes provide that employers have an obligation to engage in a good faith interactive process with an employee to determine whether it would be possible to implement effective reasonable accommodations(s) so the employee may perform their essential job functions. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(n).
82. Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of Plaintiff’s mother’s disability, but Defendants failed to engage Plaintiff in an interactive process to determine whether Plaintiff’s need for time off to care for her mother could be accommodated. Rather than
21.126
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
19 COMPLAINT
engage Plaintiff in a good faith interactive process, Defendants discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff.
83. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, in full compliance with these sections, and received a right-tosue letter on November 8, 2022.
84. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff endured emotional distress, loss of wages and benefits, pursuant to which Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages according to proof.
85. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was caused to and did employ the services of counsel to prosecute this action, and is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees according to proof.
86. Wherefore, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth above and requests relief as hereafter provided.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For general damages according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available;
2. For compensatory damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available;
3. That Plaintiff be awarded all available statutory remedies;
4. For equitable relief to the extent available under law;
5. For special damages, including with limitation punitive damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available and against any defendants against which such damages are available;
6. For pre and post judgment interest to the extent applicable by law;
21.127
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
20 COMPLAINT
7. For reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law, including without limitation, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12965(c), and any other relevant provision under California law that provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees;
8. For costs of suit to the extent permissible including without limitation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12965(c), and any other relevant provision under California law that provides for recovery of costs;
9. For civil penalties; and
10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
Dated: November 8, 2022 FRANKLIN LAW P.C.
By:_______________________________
Zak Franklin
Attorney for Plaintiff Carryn Barker
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Dated: November 8, 2022 FRANKLIN LAW P.C.
By:____________________________
Zak Franklin
Attorney for Plaintiff Carryn Barker
21.128
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
November 8, 2022
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint
CRD Matter Number: 202211-18825408
Right to Sue: Barker / San Mateo County, a California municipality To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD)) in accordance with Government Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit. A copy of the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
This matter may qualify for CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code section 12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to participate in CRD’s free mediation program. Under this program both the employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged with the violation may request that all parties participate in CRD’s free mediation program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. You may contact CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing [email protected] and include the CRD matter number indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact information.
No response to CRD is requested or required.
Sincerely,
21.129
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
Civil Rights Department
21.130
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
November 8, 2022
Carryn Barker
,
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue
CRD Matter Number: 202211-18825408
Right to Sue: Barker / San Mateo County, a California municipality Dear Carryn Barker:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint filed with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) has been closed effective November 8, 2022 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.
This matter may qualify for CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program. Under this program, established under Government Code section 12945.21, a small employer with 5 -19 employees, charged with violation of the California Family Rights Act, Government Code section 12945.2, has the right to participate in CRD’s free mediation program. Under this program both the employee requesting an immediate right to sue and the employer charged with the violation may request that all parties participate in CRD’s free mediation program. The employee is required to contact the Department’s Dispute Resolution Division prior to filing a civil action and must also indicate whether they are requesting mediation. The employee is prohibited from filing a civil action unless the Department does not initiate mediation within the time period specified in section 12945.21, subdivision (b) (4), or until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. The employee’s statute of limitations to file a civil action, including for all related claims not arising under section 12945.2, is tolled from the date the employee contacts the Department regarding the intent to pursue legal action until the mediation is complete or is unsuccessful. Contact CRD’s Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program by emailing [email protected] and include the CRD matter number indicated on the Right to Sue notice.
21.131
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Civil Rights Department
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | [email protected]
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
CRD - ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this CRD Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Department
21.132
-1-
Complaint – CRD No. 202211-18825408
Date Filed: November 8, 2022
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Rights Department
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Carryn Barker
Complainant,
vs.
San Mateo County, a California municipality
,
Respondents
CRD No. 202211-18825408
1. Respondent San Mateo County, a California municipality is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
2. Complainant Carryn Barker, resides in the City of , State of .
3. Complainant alleges that on or about November 8, 2022, respondent took the following adverse actions:
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, gender identity or expression, marital status, other, sexual harassment- hostile environment, family care or medical leave (cfra).
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, gender identity or expression, disability (physical or mental), marital status, sexual harassmenthostile environment, sexual harassment- quid pro quo, association with a member of a protected class, family care or medical leave (cfra) and as a result of the discrimination was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, other, denied work opportunities or assignments.
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation,
21.133
-2-
Complaint – CRD No. 202211-18825408
Date Filed: November 8, 2022
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint, requested or used family care or medical leave (cfra) and as a result was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, other, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer, denied family care or medical leave (cfra).
Additional Complaint Details: See attached
21.134
-3-
Complaint – CRD No. 202211-18825408
Date Filed: November 8, 2022
CRD-ENF 80 RS (Revised 10/22)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
VERIFICATION
I, Zachary Franklin, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
On November 8, 2022, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Manhattan Beach, California
21.135
21.136
21.137
21.138
21.139
21.140
21.141
21.142
21.143
21.144
21.145
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Justin Laing <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 1:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Correspondence 5-9-2023 Agenda Item #21: Independent Police Auditor’s Report Dear City Of Santa Cruz Council,
Reading the investigation report about the violent removal of a teenager from her mother, I am very disappointed in the lack of accountability being taken by the Santa Cruz Police Department.
No compassionate person can watch the video of this and come to the conclusions of the investigator, in terms of facts or police application of force. The report appears to be a cover up of misconduct for the purposes of exonerating the Santa Cruz Police Department.
There is no question that excessive force was used. Why was any force being used? The police were called because of a report of the father assaulting the mother. The daughter was obviously scared of the father, not the mother.
Common sense and simple morality would call for a peaceful, nonviolent de‐escalation. The officers should have been most concerned about the minor and her well being. Violently detaining her and putting her in shackles was not only uncalled for but was in itself an assault on this girl. The emotional and psychological harm this did to her is great and most likely will stay with her for the rest of her life.
Shame on the Santa Cruz Police Department individual officers and bureaucracy that allows this type of abuse of power.
I ask the City of Santa Cruz to open an independent investigation into these types of police interventions and excessive use of force. This investigation needs to be handled with care and be done by a truly independent investigator.
I ask that the body cam footage be used to independently analyze the investigative report and its accuracy and completeness. I also request that the body cam footage be made public so that we, the citizens of Santa Cruz, can properly audit and oversee the police department that we hire and entrust with our own protection.
We the citizens of Santa Cruz want a trauma informed, de‐escalation approach to any police interactions with families going through Family Court custody cases, and other interactions with families.
Sincerely,
‐‐
Justin M. Laing
Santa Cruz, CA
21.146
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rhonda Reyna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 1:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Supplemental Correspondence Agenda Item #21 Council Meeting 5-9-2023 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council,
I forgot to mention that I served a spoliation letter upon the Dentist who xrayed my daughter's teeth after the incident referred to in Case No. 16 of the auditor's report.
Had the "independent" auditor spoken to me, he would have known the evidence exists of permanent and severe damage to my daughter's teeth as a result of Ruben Badeo and David Deady slamming her face repeatedly to the ground and holding it there with extreme force. The video evidence clearly shows them doing this.
Regards
Rhonda Reyna
21.147
Independent
Police Auditor
Third Annual
Report
Michael Gennaco
Samara Marion
SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
MAY 9, 2023
21.148
Our Role as
Independent
Police
Auditor
(IPA)
•Assist complainants
•Review completed use
of force and complaint
investigations
•Analyze officer-involved
shootings & other critical
https://www.oirgroup.com/ incidents
21.149
Our Role as
Independent
Police
Auditor
(IPA)
•Provide input on Police
Department’s policies and
procedures
•Meet quarterly with Police
Department
•Talk with community
members and advocacy
groups
•Report to City Council
https://www.oirgroup.com/ annually 21.150
2022 IPA
Activities
Talked with complainants
Met with community members
and advocacy groups
Attended Chief’s Advisory
Committee
Met quarterly with Chief and
Command Staff
21.151
2022 IPA
Activities
Reviewed 33 Use of Force
and Complaint Investigations
Provided input to Department’s
Personnel Complaint policy
Presented 2nd Annual Report
to City Council
Drafted 3rd Annual Report
21.152
IPA
Observations
Department addressed
backlog of force and
complaint investigations
Used incident review to
improve its processes
Continually receptive to
IPA’s role and input
21.153
IPA
Recommendations
Improve standards and review of
Taser use.
Require documentation and
review of officers’ de-escalation
efforts.
Delineate the role of supervisors
in Use of Force review.
Adopt a Children of Arrested
Parents policy.
21.154
Positive Response to IPA
Recommendations
•SCPD drafted policy to address
immediately 16 of IPA’s suggestions.
•SCPD and IPA in continued discussions
about remaining recommendations.
21.155
QUESTIONS
21.156
22.1 22.2
22.3 22.4
22.5 22.6
22.7