Santa Cruz City Council
January 9, 2024

26.65 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
CAB’s RAP program was able to use client assistance funding to prevent 18 North/Mid County and City of Santa Cruz families (37 individuals) from becoming homeless. This year, our program started implementing financial literacy workshops, using our “Your Money, Your Goals” trainings to increase housing stability support households served.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
One of our clients had been left to be the primary caretaker of her household with no notice. With the financial assistance we were able to provide, she was able to catch up with her past due payments and stabilize herself to provide for herself and her 3 children.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Some landlords are initially unwilling to work with our program, however when faced with this issue, our case managers advocate on behalf of their clients to convince the landlord that working with our program is a win-win situation for themselves and their tenants.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NA.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
NA.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
CAB has a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Through frequent program team meetings, every other month all-staff meetings, and professional development opportunities such as CAB’s internal Equity Academy, CAB staff are engaged in, trained on, and committed to infusing equity into service delivery. This includes ensuring that equity goals focused on representation, participation and outcomes attainment are met.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
CAB's RAP CORE equity issue is race/ethnicity. RAP’s staff is bilingual and bicultural, and reflective of the community it serves, which is 75%+ Latinx. In 22-23, RAP's CORE clients were 78% Latinx. Given that RAP reflects the community, it is able to deliver holistic case management using EBP's such as Motivational Interviewing in a culturally competent manner to support the economic and housing stability of those it serves.

26.66 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Housing Matters Program Name: Community Conversations on Homelessness Condition: Community Connectedness Tier: Medium Budget: $106,600.50 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 500 91
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Roughly 500 unique program participants will be provided a survey
500 79
Fifty of those program participants will be identified to participate in focus groups 50 29
Five of those program participants will be identified to participate in the first cohort of lived expertise speaker training and will present at speaking engagements in the second half of the first year
5 5
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 92% 88%
60+ 8% 12%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 92% 95%
Spanish 6.90% 5%
Other 0.27% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 5% 7%
Asian 1% 0%
Latino 40% 7%
Multi-racial 4% 1%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 10%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 48% 62%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 13%
Gender
Female 47% 46%
Male 52% 54%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0.59% 1%
Santa Cruz 32.86% 48%
Scotts Valley 10% 0%
Watsonville 10.20% 16%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 3% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2.97% 0% Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 2.49% 8% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0.47% 0%
Unknown 0% 24%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 500 79
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 84%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
90% of focus group program participants will have improved self-advocacy skills. This information will be measured and tracked by a pre- and post-engagement Likert scale survey. 90% 92%
90% of speaker program participants will have improved
public speaking skills. This information will be measured and tracked by a pre- and post- engagement Likert scale survey. 90% 100%
50% of speaking engagement attendees will report an
improved perception of people experiencing homelessness.

This information will be measured and tracked by a pre- and post-engagement Likert scale survey.
50% 0%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.67 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We were encouraged by a lot of interest in the Speakers Bureau from over 25 participants once the program launched. People with lived experience are enthusiastic to share their stories and feedback with Housing Matters and the community at large. We are projecting that the 6 week Speakers Bureau training will occur quarterly in years two and three. Our next round of surveying will roll out on campus to our Day Services participants in September.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Sherry (not her real name) found out about the Community Conversations Program through her case manager at Housing Matters. She began her engagement with the program by attending an on-campus focus group and then joined our first cohort of the Speakers Bureau. Sherry is a survivor of domestic violence, gun violence, and substance use. She is now sober and was housed in the spring of 2023. Being a part of Community Conversations has dramatically improved her life. “I feel like I finally have a voice after so many years of being silenced,” she recounted to Andrea Feltz, Community Conversations Program Manager.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Developing the program took up a large part of our first funding year. Hiring the Program Manager wasn’t complete until October of 2022. The creation of the program required consultation with all the stakeholders and was time consuming, though this process was integral in creating a sustainable program that works for those it was created for.

Another challenge is working with people who have experienced the traumas surrounding homelessness requires us to accommodate schedules, training, and survey strategies consistently to meet them where they are. We have established new policies to protect and support our participants as well as ensure sustainable engagement.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
In partnership with Listen4Good, an organization that helps establish equity-driven feedback practices, we have begun an 18 month feedback training program. The training started in January 2023 and included the identification of goals for each Housing Matters program, the first survey was launched in May 2023. This process was time consuming, which has presented challenges in achieving 500 surveys by the end of the first funding year. Now that the first survey round is complete, we have identified ways to improve the data collection process, including utilizing volunteers to collect data and installing a self-serve survey station on campus. These changes will allow us to collect many more responses in less time.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Nothing at this time.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We have engaged staff on issues of equity through consistent communication and prioritizing accessibility to ensure anyone in the community is able to participate in the Community Conversations Program. The program manager is in consistent communication with Housing Matters program and case managers to make program opportunities open to anyone interested.

The program has been created to meet participants where they are, with flexible offerings, scheduling, and support catered for each person to ensure equitable access.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Community Connectedness: Increased Civic Engagement
Through surveys and storytelling, we are listening to ensure all Santa Cruzans are represented in conversations surrounding homelessness. By establishing relationships with nonprofits and community-based organizations throughout the County, we work to ensure accessibility to the program for any interested participant. We acknowledge the complexities of life for those with lived experience and have created accommodating programming.

Attendees of our community engagement events have expressed their deep gratitude for getting to hear about the experience of homelessness from someone who has lived it. Each conversation is shifting minds and ensuring equity and inclusivity are at the forefront.

26.68 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Eat for the Earth Program Name: Community Rx Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $88,001.10 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 99 116
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
We will provide three or more rounds of Community Rx in FY 2022-2023. 3 7
Food tastings and food preparation demonstrations for
constituents of community partners: at least 6 per year 6 8 Tabling with information and food samples at community
events: at least 3 per year 3 5
Presentations about the program to staff of current and potential referral partners: at least 3 per year 3 4
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 2% 2%
19-59 64% 71%
60+ 34% 27%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 45% 19%
Spanish 51% 81%
Other 4% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 3%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 60% 82%
Multi-racial 16% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 20% 9%
Other 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 50% 84%
Male 45% 16%
Transgender- Female 2% 0%
Transgender- Male 1% 0%
Other 2% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 2%
Santa Cruz 10% 3%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 55% 38%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 20% 3% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 15% 3%
Unknown 0% 51%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 99 63
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 96%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
85% of Community Rx participants who comply with the
dietary parameters have improved physical health,
specifically at least one reduction in a biomarker for chronic disease such as weight, cholesterol, or blood pressure by the end of the 10-day intervention, as demonstrated by lab results. 85% 95%
50% of Community Rx program participants who comply
with the diet and participate in the education will demonstrate readiness to continue eating a whole food plant-based diet as measured by the Community Rx Readiness Survey after the immersion concludes.
50% 90%
75% of participants who opt in to Community Rx Mobile will demonstrate healthy eating habits by regularly incorporating more healthy plant foods in their diets as reported in
participant interviews.
75% 0%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.69 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
A few success highlights:

Partnerships: Collaboration with two medical clinics serving primarily Latinos with low incomes (Salud Para la Gente and the Watsonville Health Center), and two Watsonville churches
Biomarkers: For participants who completed, there were average improvements in all biomarkers assessed: total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol; triglycerides; glucose; blood pressure; BMI; weight. The average LDL reduction was over 22%; that figure excludes four participants whose LDL was too high to measure at the start and whose average LDL fell to less than 48 by the end.

Diabetes: Of participants who completed, 60% who had diabetes at the beginning reduced their glucose levels below the diabetic threshold as a result of the program.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Lola had diabetes and sky-high triglycerides and LDL at program start. Her diabetes reversed, triglycerides fell sharply, and LDL ended at a heart-healthy 22! In her words:
“I'm extremely pleased with the plant based diet! It helped me tremendously in lowering my triglycerides, cholesterol, and sugar numbers. I will continue to follow this diet because it is great for my health and I love it!”
Ana’s starting labs showed triglycerides of 276 and high blood pressure. Two weeks later and

8.6 pounds lighter, her triglycerides were 96 and blood pressure improved. Ana says: “I couldn't lose weight before. Now that I did the program I lost weight and I feel very good.

My blood pressure improved. I don’t feel so tired. Thank you for being there."

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

We started later than anticipated due to difficulty finding qualified staff.

We are concerned with the number of people who sign up then don’t show up, and the number who start but don’t finish. We are creating strategies to address this.

We were unable to secure partnerships in the City of Santa Cruz in FY 22/23, but are confident that current conversations will result in at least one such round in 23/24.

Language capacity created an unexpected challenge in implementing Community Rx Mobile. Most of the intended audience speak indigenous languages. We have not had the capacity to outreach to them. If we can’t figure out how to connect with this group, which could really benefit from our services, we will ask for a contract revision.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
A significant percentage (about 51%) of participants did not give us information about their location. We are redesigning our collection tool so the location prompt is more obvious. We held all 7 rounds of the program in Watsonville in FY 2022/23, so we assume that the majority of those who did not indicate their location are residents of Watsonville or surrounding areas.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
We would love support to figure out how to most accurately assess participant compliance with the dietary parameters. Our SOW indicated our goal of 85% of participants who complied with the dietary parameters would experience at least one improved biomarker by the end of the program. We did better than meeting that goal, because 95% of all participants, regardless of compliance, had at least one improved biomarker for disease. The self-reported compliance data we collected was too inconsistent to be meaningful. Even though we still exceeded our goal, it would be helpful to get support around our collection method for compliance data so we can more fully understand, utilize, and report the data.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We deeply engage our staff in conversations about issues such as access, relevancy, and efficacy relative to our target population, Latino/a/x people countywide. Issues of equity drive program design. For example, because the cost of getting biometric screenings presents a financial barrier to many in our target population, we purchased biometric testing equipment so we could offer the tests without burdening participants financially. Another example is our decision to partner with health clinics serving people with low incomes.

Given that there are racially-driven barriers to good health for people of Latino heritage and low incomes, our intervention addresses the inequities that result in poorer health outcomes for these populations.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Eat for the Earth selected race/ethnicity as the equity issue to address with our CORE funding. In Santa Cruz County, as in many other places, factors such as racism, colonization of indigenous diets, economic pressure, and NAFTA create disproportionate barriers to good health for Latinos. In alignment with targeted universalism, our program was open to everyone, but outreach, partnerships, and program design were guided by the goal of ensuring that the majority of participants were Latino/a/x. By customizing outreach and program design to specifically reach out to and support this population, we were able to help members of a population with disproportionate rates of food-related diseases to get healthier.

26.70 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Jacob's Heart Children Cancer Support Services Program Name: Comprehensive Grief Support Services for Low Income Families of Children with Cancer
Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $90,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 105 103
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Forever Siblings -4 quarterly outings for children/teens/young adults 4 12
Forever Loved Grief Retreat -One 3-day, 2-night camp
transformation in the Santa Cruz redwood forest where
families from diverse languages and experiences share their unique sorrow
1 1
Individual Crisis Counseling and Psychotherapy - 200
sessions with bicultural psychotherapists, family support specialists, and interns with expertise in healing complex grief and trauma.
200 198
Grief Support Groups - 12 thematic support groups for
parents with concurrent interventions and healing activities for siblings.
12 17
Family Day Events - 2 facilitated events bring bereaved families together despite language differences and cultural differences.
2 2
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 6% 6%
6-18 30% 30%
19-59 49% 49%
60+ 15% 15%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 40% 40%
Spanish 60% 60%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 1% 1%
Latino 77% 77%
Multi-racial 5% 5%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 16% 16%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 51% 51%
Male 49% 49%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 2% 2%
Santa Cruz 20% 20%
Scotts Valley 2% 2%
Watsonville 52% 52%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 9% 9% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 2%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 2% 2% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 11% 11%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 105 21
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
100% of program participants will have increased feelings of safety, support and being loved as measured by participants' self-reporting during ongoing counseling and psychotherapy sessions.
100% 100%
95% of Forever Loved Retreat participants will demonstrate improved coping skills as a result of peer and family
connection and a strong safety net of community support that address their needs effectively, efficiently, and with
compassion, as measured by participants’ self-reporting in surveys provided post retreat by Jacob’s Heart staff.
95 100%

26.71 90% of program participants experiencing the death of a sibling will demonstrate increased connection, community, and resilience as measured by regular attendance of Grief Support Program activities. Attendance participation will be tracked using a sign in sheet.
90% 90%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Jacob’s Heart provided ongoing Individual Crisis Counseling/Psychotherapy and facilitated six Grief Support Groups for bereaved families (thematic, monthly drop-in, and quarterly expressive arts) with culturally relevant and age appropriate activities for siblings in both Spanish and English. We also updated and distributed our Quality of Life survey to the families we serve. Quality of life indicators are the most relevant to measuring the true impact of our programs. If a family is receiving effective support, they demonstrate improved coping strategies and ability to manage daily life, and experience a reduction in isolation, stigma, and guilt through meaningful connections facilitated by Jacob’s Heart.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
This year, the Garcia family faced the unimaginable, losing their daughter. At Jacob's Heart, we stand with families battling pediatric cancer, even when outcomes are not as hoped. Until there's a cure, we will be there. Grief can be overwhelming, but our support continues. The warm Jacob's Heart Family Center provides a safe space for healing. Just four months after their loss, the Garcias still visit, receiving counseling and volunteering.

Their dedication inspires as they help around the family center or just take a moment to themselves, creating art. We're here through every step, supporting families in their darkest times. Together, we find strength and hope, creating a community where solace is found amidst grief.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The inherent challenge of offering grief support is accompanying families (and each family member) as they face unimaginable loss and life changes. From a success standpoint, our measurement of impact is atypical as easing the fear and burden that accompanies cancer is circular, not a linear process. A family may demonstrate substantive improvement in their wellbeing but grief may emerge again in new and big ways that might rush them back to where they started and require just as much love and support. This is why our model of care, based on the hierarchy of human needs, is so important. We start with immediate needs and build safety, security, love, belonging, and emotional wellbeing as we move families toward hope and healing. The state

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
N/A

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our services are available to the entire family without restrictions - including anyone that they say is family. We ensure that every service we offer is available for every family (no one is left out). Our commitment to equity is evident through our staff diversity (80% Latino, 20% Caucasian). To meet the increasing need for Spanish-speaking clinicians, Jacob’s Heart created an intern program for bilingual/bicultural Master in Social Work (MSW) candidates. As they complete their program and log hours to become licensed as LMFT or LCSW, we’re growing a career pipeline for aspiring Latino professionals that reflects their strength and potential to thrive.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Jacob’s Heart is improving access to bicultural support services for low-income disenfranchised families suffering anticipatory grief or the traumatic loss of a precious child. In FY 2022-2023 our expanding Grief Support program fostered personal connection through community engagement and direct support in the language most familiar to those served. Recognizing the transportation and child care difficulties that many families face, we’re developing a grief support curriculum designed for children that will run concurrently with support groups for the parents, so all family members can receive support at the same time. Teen Group, monthly Support Groups, and Forever Loved Grief Retreat are other examples where youth receive grief support.

26.72 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Santa Cruz City Schools Program Name: Computer Science for All Condition: Lifelong Learning & Education Tier: Medium Budget: $93,137.40 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 1321 1321
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Work with 70-75 teachers at 3 schools to provide professional development and coaching for teachers to integrate computer science into their existing curriculum.
70 34
3 family engagement sessions at each of 3 schools about computers and computer science topics 3 3
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 17% 1%
6-18 68% 71%
19-59 13% 27%
60+ 2% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 68% 62%
Spanish 32% 37%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1.30% 1%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 51.60% 54%
Multi-racial 2.60% 3%
Native American/Alaskan 0.30% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.30% 0%
White 41% 39%
Other 0.90% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 58.50% 62%
Male 41.20% 38%
Transgender- Female 0.10% 0%
Transgender- Male 0.10% 0%
Other 0.10% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 100% 100%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 0% 0%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 1321 1321
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 83%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
75% of LatinX students whose teachers participated in TOSA coaching cycles will report an increase in confidence in their computer science knowledge and skills as indicated by pre and post surveys.
75% 83%
75% of female students whose teachers participated in TOSA coaching cycles will report an increase in confidence in their computer science knowledge and skills as indicated by pre and post surveys.
75% 83%
80% of teachers who participated in TOSA coaching cycles will report an increase in confidence in their ability to teach computer science as indicated by pre and post surveys.
80% 84%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The students and teachers who participated had higher than expected increases in their confidence in computer science.

26.73 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

It has been difficult to get as many to participate as we had hoped. It is going to be challenging to meet our 3 year goal, but we are excited about the work that we have done so far.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Parents have been reluctant in some cases to complete the data. It is also challenging to collect the data for students be our student information system does not make it easy to export the data needed. But we found a process this year that should make it easier next year.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
None at this time.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
In SCCS we talk about equity in everything that we do. We share information with parents, teachers and students about the inequities there are in computer science instruction and how the work we are doing can combat it.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Our goal was to address equitable access to high-quality CS education with the long-term goal of impacting educational attainment and workforce readiness of Latinx and female students. We have provided high quality computer science instruction for a large number of LatinX and female students. As we continue to expand the program, we will reach more students and give students the opportunity to see themselves as a computer science, impacting their future life.

26.74 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA) Program Name: Familias Unidas-United Families Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $134,814.60 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 120 153
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Family Case management services to 120 families. 120 125 72 Parent/youth mental health well-being classes will be provided to 120 Participants per year. 72 60
120 family needs assessments/resource linkages will be
conducted with program families. 120 125
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 2% 1%
6-18 70% 73%
19-59 20% 25%
60+ 8% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 5% 5%
Spanish 90% 95%
Other 5% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 0%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 95% 100%
Multi-racial 0% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 5% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 50% 58%
Male 50% 42%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 0% 0%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 70% 80%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 10% 5% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 20% 15%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 120 147
80 % of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by the 6/30/2023.
80% 90%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
100 % of the families enrolled will participate in development of at least one familial goal as measured by their family treatment plan
100% 100%
80% of the participating families will demonstrate an
increased understanding of parental resilience and social emotional connection as measured by the SFP pre/post
survey.
80% 90%
100 % of the participant families will increase their
understanding of the community resources available to them as measured by pre/post program survey.”
100% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We started of a bit rocky, but were able to see the impact the sessions were having with the families as they started opening up about their familial experiences and how they were learning strategies for connecting within their family.

26.75 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
During the session which relationships and boundaries were covered a mother shared how she has changed her way of discipline and she has more open conversations with her children, something that had not happened with her older children. This parent shared that she has started exploring some of the resources that had been shared with her from the results of her needs assessment and case management session. The resource that she has used the most has been obtaining food from one of the local partners her family was connected with. This parent also she shared that she felt heard as the facilitator brought in different organizations that participants wanted to learn about.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

We had a transition of staff at the beginning of program implementation.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
No support needed in this area at the moment.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our staff have stated to have a conversation around writing an equity mission statement for the organization.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
One of the goals was to incorporate a Mixteco Stregthneing families series this year. We had some challenges, but we are currently working with one of our staff to get session implemented this new fiscal year. One goal that we did accomplish was to ensure that each family that came through the program received a needs assessment and these families were linked to the service need that they identified as a family need. Additionally all our staff have been training in youth/adult mental health, and hav been incorporated what they have learned in the facilitation of their sessions.

26.76 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: FoodWhat, Inc Program Name: Food What?!
Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $31,567.50 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 60 128
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
10-week Spring Internship for a total of 33 hours of program 10 10 8-week Summer Job for a total of 192 hours of program 192 192 8-week Fall Project for 24-72 hours of program 8 8
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 95% 94%
19-59 5% 6%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 69% 50%
Spanish 31% 50%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 3%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 80% 78%
Multi-racial 0% 6%
Native American/Alaskan 2% 3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 15% 10%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 52% 35%
Male 48% 56%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 3%
Other 0% 6%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 20% 20%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 80% 80%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 60 117
80 % of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by the 6/30/2023.
80% 96%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
100% of participants will report improvement in their overall well- being, as measured by participants eating more healthy food. This information will be collected using post-program surveys.
100% 100%
80% of participants will improve their economic stability, as measured by participants earning wages and developing
career job skills. This information will be collected using post-program surveys.
80% 95%
80% of participants will report an increased sense of
empowerment, as measured by participant improved selfawareness, self-confidence, and internal motivation. This information will be collected using post-program surveys. 80% 95%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.77 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
FoodWhat (FW) exceeded expectations in program participation levels, satisfaction, and outcomes. Youth successfully engaged in empowerment and health building activities centered around organic farming, cooking nourishing meals, skill-building workshops, bringing home produce boxes, distributing healthy food through their farm stand, stewarding school gardens, and building a supportive community. During this period, youth consumed 1,607 healthy meals; brought home 4,821 lbs of healthy food to their households; and distributed approximately 2,208 lbs of healthy food to their communities through their affordable farm stand operated in partnership with PVUSD’s Wellness Center. In Spring 2023, FW expanded our number served from 70 to 90.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
One FW youth shared with us that they and their family were experiencing significant economic hardship. The youth shared the family had lost their car, then lost their home. In response, FW provided one-on-one support for this youth, distributed crisis cash assistance to them and their family, created paid work opportunities for the youth within our program, provided consistent access to food, and connected the youth to local job opportunities. As of this report, this youth is still involved in our program receiving the support they need.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

We’ve encountered a few organizational and community challenges this year, all of which we’ve met well. First, we have been restructuring our organization to better support our program expansion. This involved splitting one full-time staff position into two full-time staff positions. During this time, we also had one staff transition. We also experienced high staff turnover at the schools we partnered with, making communication difficult. We were able to navigate this challenge and find new contacts. Lastly, the Pajaro Valley floods proved taxing and scary for affected FW youth. In response, we provided one-on-one support to youth, provided crisis cash assistance, and participated in community efforts to feed those displaced by the floods.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
FW continues to hone its approach to its qualitative data collection strategies. We are always on the lookout for tips on how to best conduct focus groups and interviews, particularly how best to develop an evaluation instrument that can easily be stored in a usable format.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
FW restructured its organization to reflect the results of an organizational development process that centered equity. To this end, FW elevated a Latine person to become CoExecutive Director in an effort to create leadership structures that reflect the identities of FW youth. We also increased our staff salaries in an effort to create a more equitable spread of incomes across the organization, given all of our program staff are BIPOC, primarily Latine. Our Executive staff have been working with an Executive Coach during this time on topics of how best to embrace an organizational approach rooted in equity. Lastly, we increased the diversity of our Board from 50% people of color to 100% BIPOC.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Our program has impacted our equity issue of race and ethnicity by providing our empowerment, healthy food, job training, and economic stability services to marginalized youth, families, and communities, predominantly those of Latine identities. The marginalized people we serve are receiving thousands of dollars through youth wages, thousands of pounds of healthy food, specialized job training, and consistent support to improve their sense of well-being and empowerment. As stated above, FW youth are sharing that they find our program supportive in the areas of developing relationships with healthy food, gaining meaningful employment, experiencing economic stability, and embracing the belief that they can live the life they want to live.

26.78 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: NAMI Santa Cruz County Program Name: Free Mental Health Services in Spanish Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $86,400.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 1090 1133
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
1 Bases (Basics in Spanish) Class (6-week course) 1 2
2 Familia-a-Familia (Family-to-Family in Spanish) Classes (12-week courses) 2 2
1 Persona-a-Persona (8-week course) 1 1
25 Ending the Silence (ETS) presentations for Latinx
Students 25 26
10 Ending the Silence (ETS) presentations in Spanish for parents of middle/ high school students 10 12
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 57% 50%
19-59 33% 43%
60+ 10% 7%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 0% 46%
Spanish 100% 54%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 0%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 80% 98%
Multi-racial 20% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 2%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 74% 62%
Male 26% 34%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 1%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 2%
Location
Capitola 1% 0%
Santa Cruz 37% 0%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 42% 0%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 13% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 1% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 4% 0%
Unknown 0% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 1090 324
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a participant survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY.
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
As a result of the Familia a Familia / Bases classes, 80% of participants will know more about available mental health resources and feel more confident about accessing them, specifically they will agree or strongly agree with the following statements: 1. I now feel more knowledgeable
about local mental health resources 2. I now feel more confi 80% 98%
As a result of the Ending the Silence (ETS) presentations in Spanish for parents and ETS for Latinx students, 80% of participants will feel that they can recognize the signs of mental health conditions and have an understanding of how to seek help. Specifically, they will agree or strongly agree with the following statements: 1. I now feel more knowledgeable about the signs of mental health conditions 2. I now feel that I have an understanding of how to seek help.
80% 87%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.79 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
During 22/23, NAMISCC built and strengthened key partnerships with local organizations in order to provide crucial mental health services to Latinx youth and Spanish-speaking parents. These partner organizations include Jovenes Sanos (United Way), PVPSA, and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (SCCOE). NAMISCC was honored to be named the SCCOE’s 2023 Partner Organization of the Year for our Ending the Silence (ETS) program in schools, which is partially funded by CORE. We trained 4 new facilitators for ETS, 3 new teachers for our classes in Spanish, and held our first hybrid class. Lastly, our ETS program transitioned from Zoom to in-person, providing richer engagement with students, teachers, and parents.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Alma has a mental health condition. She also supports a daughter who has a mental health condition. Alma first contacted NAMISCC via our Spanish Help Line. She was in despair and desperately needed support. She was connected with valuable resources and went on to participate in many of our classes and support groups in Spanish. Alma now supports her own mental health and her daughter’s through leading NAMISCC classes and support groups to help others. Teaching helps her to deepen her understanding of mental health conditions and strategies for supporting her child. Alma’s healing continues through engaging deeply and building community with others navigating similar issues. She taught two CORE-funded classes for parents in Spanish in 22/23.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

During the 22/23 school year, our Ending the Silence (ETS) program in middle and high schools transitioned from being largely provided via Zoom back to in-person. Since the onset of COVID, ETS presentations were provided mostly via Zoom, often to multiple classes at once. This allowed us to serve a much larger number of students with each presentation. The transition to holding ETS in-person for individual classrooms has made it challenging to meet the projected number of participants for this grant. However, this move has also allowed for deeper connections and conversations with students, teachers, and parents. We are confident that the move back to in-person will allow us to deliver a more impactful ETS experience for our participants.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
It has been challenging to receive 100% responses from Spanish-speaking adult participants in our classes. We have offered support, included time to complete surveys during the class, and do follow-ups to make it easier to provide feedback. However, some still don’t feel comfortable completing an evaluation. We have found that, in some cases, it is due to fear of being wrong or not knowing how to answer the questions appropriately. To overcome this challenge, we have a staff member support them with any questions about the survey after the class while keeping confidentiality in mind. We also had a 20% response rate among students and are exploring ways to increase our Ending the Silence survey responses, including using a QR code.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
It would be helpful for HSD or the CORE Institute to offer workshops on effective data collection, ethics and standards around confidential surveys, coaching calls on building survey materials, or cohort facilitations for sharing data collection methods.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our team works on ensuring that all of the program materials, activities, communications, and services are inclusive for everyone. We provided one-on-one technical support and distributed laptops to participants to provide them with the tools to access our online classes. We also delivered class manuals to individuals who were having difficulty getting to our office. Additionally, our team has weekly meetings to discuss and implement culturally responsive ways to engage with new communities. Our entire staff, including our 19 part-time Peer Leaders, participated in a three-day leadership training focused on building and implementing strategies for systems change to enhance equity.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
In the US, Latinx adults are 50% less likely than non-Latinx white adults to receive the mental health care they need. In SC County, 35% of residents are Latinx and 32% primarily speak Spanish. Our programs increase Racial Equity by providing culturally appropriate mental health services in English and Spanish to Latinx residents. Our services in Spanish are provided by bilingual/bicultural facilitators who have lived experience of a mental health condition, or that of a loved one. Our programs reduce stigma and build trust in the Latinx community. 93% of our Spanish-speaking participants surveyed agreed that, as a result of a NAMISCC class, they are better able to access the care and support services that they or their family members need.

26.80 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Encompass Community Services Program Name: Health Equity for All Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $134,416.91 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 410 483
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
A minimum of 48 physical activity opportunities 48 598
A minimum of 48 nutrition sessions will be offered at each residential facility 48 0
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 90% 87%
60+ 10% 13%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 92% 93%
Spanish 8% 3%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 4%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 1%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 31% 21%
Multi-racial 1% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 60% 66%
Other 3% 5%
Unknown 0% 3%
Gender
Female 30% 34%
Male 69% 60%
Transgender- Female 1% 3%
Transgender- Male 0% 1%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 1%
Location
Capitola 1% 2%
Santa Cruz 51% 29%
Scotts Valley 3% 0%
Watsonville 25% 25%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 7% 16% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 21%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 8% 4% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 4% 1%
Unknown 1% 2%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 410 151
80% of CORE program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by June 30, 2023.
80% 91%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
60% or more program participants will report improved
physical health, specifically increased consumption of one or more of the following: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds and water since participating in the program as
measured by a program-developed client survey administered at treatment discharge. Data will be gathered by June 30th of each FY.
60% 83%
60% or more program participants will report improved
mental health, specifically one or more of the following:
improvements in sleep, mood, anxiety or a sense of general wellness since participating in the program as measured by a program-developed client survey administered at treatment discharge. Data will be gathered by June 30th of each FY. 60% 89%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We were able to contract with a provider for yoga in all 6 of our residential programs.

All programs were able to implement walking groups for our clients.

The grant helped us update kitchen equipment needed to help with providing healthy food options for the clients, including new refrigerators, mixers, knives, large mixing bowls, Mason Jars, etc.

Two part-time Peer Navigators were hired to help clients connect to community resources.

26.81 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A client at 2nd Story started with us over a month ago and his life turned around. He started out unengaged and isolative, but started to join weekly yoga groups, and enjoyed healthy meals with his peers. With support of the peer navigators, he found employment, enrolled in school through disability services, and is closer to finding permanent housing.

He has become a deep part of this community's healing experience in a short amount of time.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Our biggest challenge has been technology. We hired a contractor to provide weekly nutritional groups for the programs. Unfortunately, the App that the trainings would be provided through experienced a series of set backs and we were unable to implement the groups. We have since purchased a nutrition curriculum and have created a working group to implement weekly group modules for persons served. We are also considering hiring a different contractor.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
None

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We spoke to all residential program staff regarding the grant we received and discussed the importance of this program for the clients we serve, who struggle with severe and chronic mental illness/co-occurring disorders. According to the World Health Organization, most studies of schizophrenia show a life expectancy reduction of 10–20 years than the general population, this includes clients with co-occurring disorders. Clients need access to nutritious food, activities to support well-being, and connection to community support resources. Also, as part of the agency's strategic plan, we have racial equity workgroup that provides education on the importance of racial equity for the agency,

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
In FY 22-23, we were able to increase access to healthy food, and exercise (walking and Yoga) for our clients. We were also able to use our Peer Navigators to help clients access resources for social support in the community.

26.82 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Grey Bears Program Name: Healthy Food Program Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $122,457.60 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 650 650
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
400,000 pounds of food delivered 400000 486000
5,000 meals served 5000 6500
6 volunteer opportunities provided. 6 6
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 8% 8%
60+ 92% 92%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 81% 81%
Spanish 19% 19%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 3% 3%
Latino 24% 24%
Multi-racial 2% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
White 68% 68%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 65% 65%
Male 35% 35%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 7% 7%
Santa Cruz 18% 18%
Scotts Valley 5% 5%
Watsonville 19% 19%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 25% 25% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 2%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 8% 8% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 16% 16%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 650 650
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 80%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of participants will have improved physical health, and economic stability by saving money on food costs as
measured by a survey at six months from enrollment.
80% 80%
70% of volunteers will report improved social connections as measured by a program developed survey completed by June 30 of each year.
70% 84%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We had another successful year with our Healthy Food program through meal deliveries to homebound seniors, the groceries and meals served on our campus. We were also able to complete the surveys of participants and volunteers and gained valuable insight into our program's success.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Here are 2 quotes from a couple of grateful Healthy Food program participants:
"The volunteers are most wonderful and greatly appreciated! The food is healthy and it's like Christmas opening the bag each week. It helps me support my sister who has cancer, kidney failure and so many other problems. I am able to help her more than I could without Grey Bears! Many thanks for a most stellar programs for so many decades now." "This is a wonderful service you provide for seniors especially when the cost of food and housing has risen! With gratitude."

26.83 3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

We were concerned over whether we would be able to complete all of the surveys due to the winter storms we had but we did successfully complete the surveys.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
I can't think of anything at this time.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We have made sure that the staff are aware that any communications-flyers, banners, interna memos etc. are also translated into Spanish. We have made an effort to hire and recruit Spanish speaking employees and volunteers.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We engaged in some major outreach efforts to south county. We participated in the Senior Resource Fair and the Earth Festival in Watsonville, giving away 100 bags of food. We had Spanish speaking volunteers available which enabled us to sign up Healthy Food participants as well as additional volunteers.

26.84 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Teen Kitchen Program Name: Home-delivered Medically Tailored Meals for Vulnerable Populations
Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $135,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 151 160
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
12 weeks of meal delivery for unduplicated individuals. 12 12 Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 1% 0%
19-59 35% 22%
60+ 64% 78%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 83% 78%
Spanish 16% 22%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 0%
Asian 2% 1%
Latino 20% 28%
Multi-racial 7% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 2% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 65% 68%
Other 2% 3%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 63% 58%
Male 36% 42%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 4% 6%
Santa Cruz 39% 39%
Scotts Valley 3% 4%
Watsonville 32% 28%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 12% 10% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 6% 5% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 3% 8%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 151 86
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 81%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
60% of clients will report an increase in self-perception of their general health after receiving TKP’s meals as measured by client completion surveys.
60% 90%
75% of clients will report that they know what foods to eat to meet the needs of their health condition(s) after receiving TKP’s meals as measured by client completion surveys.
75% 77%
75% of teen chefs will report cooking from scratch more often at home after participating in the program as measured by teen completion surveys.
75% 39%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The program was very successful and we were able to serve those in need efficiently with high client satisfaction. In 2022-23, we served a total of 86,334 meals.

26.85 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
“During the times when I had those meals, I definitely ate healthier when I was receiving your meals and felt better physically too! Having meals in my refrigerator or freezer would stop me from going out and getting easier food, like Burger King.” “During the pandemic I had just eaten whatever food was given to me by the county. Then I started getting food from TKP. My doctor recently checked and found my blood pressure, sugar, and cholesterol are all lower, and they are having me stop my blood pressure medication. My diet has been so much better he was almost dancing! I could eat your salads all day. During a recent stay in the hospital, I was disappointed in the hospital food because it wasn't TKP! I feel so grateful today.”

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The main challenge was the need exceeded the funding for this project. We could have easily served three times as many people during the time period for the grant.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The post service surveys are always challenging to collect. Out of 160 clients served, we were only able to do post service surveys for 86. There were challenges with clients returning calls or being available for the phone calls after the program had ended.

This issue rolls into our main program as well, we have added mailed client satisfaction surveys and text surveys as well to gain info.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
At this time, we do not have a need for support with data collection activities.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
TKP is committed to advancing equity within the agency. All staff has undergone 4.5 hours of DEI training. Demographics of our current staff and board are:

Adult staff: 33% Latinx, 11% Asian, 11% African American and 22% LGBTQ+ Teen staff: 30% Latinx, 7% Asian and 15% LGBTQ+
Board: 40% BIPOC and 100% female
TKP has moved its Teen Chef program from a 100% volunteer program to 50% volunteer/50% paid employee program. This change was made because many teens cannot afford to volunteer and/or may not have transportation to TKP’s kitchen. By offering paid positions, we increased equity in opportunity and opened our kitchen to a more diverse group of teens.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The program addresses inequities in nutrition for low-income individuals by providing medically tailored meals. Studies show people living in poverty are especially vulnerable to poor nutrition and obesity. In FY23, we delivered a total of 86,334 meals to 722 individuals, 86% of whom were low-income. 90% of clients reported that having delivered, healthy meals saved their family money, reducing a common stressor that can impact a client’s ability to pay for necessary medicines and treatment.

26.86 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Senior Citizens' Legal Service (SCLS) Program Name: Increased Service Capacity SCLS 2022 Condition: Safe & Just Community Tier: Medium Budget: $72,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 144 144
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
SCLS will provide 144 legal service consultations in both the Santa Cruz and Watsonville offices. 144 144
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 0% 0%
60+ 100% 100%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 60% 78%
Spanish 40% 22%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 3%
Asian 1% 1%
Latino 20% 22%
Multi-racial 2% 1%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 75% 59%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 13%
Gender
Female 70% 70%
Male 30% 24%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 6%
Location
Capitola 5% 4%
Santa Cruz 42% 47%
Scotts Valley 3% 2%
Watsonville 15% 15%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 8% 11% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 6% 1% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 3% 2%
Unknown 17% 17%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 144 144
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 86%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
75% of participants receiving housing legal assistance related to housing issues shall have improved housing stability, specifically positive housing status at case closure, as measured by the agency utilized database quarterly report. 75% 90%
80% of participants receiving personal and financial safety legal services (Restaining Order, establish a Power of
Attorney, or an Advanced Health Care Directive) will
experience improved safety at case closure, as measured by an agency utilized database quarterly report.
80% 68%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Two significant triumphs of the CORE program's implementation has been our expanded service capacity and enhanced data collection, including identification and comparison of percentage breakdown of client demographic data. Our organization just completed the Herculean task of migrating decades of data into a sophisticated new Case Management System. We now have enhanced data collection tools, providing a more nuanced understanding of our service landscape and more effective case management. This analytical capability not only enhances our reporting accuracy for grant providers but also allows us to refine our service offerings and more effectively target the populations we serve, thereby elevating the impact of our work.

26.87 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Case 1: A low-income senior tenant had been dealing with unaddressed habitability issues in her unit for over two years, leading to health concerns and sleeping elsewhere. After the City of Santa Cruz issued a Notice of Violation, SLS intervened on her behalf. Our strong negotiations with the landlord, secured a $7,500 check to our client and two additional months for her to move out.

Case 2: After the Pajaro floods rendered our client's apartment uninhabitable, the landlord attempted to rent the unit to a new tenant at a higher price while I client was evacuated.

SLS intervened, sent a demand asserting the client's right to return under her existing lease terms. The landlord complied with the demand, allowing the client to return.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The most significant challenge we faced as an organization this year was transitioning our entire team and decades of data to a new software system. The transition necessitated several intensive training sessions, both with the new CMS migration team and with other legal aid agencies to learn the details of systems related to timekeeping, program management etc. Moreover, the departure of our experienced supervising attorney in November 2022 introduced a major test of adaptability. Yet, through these trials, we emerged stronger, now boasting a supervisory team of two adept attorneys, one of whom is a fluent Spanish speaker. These strategic transitions demonstrate our steadfast commitment to resilience and growth.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Overall, the CMS migration was very challenging, but we are proud to have accomplished the task. We are still in the process of educating our team on the importance of collecting all demographic data needed, and grantor data requests continue to increase. As but one example, on questions about ethnicity data from our clients, 17% identified as "unknown." It can be challenging when a client is in crisis mode to ensure re receive statistical or demographic data, but it is important and should be improved upon in our next report

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
If possible, our organization could benefit from an all-staff meeting about the importance of data collection. We believe hearing it directly from a grant funder might have greater impact to our staff.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our organization continues to strive for equity and inclusion and does ensure that DEI training is incorporated into staff knowledge. We were invited to participate in a yearlong DEI training last year hosted by the Community Foundation of San Benito County. This program offered Monthly meetings focused on a variety of topics and included a very enlightening internal equity analysis. Simply having these conversations and ensuring that our values on equity are included on our website and job postings can be important. All materials from these trainings have been shared with staff and recorded in organizational folders.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Ageism, discrimination, and elder abuse is rampant. Our organization has continued to receive increased requests for services and consequently provided increased services every year. Senior Legal Services (SLS) diligently safeguards seniors' rights by providing complimentary legal services to those most susceptible to exploitation, thereby fortifying their legal standing and security. In partnership with allied organizations, SLS orchestrates a comprehensive support system that amplifies its capacity to defend and uphold the rights of the elderly. Moreover, by conducting specialized informational classes.

26.88 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Santa Cruz Community Health Centers Program Name: Integrated Behavioral Health Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $134,100.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 223 170
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
All eligible (223) children will receive early autism
screenings through MCHAT tool 223 42
Begin Social and Emotional health screenings for all eligible (223) children, age 0-5 223 19
Staff the HealthySteps Program with one pediatric
developmental screener. 1 1
Staff the HealthySteps Program with one HealthySteps
SpecialistHealthySteps Specialist. 1 1
Staff the HealthySteps Program with one Pediatric Director as HealthySteps Champion. 1 1
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 100% 100%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 0% 0%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 72% 67%
Spanish 28% 32%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 1.50% 1%
Latino 46% 47%
Multi-racial 5% 6%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.50% 1%
White 45% 42%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 53.4 49%
Male 46.60% 51%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 4% 3%
Santa Cruz 52% 59%
Scotts Valley 5% 3%
Watsonville 10% 13%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 20% 5% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 8% 10% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 4%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 223 170
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 97%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
20% increase from previous year of in-office well-child visits to complete recommended screenings on schedule, as
measured by quarterly scheduling and no-show report data.

This will be collected and reviewed quarterly.
20% 0%
10% increase from previous year in referrals to Behavioral Health and Case Management support services for maternal depression screenings measured by patient records, reviewed quarterly.
10% 0%
2 pediatric development screeners, one specialist and the Pediatric Director/HealthySteps Champion, will be fully onboarded into their positions. information will be tracked using internal employment records. Employment records will be reviewed bi-annually.
100% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.89 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The entire WHC received four hour training to HealthySteps, and we have had several expanded team meetings involving our IT, Data, Operations, BH, Billing and other teams to form a collaborative clinical process for rolling out services. HealthySteps staff participated in multiple on going trainings to enhance their skills sets and we are working around logistical space constraints until our new facility is open, hopefully in late 2024.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
5-month old male currently enrolled in HealthySteps Tier 3 services, born prematurely and has been having different issues with feeding. Within the first 2 months patient was having stomach issues and formula changes were made with the support of HealthySteps, health care team and WIC. The new formula has minimized stomach issues and patient is no longer vomiting and is tolerating the new formula. Patient currently has been referred out to a few different specialists. Unfortunately, due to County scarcity and patient's insurance OT referral was scheduled in Santa Clara County. NO ROOM TO COMPLETE STORY: transportation, health, mother's mental health, visit consistency, relationship development, referrals successes.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Shared with the entire county: we had a record-breaking destructive Winter and Spring:
ongoing floods, transportation and telecomms interruptions, displacements and evacuations, we experienced a great deal of visit no-shows and cancelations. We had weeks and months of unexpected and random closures, changes to work hours and accessibility, as well as patients and families whose prioritized needs were constantly changing. As a wrap-around care program, we had significant drop off and disruption to service provision. Also, workflow started three months behind schedule so data reporting for that period is lower than expected. EHR does not link dyadic care so BH/CM referrals made for parent don't show in child record. Will review indicator.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Total patients listed here are reflective of all our patients, but there is not an option to recognize our screening calendar and the cadence of when different screens may or may not be administered. Women's Health was unable to capture certain data points until around August 2022 as we completed our full onboarding to the National Office that mandates our program.

Your reporting tool here doesn't even give me space to finish answering thoroughly. New data collection tool needed on this end.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
If we can find an IT solution wherein all our reporting systems can talk to each other, that would be great. Also, in order to offer a more comprehensive opportunity to gauge “happiness” or “success” rates of the program, we would like to look into collateral that can be given to patients, or funding to incorporate an additional option to complete a survey via our Family Support telephone line. Many companies now offer this short “customer service” option and we would like to do the same. If we are considering including an option on our in-clinic kiosk, we are looking at an expense of around $70/month. Around half our patients are telephonic visits so to investment to gather this grant data piece.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Chief Strategy and Impact Officer attended August 10th, National Health Centers Coffee Chat and presented on Housing and Health.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We continue to work with a Language Line for needed Interpretation services, and ensure that we are continually reviewing resources to make sure they address our patients’ levels of tech and language literacy. We are also gathering patient demographic data at our newest clinic, in an isolated part of the County via our Mountain Health Center in Ben Lomond. This past year has been ensuring we know what services we can administer there and hiring staff.

In the coming phases/year, we hope to begin rolling out limited support for positive parenting and enhanced patient support with particular members of the WHC HealthySteps staff.

26.90 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Live Earth Farm Discovery Program Program Name: Live Earth Farm Discovery Education Program Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $90,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 1808 2081
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
30 field trips per year 30 85
8 weeks of summer camp programs 8 8
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 20% 9%
6-18 66% 81%
19-59 4% 0%
60+ 10% 0%
Unknown 0% 10%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 60% 46%
Spanish 40% 54%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 5% 4%
Latino 40% 64%
Multi-racial 0% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 46% 31%
Other 8% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 50% 50%
Male 50% 50%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 13% 5%
Scotts Valley 0% 3%
Watsonville 38% 34%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 19% 17% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 41%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 1808 1032
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 80%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
100 % of field trip and summer camp participants will
demonstrate improved understanding or increased knowledge of nutritional concepts as measured by pre and post
assessment activities such as student, parent, and/or teacher surveys.
100% 87%
100% of field trip and summer camp participants will
demonstrate improved understanding of farming and
gardening skills as demonstrated by pre and post assessment activities such as student, parent, and/or teacher surveys. 100% 80%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
In Farm Discovery operated a successful educational program with CORE funding, engaging over 2,000 youth participants through field trips and summer camp - 42% are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Youth participated in meaningful, hands-on farming activities and received nutrition education and lessons in environmental stewardship.

Note on location: students came from outside of SC county, including - Santa clara: 16% Monterey: 22%

26.91 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A camp parent recently said: "I would highly recommend this camp! My son has completed two sessions and they have been his favorite thing all year. He looks forward to going to farm camp and wishes he could go all year round. The program is stimulating and active. He comes home with new knowledge every time and he can’t stop talking about his days there."

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Farm Discovery encountered a few challenges in terms of weather-related field trip cancellations and staffing limitations during summer camp last year.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We encountered challenges in collecting sufficient data from teachers and parents. Only half of engaged stakeholders filled out the survey.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
We are open to assistance in developing online surveys that are easy to navigate and fill out by stakeholders.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Farm Discovery leadership participated in racial equity training from The Adaway Group’s “Whiteness at Work'' that addresses implicit bias in the workplace and solutions to creating a more racially diverse and inclusive work culture. Additionally, Farm Discovery’s education staff participated in online training that addressed ways to create a safe learning experience for LGBTQ+ youth.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Farm Discovery’s Education Program ensures underserved youth have equitable access to farming education, nutrition education, and environmental stewardship education that overtime, leads to an increased connection to the natural world - paving the way for students to advocate for food systems, the health of their communities, and their local environment.

26.92 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Live Earth Farm Discovery Program Program Name: Live Earth Farm Discovery Program Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $90,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 7391 9642
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
1100 pounds of produce delivered to community partners
each week 1100 824
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 10% 10%
6-18 30% 30%
19-59 30% 31%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 30% 29%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 15% 20%
Spanish 85% 80%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 87% 91%
Multi-racial 0% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 7% 7%
Other 5% 0%
Unknown 0% 1%
Gender
Female 50% 62%
Male 50% 38%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 12% 0%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 82% 68%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 2% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 13%
Unknown 0% 19%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 7391 9600
100% of external partners will report high satisfaction with the quality and quantity of produce delivered as measured by a survey conducted by 6/30/2023.
100% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
70% of summer program participants will improve their
healthy eating behaviors, specifically participants will eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, as measured by pre and post program surveys.
70% 75%
100% of summer program participants will improve their
physical fitness by walking an average of 5 miles, 10,000 steps or 120 minutes each day during camp as measured by fitness tracking devices, reviewed weekly by program staff. 100% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Core funding in 2022-2023 enhanced our capacity to grow and distribute over 40,000 pounds of organic produce to our community partners (serving over 9,600 food pantry clients). Funding helped us hire one new field manager who is responsible for managing field operations and coordinating produce distribution to our external partners.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
"A working mom with 3 kids was crying as we brought her groceries from our pantry to her car. She was so thankful for you and us because gas prices have gone up making it nearly impossible for her and her husband (both working) to provide good food to their kids. As always, keep up the amazing work!" - Holy Cross Food Pantry

26.93 3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Farm Discovery’s field production was delayed due to extensive rain and cold weather from January to late March. This caused some challenges in meeting our weekly production quota and distributing enough to our three community partners.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
N/A

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Farm Discovery leadership participated in racial equity training from The Adaway Group’s “Whiteness at Work'' that addresses implicit bias in the workplace and solutions to creating a more racially diverse and inclusive work culture. Additionally, Farm Discovery’s education staff participated in online training that addressed ways to create a safe learning experience for LGBTQ+ youth.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Farm Discovery’s Produce Distribution program directly addresses the need for nutrition and food equity in majority agricultural communities - reaching underserved populations, including unhoused community members, senior citizens, children in foster care, and undocumented farm workers.

26.94 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Arts Council Santa Cruz County Program Name: Arts Council Santa Cruz County Condition: Lifelong Learning & Education Tier: Medium Budget: $36,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 15 12
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
33 trainings 33 32
In 2022-23, 1 Student Teacher Showcase in the Spring 1 1 Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 100% 83%
19-59 0% 17%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 15% 8%
Spanish 85% 92%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 0%
Asian 1% 0%
Latino 95% 95%
Multi-racial 3% 5%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 1% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 50% 83%
Male 50% 17%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 0% 0%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 95% 83%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 5% 17%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 15 12
80% of program participants will report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of participants will improve self-esteem, specifically participants will express an increase in confidence about themselves as capable artists, as measure by pre and post program surveys.
80% 80%
80% of program participants will increase their knowledge of the elements, principles, and techniques of their art from, as measured by pre and post program surveys.
80% 80%
80% of participants will improve their public speaking skills, specifically participants will express increased confidence in speaking in front of an audience, as measured by pre and post program surveys.
80% 90%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The increased amounts of meetings with Student Teachers gave everyone more opportunities for growth. Student Teachers were more confident working together, seeing each other every week in our beautiful new Arts Center, and all talked about appreciating the community they built. They were more confident in the classroom, having had more practice, and gained insight from our professional Teaching Artists. As a result, the year-end social justice projects were of higher quality and the students' words about their projects were more complex, thoughtful, and varied.

26.95 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
One Student Teacher, a freshman, said that being part of Mariposa Arts built her confidence and community and changed the direction of her life by encouraging her to strive for her goals and believe in herself.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The increase in California's minimum wage resulted in hiring fewer Student Teachers as our budget couldn't support the increase.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
N/A

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Equity is at the core of our work. Throughout this year, we addressed issues of program access - like transportation, communications, and technology. We worked to support all staff and program participants by providing support with scheduling, transportation, and healthy snacks for everyone involved.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We continued to address equity by broadening our outreach to High Schools and to different regions of the community we serve. We began this in the outreach phase and carried out this throughout the year by providing transportation to participants from a wide area.

26.96 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: New Life Community Services, Inc Program Name: New Life Community Services - Self-Pay program Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $49,500.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 60 60
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
412 days of residential SUDS treatment services for CORE program participants in self-pay program. Each residential day includes treatment programming, room and board, case management, and support services.
412 412
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 1% 0%
6-18 1% 0%
19-59 92% 100%
60+ 6% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 91% 90%
Spanish 9% 10%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 6% 1%
Asian 0% 1%
Latino 29% 22%
Multi-racial 0% 6%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 1%
White 56% 65%
Other 9% 3%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 28% 20%
Male 71% 79%
Transgender- Female 0% 1%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 1% 0%
Santa Cruz 49% 48%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 19% 20%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 1% 2% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 4% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 2% 0%
Unknown 22% 30%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 60 60
80% or more of CORE program participants will report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey conducted annually.
80% 87%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
Outcome #1: 90% of participants will have improved mental health, specifically a decrease in depression by the third month in treatment as measured by monthly PhQ-9 survey. 90% 93%
Outcome #2: 80% of participants have improved economic
stability, specifically by securing employment or enrolling in school by the end of the second month in treatment, as
measured by the monthly Outcomes Measurement tool.
80% 82%
Outcome #3: 90% of participants will connect with the
recovery community, as measured by participation in recovery support programs (such as 12-step, other) within 2 weeks of program as indicated by daily participant schedule.
90% 95%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.97 1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NLCS provided 412 bed days of addiction treatment services to 60 individuals who did not have insurance or resources to pay for the SUDS treatment services they desperately needed.

As indicated in our outcome measures, 87% were satisfied or very satisfied with the program services, 93% reported improved mental wellness, 82% obtained employment by the end of the second month in treatment, and over 95% engaged with the recovery support (12 step) programs within their first two weeks in treatment, helping set up individuals for success in recovery and to be productive members of our community.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A participant who we’ll call John, entered our treatment program for the second time in Sept 2022. He didn’t have insurance to cover the fees for the residential treatment he needed, so he came in under our self-pay program. John quickly began engaging in our services, gained employment, and connected to the 12-step recovery community. In March 2023, John successfully graduated from our residential program. Since that time, he has remained sober and employed, and he now comes to the program to help current participants get connected with jobs and recovery meetings.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

None - The self-pay program remains at the heart of our mission to make SUDS (addiction) treatment affordable to everyone. The CORE funding allows us to make those services available.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
We do not require any assistance at this time.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?

1.Conducted diversity/CLAS training for all employees

2.Hired more bilingual/bicultural staff - providing more bilingual/ bicultural services

3.Used CORE funding to provide SUDS treatment services to SC County residents without healthcare funding or other resources.

4.Received/ accepted referrals from other agencies that did not have a self-pay program (only accepted those with insurance).

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
DataShare SC Co Indicator (2019) reported 14.6% of adults in SC Co do not have any health insurance. DataShare (2017-2018) also states the 24.7% of adults had delays or difficulty obtaining medical care.

Approximately 32% of NLCS participants do not have insurance or resources to pay for treatment. These individuals would not have been able to receive residential treatment services from a state-licensed facility in Santa Cruz County without the CORE funding to cover those services
With CORE funding, NLCS was able to provide 412 treatment bed days to 60 of those participants who would not have received services otherwise and/ or would have experienced further delays.

26.98 FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Monarch Services Program Name: Positive Solutions Program Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $102,901.50 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 50 54
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Two rounds of 13-week Positive Solutions programming will be provided. 2 2
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 20% 0%
19-59 75% 100%
60+ 5% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 50% 100%
Spanish 50% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 0%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 55% 57%
Multi-racial 5% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 30% 42%
Other 9% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 40% 0%
Male 55% 99%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 5% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 1% 1%
Santa Cruz 33% 31%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 50% 53%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 10% 8% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 1% 1% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 3% 5%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 50 54
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/30/2023.
80% 90%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
90% of participants will be housed in safe and stable housing and will have adequate income to support themselves and their families within six months of completing Positive Solutions as measured by participants’ self-reporting at 6 and 12 month progress evaluation interviews.
90% 90%
75% of participants who complete the program and are
systems involved with Children and Family Services will at minimum exhibit healthy parenting skills and will model positive and healthy relationships to their children, as measured by increased visitations with their children and participant’s self-reporting at 6 and 12 month check in. 75% 80%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The Positive Solutions program has grown tremendously and is serving a much needed population in our community. There is no other organization in Santa Cruz County offering the same service and we are excited to move the program plans to reach more individuals.

26.99 2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Currently, our only hurdle is figuring out logistics for moving to an in-person group.

Referrals from community partners, direct clients of Monarch, local law enforcement, family court services and DCFS are finally coming in at a steadier pace. We will be adding a Spanish and female group by the fall, and we are excited about the program's growth and direction. Additionally, there has been some hurdles in getting the youth group up and running, but we are working closely with probation to ensure that we can carry the work with juvenile probation individuals as planned.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
There is no technical assistance needed.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Monarch continues to engage all staff in conversations that welcome feedback on programming and overall work environment. Our DEIB group is led by staff and they create spaces for staff to dialog and share so that their voices and ideas are heard. It's a great way to model accountability by staff and leadership. Additionally, each Monarch staff are provided an opportunity to create Individual Development Plans so that they can identify goals and areas where support is needed. The tool is then used during individual meetings with their supervisor to discuss progress and to gain mentorship.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The Positive Solutions program allows for individuals who are considered the person who has caused harm to also receive support and the tools to cope and heal. Historically, support has mostly only been provided to survivors, however, the other party deserves an opportunity to move forward, heal from their own trauma, build skills to cope and also unlearn behaviors. In order for families to be treated holistically and also be given a second chance, they need support and resources to do so. Monarch is able to fill a much needed gap in our community and is currently working towards making the resource known to additional groups and organizations.

26.100
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Program Name: Restorative Justice Programs Condition: Safe & Just Community Tier: Medium Budget: $41,850.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 50 265
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
150 Hours of Re-entry coaching 150 105
150 CBTI individual class hour 150 127
60 hours devoted to assistance with higher education
enrollment and financial aid applications 60 20
120 management hours devoted to assistance with
documentation (i.e., ID documents, social security,
notarization, etc.)
120 21
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 90% 93%
60+ 10% 5%
Unknown 0% 2%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 60% 0%
Spanish 40% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 100%
Ethnicity
African American 10% 2%
Asian 0% 1%
Latino 0% 31%
Multi-racial 5% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 35% 23%
Other 50% 0%
Unknown 0% 42%
Gender
Female 10% 10%
Male 90% 76%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 14%
Location
Capitola 7% 1%
Santa Cruz 20% 19%
Scotts Valley 2% 0%
Watsonville 15% 11%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 10% 2% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 10% 1% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 15% 2%
Unknown 20% 64%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 50 20
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/30/2023.
80% 100%
75% of people in post release services complete a 90-day reentry plan as measured by a review of participant records every 90 days.
75% 80%
90% of participants report they are satisfied or extremely satisfied with program services, as measured by a
CONTRACTOR- survey completed annually.
90% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
Outcome 1: 90% of people in Re-entry Services will be linked to 1-3 critical resources correlated with re-entry success, including assistance with transportation, housing, treatment, food, clothing, benefits enrollment, employment and
documents as measured by a review of participant service records every 90 days.
90% 100%
Outcome #2: 70% of people with Re-entry plans complete at least one identified goal in the first 90 days as measured by a review of participant records every 90 days.
70% 70%
Outcome #3: 80% of program participants who are enrolled in a higher education institution will complete and submit financial aid applications to help them pay for tuition and books. Submission of financial aid applications will be measured by participants’ self-reporting and a review of participants’ records.
80% 40%

26.101
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Our program achieved great success this year in multiple areas. At the beginning of the year, we had two key team members move out of Santa Cruz. We developed an entirely new Friends Outside team with a focus on increasing our bilingual, bicultural staff capacity. We now have a fully staffed team with two new bilingual team members. Additionally, we worked tirelessly to transition modified services and hours back to regular operations post COVID19. As a result of the new team and return to regular operations, we were able to achieve remarkable outcomes during the last three quarters of the year.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
In December 2022, AC, a 29 year old Latino male, came to Friends Outside seeking support for a parole mandated Anger Management course. AC was familiar with Friends Outside from former years of incarceration as a young adult in Santa Cruz Co jail. AC was highly motivated to move forward and make positive changes. He devoted two afternoons each week to meet with a CTBI facilitator and completed the evidenced based Anger Management curriculum in 10 weeks.

He stated, “I had no idea that controlling my anger would help me with so many other things! I make better decisions now and have problem solving skills that I can use in all sorts of beneficial ways”. AC hopes to discharge parole after 11 months.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Our Friends Outside program experienced two primary challenges during implementation of CORE funding this last year; staff turnover and disruptions in staffing/services from the flood disasters over winter. At the beginning of the grant year, Friends Outside had major staffing changes due to turnover and promotions. We spent the first two months building a new team of bilingual, bicultural staff. The team is fully staffed, trained and did an excellent job achieving grant outcomes the last three quarters of the year. Additionally, the major flooding this winter impacted multiple staff and clients in the program. We experienced a disruption in services for a few weeks while our community focused on recovery efforts.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We experienced some data collection inadequacies and data analysis challenges due to staff turnover. We determined that our data collection and analysis is accurate as of Q2 after current staff were adequately trained. Collection of all demographic information and outcomes were corrected to ensure accurate data reporting moving forward. There was also a significant change in services requested by inmates post release. Rather than involvement with school or employment search, participants were focused on obtaining shelter, food, clothing and other necessities.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
N/A

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
66% of new staff with Friends Outside are bilingual and all staff are culturally competent.

Staff understand the importance of implicit bias, are trained in serving those that have become institutionalized, and are advocates for the marginalized, discriminated and stigmatized in our community.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We have expanded access to services through increased staff and utilization of volunteers post pandemic. Volunteer capital allows us flexibility in service days and hours with limited funding provided. We have partnered with food pantries to have food on site during participant drop in hours, co-located services to both the Probation Success Center in Santa Cruz and the South County Success Center in Watsonville, provide bus passes to participants with transportation problems and have extended work hours allowing us to provide services after our clients are off work or have adequate child care in the evenings.

26.102
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Association of Faith Communities (AFC) of Santa Cruz County Program Name: Safe Spaces Condition: Stable, Affordable Housing & Shelter Tier: Medium Budget: $104,544.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 100 116
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
50 Needs and Assets Surveys will be completed. 50 85
50 Housing Plans will be created. 50 82
500 Case Management meetings will occur. 500 885
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 2% 2%
6-18 4% 2%
19-59 63% 68%
60+ 31% 28%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 90% 98%
Spanish 10% 2%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 7% 2%
Asian 1% 3%
Latino 8% 10%
Multi-racial 8% 8%
Native American/Alaskan 3% 6%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 72% 67%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 4%
Gender
Female 44% 48%
Male 54% 50%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 1% 0%
Other 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 50% 47%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 0% 0%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 50% 53% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 100 34
80% of CORE program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY
80% 91%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
Safe Spaces will increase our percentage of individuals exiting to positive housing destinations by 5% annually, using FY 2021 as a benchmark, in which 20% of individuals exiting moved to a positive housing destination. This data is tracked through the County’s Homeless Management Information
System and uses HUD definitions for positive housing
destinations.
5% 17%
Safe Spaces will decrease the percentage of adults exiting with no income by 5% annually, using FY 2021 as a
benchmark, in which 15% of adults exiting had no income.

This data is tracked in the County’s Homeless Management Information System via an intake interview, annual
assessment and exit interview.
5% -12%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We are very proud of our housing rate for the program. Seeing 37% of those exiting move to permanent housing outpaced our expectations.

26.103

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Implementing the program was not difficult, but we were surprised by the data around those exiting without income. 30% of those who exited without income exited to housing, indicating either incorrect reporting or that they may be applying for SSI. When we looked at those who did not exit to housing, 19% exited without income. There seemed to be a correlation between income and length of stay. 79% of those leaving without income stayed less than 3 months, well below our program average of almost 7 months.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Collecting the satisfaction survey proved more difficult than expected. Initially, we planned on giving it when a participant exited the program, but since a significant amount of people exit without notifying staff, this left gaps in data collection. We attempted to contact everyone to administer the survey, but had a low response rate. In the future, we’ll administer the survey at the 60 day mark.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Creating a standard electronic form for the satisfaction survey may be helpful. Sending a link to an e-survey would expedite the process.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our staff met weekly to debrief on issues related to housing inequity and how to problem solve them with program participants. This led to increased resource sharing, which we believe resulted in an increased housing rate. Additionally, the program added additional Spanish speaking staff to ensure equitable service.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
SafeSpaces addressed the equity issue of Stable and Affordable Housing and Shelter. The program served 16% more individuals than expected, and housed nearly twice as many as expected. We anticipated seeing a correlation between moving to permanent housing and connection to local faith communities, which tend to have well-resourced informal networks. (Note – the program does not require any connection to faith communities and ensures faith communities do proselytize participants.) Based on the data we collected, no such correlation exists. 38% who felt “very connected” to a faith community moved to permanent housing, while 36% who felt “somewhat connected,” 0% who felt “barely connected”, and 38% who didn’t feel connected were housed.

26.104
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Senior Network Services, Inc. Program Name: Santa Cruz County Aging & Disability Resource Connection (ADRC) Capacity Building Project
Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $47,250.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 40 50
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
1 SNS ADRC Specialist/Consultant will be hired and trained. 1 1 At least 3 ADRC community partners are identified and a taskforce is formed 3 5
1 roadmap for meeting California Department of Aging
ADRC requirements created for the project 1 1
40 Information, Referral, and Assistance (Enhanced I&R/A) intakes for ADRC-related inquiries provided through SNS’ established Senior Information & Referral program
40 58
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 15% 10%
60+ 85% 80%
Unknown 0% 10%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 85% 55%
Spanish 15% 40%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 5%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 1%
Asian 2% 1%
Latino 15% 60%
Multi-racial 4% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 70% 37%
Other 5% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 59% 49%
Male 40% 51%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 10% 3%
Santa Cruz 30% 17%
Scotts Valley 7% 6%
Watsonville 15% 50%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 20% 15% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 11% 3% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 5% 1%
Unknown 0% 5%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 40 40
80% of CORE program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied”with program services as measured by a participant survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY.
80% 85%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
By the end of the fiscal year, SNS will recruit, hire and train SNS’ ADRC Specialist/Consultant. This outcome is measured by having a person hired, operational and actively leading the project.
100% 100%
By the end of the fiscal year, an ADRC Taskforce will be established to advise the project and will include a minimum of 3 community partners. This outcome is measured by
having a minimum of 3 community partner organizations
identified and committed to participating in the ADRC
taskforce.
100% 100%
By the end of the fiscal year, SNS’ ADRC
Specialist/Consultant will create an ADRC Roadmap based on the California Department of Aging’s ADRC Requirements.

This outcome is measured by having a roadmap, complete
with benchmarks for key
100% 50%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.105

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
SNS hired a Director of Programs with a USC Masters in Gerontology, earlier this year. She has met with the AAA Special Projects Lead on the implementation of the Santa Cruz ADRC, and has identified four key local partners required to establish the ADRC. This individual is a formerly appointed member of the state’s ADRC Advisory Committee and worked as part of the ADRC Training Work Group.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Developing an ADRC is a multi-year undertaking that involves coordinating, in great detail, with a broad array of partners. Simply identifying the scope of partners, phases and integration issues is a challenge. An ADRC is also a program that will start slowly but build quickly once a foundation is established. Think of it like building a house, for months and months it's all groundwork...literally nothing to see but a hole in the ground with bits and pieces being added. However, once the foundation is set and the walls start going up progress becomes far more visible to the layperson. The ADRC is in the groundworks phase, as we expected at this point in the process.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
In FY 22/23 SNS moved from collecting data via an early database to implementing and collecting data via the platform Salesforce. Due to Salesforce’s sensitivity and precision in collecting and interpreting data, refining Salesforce as well as training staff to consistently accurately capture data via the platform has taken longer than anticipated and may have ultimately altered the final reportable numbers.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
None

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
With a staff of 20, SNS is proud to share that 50% are Persons of Color, Bi-Racial or Other.

Within the leadership of the organization, 55% are Persons of Color, Bi-Racial or Other.

Five staff members are bilingual –Spanish, 1 is bilingual-Farsi.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The organization has invested in its priority to outreach to communities of color by creating brochures and many of its forms in languages aside from English. We have fully bilingual-Spanish staff at each of our sites. Further, we are continually conducting and attending events to introduce services to these communities. All of this positively impacts equity.

26.106
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Program Name: Santa Cruz County Immigration Project/Thriving Immigrants Initiative
Condition: Economic Security & Mobility Tier: Medium Budget: $134,100.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 979 1010
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Immigration Legal Services 709 582
10 citizenship workshops to 270 participants 10 28
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 2% 2%
19-59 75% 88%
60+ 23% 10%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 23% 20%
Spanish 75% 79%
Other 2% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 0%
Asian 2% 1%
Latino 94% 96%
Multi-racial 0% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 1% 1%
Other 2% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 53% 60%
Male 45% 34%
Transgender- Female 0.50% 0%
Transgender- Male 0.50% 0%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 6%
Location
Capitola 1% 2%
Santa Cruz 12% 11%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 65% 63%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 12% 9% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 8% 5%
Unknown 0% 10%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 979 138
80% of CORE program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied”with program services as measured by a participant survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY.
80% 94%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
85% of those applying for DACA or citizenship will report feeling clear and confident about the steps necessary to complete the legal process, as measured by a post-survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY
85% 94%
The number of people accessing Immigration Legal Services in the City of Santa Cruz in FY2022-2023 will increase 25% over the baseline year of FY2021-2022, as measured by
number of cases opened for clients with a Santa Cruz address. 25% 8%
The number of people applying annually for citizenship at CAB will increase at least 10% over the baseline of 7/1/21- 6/30/22, as measured by number of naturalization cases
opened.
10% 0%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
This year the CAB Immigration Project & Thriving Immigrants Initiative built a strong foundation for the delivery of our CORE program. We launched a full-service immigration legal services office at 501 Soquel Avenue in Santa Cruz, met with 428 Santa Cruz County immigrants to promote the benefits of US citizenship, and provided professional immigration legal service—including DACA and Naturalization—to 592 County residents. A full 94% of those receiving our services reported feeling clear and confident about the next steps to take to secure their immigration status, setting them and their families on a path towards greater stability, prosperity, and civic engagement.

26.107

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Sofia first came to the CAB Immigration Project as a youth in 2013 to seek protection under the brand-new DACA program. Sofia had married a US citizen, but things went badly, and she found the need to seek refuge for herself and her two children in a domestic violence shelter. She reached out again to CAB soon after, and we were able to help her self-petition for legal permanent residency under the Violence Against Women Act. This year, 10 years after her initial DACA application, Sofia reached the conclusion of her immigration journey by filing for naturalization to US citizenship.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

While our survey showed satisfied clients, we fell short in our legal service numbers.

Services to City of Santa Cruz residents increased over the previous year, but we did not reach the 25% increase originally proposed, for 2 reasons: 1. We had to reduce our targets when our proposal was funded at less than requested; and 2. Lack of available office space delayed the expansion of our Santa Cruz office. While we successfully filed citizenship applications for 170 Santa Cruz County residents, a few staff transitions kept us from raising our citizenship numbers over the previous baseline. We now provide our full range of services in Santa Cruz, and we have trained new staff to file citizenship applications in the new grant year.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NA.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Best practices and innovations in survey design and implementation training.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
CAB has a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Through frequent program team meetings, every other month all-staff meetings, and professional development opportunities such as CAB’s internal Equity Academy, CAB staff are engaged in, trained on, and committed to infusing equity into service delivery. This includes ensuring that equity goals focused on representation, participation and outcomes attainment are met.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The CAB Immigration Project/Thriving Immigrants Initiative proposed to address the equity issue of immigration status. Every dimension of our CORE project does just that. DACA renewals provide those eligible with protection from deportation and the legal right to work. The immigration legal services we provided to City of Santa Cruz residents—including legal consultations, Temporary Protective Status applications for Ukrainians and Central Americans, and humanitarian and family-based applications for Legal Permanent Residence—give hope and stability to entire families. And finally, the naturalization services we promoted and provided with CORE funds complete the journey, allowing immigrants to become fully engaged US citizens.

26.108
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Family Service Agency of the Central Coast (FSA-CC) Program Name: Suicide Prevention Service of the Central Coast Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $42,525.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 0 83
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
100 calls answered. 24/7/365 multi-lingual suicide prevention and crisis lifeline 100 356
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 15.10% 10%
19-59 61.20% 54%
60+ 23.70% 5%
Unknown 0% 31%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 0% 97%
Spanish 0% 2%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 1%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 2%
Asian 0% 1%
Latino 0% 2%
Multi-racial 0% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 0% 41%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 54%
Gender
Female 55.10% 39%
Male 42.50% 54%
Transgender- Female 1.20% 0%
Transgender- Male 1.20% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 7%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 0% 0%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 0% 0%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 0 252
70% of calls will be answered within 20 seconds. Call time includes national and state routing which is typically 8 seconds. As measured by Vibrant, the nationwide phone call log service.
70% 90%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
90% of completed suicidal calls will result a safety plan or intervention through 911 as recorded in our web based ICarol. 90% 91% Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
To ensure that calls into our local Suicide & Crisis Lifeline were answered, answered quickly and professionally, SPS hired and trained 8 new Call Responders (total:22) and trained/retrained 59 volunteers. As a result of our intervention activities, more than 91% of callers assessed and determined to be at risk of suicide (completed calls) will have improved mental health outcomes, as evidenced by a personalized safety plan and agreement for immediate safety.

Total calls to our local lifeline: 356
Total calls to our 988 line: 3,510
Total Santa Cruz County Calls: 3,866

26.109

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
"This conversation was like the sun rising on a cloudy day, burning up the fog." - Feedback from someone who reached out and spoke with a Responder on our Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Responders.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

None at this time

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
None at this time

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Embedded in our SPS Responder training/curriculum and agency culture is a heightened awareness and expectation of cultural humility, sensitivity, cultural competence, diversity, lessening power imbalances and commitment to self-evaluation and being aware of personal biases, generalizations, and basic assumptions.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Behavioral health equity is the right of all individuals, regardless of race, age, ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or geographical location, to access high-quality and affordable healthcare services and support. Our Lifeline is free, anonymous, confidential, includes links to national Spanish, Veterans and LGBTQ+ lines - anyone can call from anywhere, anytime.

Given the growing mental health crisis in our County, expanding equitable use of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline contributes toward a stronger continuum of crisis care and, ultimately, save lives.”

26.110
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: The Diversity Center of Santa Cruz County Program Name: The Diversity Center’s Health and Wellbeing Initiative Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $111,600.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 450 463
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
strength-based case management 1 1
trauma informed care 1 1
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 37% 53%
19-59 27% 17%
60+ 36% 29%
Unknown 0% 1%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 80% 82%
Spanish 19% 15%
Other 1% 0%
Unknown 0% 3%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 1%
Asian 7% 1%
Latino 29% 15%
Multi-racial 7% 8%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 1%
White 50% 65%
Other 3% 8%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 25% 34%
Male 25% 6%
Transgender- Female 25% 15%
Transgender- Male 25% 16%
Other 0% 25%
Unknown 0% 4%
Location
Capitola 5% 4%
Santa Cruz 40% 29%
Scotts Valley 10% 16%
Watsonville 19% 18%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 13% 17% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 6%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 7% 5% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 5% 4%
Unknown 0% 1%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 450 228
80% of CORE program participants will report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey completed by June 30th of each fiscal year.”
80% 83%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of participants that receive TDC mental health services will report improved access to healthcare, specifically improved access to LGBTQ+ affirming healthcare as
measured by intake and post services surveys.
80% 75%
80% of participants will report improved mental health, specifically participants will self-report improvement in their overall well-being as measured by post services survey. 80% 50%
80% of participants will report increased feelings of
belonging to a community, specifically increased connection to the LGBTQ+ community, as measured by post services
surveys.
80% 75%
85% of gender expression and sexual orientation training audiences will have a better understanding of how to support the LGBTQ+ community as measured by a post survey
conducted at the end of the training.
85% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.111

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We experienced many successes, including:

Our Clinical Program Director began supervising one intern earlier than expected. Together, they held over 269 trauma-informed counseling sessions for youth, families, and seniors in Santa Cruz & Watsonville.

Our impactful new Manager of Programs provided a plethora of new programs and groups addressing the 8 Dimensions of Wellness. We found a location in Watsonville to offer counseling sessions and groups, including one in Spanish.

We hired a Volunteer Coordinator from Watsonville. She has revived LGBTQ+ trainings and volunteer speaker panels for nonprofits and schools.

We have successfully supported school GSA groups, and offered resources through our drop-in center.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Our services are making a meaningful difference in people's lives. A good example is the 15- year-old student (they/them/their) who was struggling with suicidal ideation in the Spring.

The student's transition to homeschooling made it challenging to access counseling services.

This family has a limited income and cannot afford to pay for therapy services at the rates charged by private practices in Santa Cruz.

Fortunately, TDC stepped in to provide free weekly counseling sessions to the family. The TDC counselor provided sessions using trauma-informed and family systems counseling techniques and clinical guidance by TDC's Clinical Director. Today the student is now free from suicidal thoughts and is excited about their future.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Staff recruitment and retention was a major challenge during this period. The high cost of living in Santa Cruz made it difficult to attract and retain quality employees. We have greatly improve our culture and have made ourselves an attractive employer.

We have formed a new team since the pandemic but are still looking for a Program Specialist and Director of Development. In the meantime, two UCSC interns have helped us execute our youth program. The Executive Director has also taken on additional development responsibilities while rebuilding the team.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Data collection has been challenging for several reasons. First, we have had difficulty getting participants to return surveys. We have started incentivizing younger participants with raffle entries, but we must find other ways to increase participation.

Second, CORE metrics do not always reflect the diversity of our youth participants. This is especially true for transgender and non-binary youth.

Finally, we adopted new data collection tools mid-year and have too many different surveys for the programs and populations, making it difficult to compile and analyze the data.

We are scheduling software demos, searching for better tools, and creating dashboards to make the data collection, compilation, and reporting process more manageable.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Nicole Lezin referred to Stephanie Evergreen during a recent Peer Learning Circle. I recommend bringing complicated topics out of peer learning and instead into sessions with experts such as Stephanie that can teach best practices for program evaluation and data collection designed especially for those that do not have a background in impact measurement.

We are especially interested in learning about advancements in software that can provide more accessible and automated data collection and reporting. Unfortunately, we are not finding this information despite many attempts to do so. We'd welcome your help identifying tools using advanced technology and/or AI solutions.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Our entire team is committed to advancing equality for LGBTQ+ individuals who are marginalized because of their gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. The CORE program allowed us the funding to have staff that, on a daily basis, continue too fight for equal rights for all members of the LGBTQ+ community. We do this through building resilience in members of the community, engaging in policy and advocacy efforts at national and local levels, and educating the public about LGBTQ+ people and issues which creates safer communities.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
TDC is committed to addressing equity in gender identity which is also core to our mission and daily work. We offer 4 groups a month for transgender folx. Staff took a 40-hour trainthe-trainer course to deliver Sexual Orientation Gender Identity and Expression trainings throughout the community. We revamped the Triangle Speaker program and launched a recruitment campaign to identify transgender speakers & demystify/normalize the transgender experience. Lastly, TDC has been part of several advocacy efforts at national and local levels through signing petitions, posting public responses to anti-transgender legislation, and attending school board meetings defending transgender rights.

26.112
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Monarch Services Program Name: Therapeutic Services Program Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $134,932.50 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 50 54
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
50 rounds of ongoing 12-week one on one therapy sessions will be provided to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.
50 52
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 1% 0%
6-18 44% 0%
19-59 53% 100%
60+ 2% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 40% 100%
Spanish 60% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0% 0%
Asian 0% 0%
Latino 65% 57%
Multi-racial 5% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 20% 42%
Other 9% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 80% 0%
Male 15% 99%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 5% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 1% 1%
Santa Cruz 33% 31%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 50% 53%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 10% 8% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 1% 1% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 3% 5%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 50 54
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/20/2023.
80% 90%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
90% of participants/survivors will have improved mental health, specifically participants/survivors will develop coping strategies that will increase their feelings of safety and security, as measured by participant statements and case management follow-up meetings.
90% 90%
85% of survivors participating in therapy will experience improved parent-child/youth relationships resulting from enhanced communication skills, as measured by continued participation in treatment plan, and tracked at six- and twelvemonth intervals. 85% 80%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The Therapeutic Services Program has been very successful. Several adult and youth survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault have been given the opportunity to receive much needed therapy. Without CORE finding, Monarch might be able to support so many survivors.

26.113

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

There have been no challenges in implementing the Therapeutic Services Program.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Currently, there is no technical assistance needed.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Monarch continues to engage all staff in conversations that welcome feedback on programming and overall work environment. Our DEIB group is led by staff and they create spaces for staff to dialog and share so that their voices and ideas are heard. It's a great way to model accountability by staff and leadership. Additionally, each Monarch staff are provided an opportunity to create Individual Development Plans so that they can identify goals and areas where support is needed. The tool is then used during individual meetings with their supervisor to discuss progress and to gain mentorship.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Monarch believes that providing therapy support is a service that all survivors should be able to access.

Behavioral health equity is the right of all individuals, regardless of race, age, ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or geographical location, to access high-quality and affordable healthcare services and support.

26.114
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Encompass Community Services Program Name: V.O.I.C.E. (Valuing Our Individual Client Experiences) Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Medium Budget: $130,718.70 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 800 800
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Install and set up FIT in the Pragmatic Tracker online system for 70 service providers 70 15
Train 70 users on platform access and effective use of the FIT approach to measurement-based care 70 15
By the end of year 1, 450 participants will provide feedback using FIT. 450 171
Conduct foundational trainings for staff in Multicultural Orientation/Multicultural Relational Perspective for staff across all programs.
300 171
Conduct foundational trainings for supervisors in
Multicultural Orientation/Multicultural Relational Perspective for staff across all programs.
60 64
Train 10 lead clinicians from across eight programs in the application and use DBT Skills Training 10 12
Staff facilitate DBT skill training in five programs with approximately 400 clients annually 400 165
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 1% 1%
6-18 42% 44%
19-59 52% 50%
60+ 5% 5%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 86% 84%
Spanish 14% 13%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 3%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 2%
Asian 1% 1%
Latino 50% 41%
Multi-racial 3% 3%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 1%
White 41% 40%
Other 2% 7%
Unknown 0% 5%
Gender
Female 39% 40%
Male 59% 60%
Transgender- Female 0.4% 0%
Transgender- Male 1.1% 0%
Other 0.3% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 2% 2%
Santa Cruz 39% 26%
Scotts Valley 3% 2%
Watsonville 35% 34%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 7% 6% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 14%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 6% 6% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 4% 4%
Unknown 3% 6%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 800 138
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/20/2023.
80% 87%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
By the end of year 1, 70% of staff will be measuring
therapeutic alliance using the client-completed Outcome Rating Scale administered after counseling sessions to
establish baseline values. Percentage of staff using FIT will be tracked by reviewing FIT utilization records as documented in the Pragmatic Tracker platform collected by June 30
70% 76%
By the end of year 1, 70% of staff will be measuring client outcomes using FIT to establish baseline outcome effect sizes* with a brief validated outcome measure specific to each program. Percentage of staff measuring baseline will be tracked by reviewing FIT utilization records as documented in the Pragmatic Tracker platform collected by June 30
70% 76%

26.115
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Multicultural Orientation (MCO) framework - Completed all Year-One activities.

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) - Completed all Year-One activities in quarter four.

FIT - Completed installing and setting up FIT in the Greenspace online system. Staff from three programs began to use FIT with clients.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
FIT - A Youth Services clinician shared a success using the ORS with a young client. The client completed the ORS online and based on scale ratings, clinician was able to ask follow up questions based on client's score. The clinician stated that it was the first experience for both clinician and client to discuss issues previously not shared. Client was able to open up and share with clinician and session was an opportunity to build stronger alliance.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Encompass experienced challenges in the FIT implementing process. Encompass had to select a new FIT platform vendor since the original vender's platform didn’t match new safety requirements. This caused an initial delay in the original implementation schedule. The Implementation Team worked closely to develop the FIT Greenspace platform to meet the unique needs of Encompass programs, including developing training modules and workflow guidelines for staff. This resulted in additional delay in onboarding users. As of June 2023, all workflows and procedures are in place. We anticipate onboarding all remaining users in Fall 2023 and meeting Year 2 deliverables as stated in our SOW.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Aligning and layering existing data systems historically used and adding the FIT Greenspace data system has been the challenge this year due to the time lapse of starting FIT. Most data elements are already tracked in existing systems. We were successfully able to add The Satisfaction survey in the last quarter. Therefore the Greenspace data collection system of the satisfaction survey number is lower than projected.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
N/A

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
The CORE program supported Encompass' Racial Equity Initiative. Encompass completed Year 1 goal of providing MCO training to both staff service providers and Supervisors/Managers. The MCO framework provided awareness and tools that will allow service providers to facilitate conversations about race or topics characterized by inequities in power and privilege with clients. Staff feedback of MCO training has been positive and reflects the dedication Encompass staff have to explore, learn and practice tools that increase equity and cultural awareness. Feedback from supervisors was positive. One comment from survey: “The focus on MCO in supervision was useful and made it readily applicable to my work. The model is easy to incorporate.+

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The Year 1 goal of focusing on strengthening the agencies core value of equity within all programs at Encompass was achieved by providing MCO training to staff. MCO trainings has strengthened our staff's ability to deliver culturally responsive services for our program participants. In addition, supervisors have also received MCO training to strengthen their skill level in cultural fortitude in their supervision with their staff and to support staff in strengthening their abilities to deliver effective and culturally sensitive services.

26.116
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Program Name: Empowered Aging Programs Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $40,500.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 450 382
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
32 Days of A Matter of Balance Programming 32 32
700 Stay Connected phone calls will be made to program
participants. 700 621
45,000 hours of Networking – AmeriCorp Senior hours of
pro-social activity. 45000 43535
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 0% 0%
60+ 100% 100%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 68% 76%
Spanish 32% 24%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 1%
Asian 1% 1%
Latino 15% 16%
Multi-racial 2% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 80% 78%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 2%
Gender
Female 70% 74%
Male 25% 23%
Transgender- Female 2.50% 1%
Transgender- Male 2.50% 1%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 1%
Location
Capitola 10% 8%
Santa Cruz 20% 24%
Scotts Valley 10% 9%
Watsonville 20% 18%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 20% 32% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 5% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 10% 5% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 5% 3%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 450 112
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023.
80% 92%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of all senior participants will report feeling less isolated due to engagement with one or more of our Empowered
Aging Programsas measured by post service surveys.
80% 84%
80% of Participants in Matter of Balance report increases in balance and mobility after completing the course as measured on pre and post-tests.
80% 87%
75% of Volunteers have improved socio-emotional
development; specifically engage in prosocial activities, as measured by time records quarterly.
75% 82%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We have achieved a better than expected success rate with implementing A Matter of Balance after COVID halted our in-person classes. We offered 3 classes over the last year with a 94% completion rate and almost 90% of participants reporting an increase in balance and mobility

26.117

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Mark, an AmeriCorps Senior/RSVP volunteer was contacted to help an elderly man in a mobile home park with a repair. The repair ended up to be a bigger project than he anticipated.

Instead of replacing a lose fence board, Mark ended up fixing a fence that was falling over into his neighbor’s yard and cleaning up piles of debris so that the senior would not be cited and fined by the mobile home park management. This volunteer helped that senior stay safe in the home he loved, but could no longer afford to maintain without our help.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Recruiting for A Matter of Balance coaches can be a challenge. Finding coaches with the right skill set and experience can be difficult.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
A challenge was collecting survey data with enough time to get all the results and compile the data. We should have started survey earlier.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
I’d like to know what (software or otherwise) programs HSD/CORE Institute recommend for data collection.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Attended trainings on inclusion for LGBTQ+; senior isolation. Increased spanish language outreach. Engaged entire staff in process to define and create spaces where all people feel "Safe and Welcome". Increased outreach to fixed income seniors in mobile home parks.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Our programs have been intentional in our efforts to disrupt the pattern of older adults as only "service recipients" and traditional clients of programs. Instead, we are redefining what it means to be an aging participant in our programs. We believe that everyone has the ability to volunteer and serve our community and that an individual can both give and receive help. Even those who may be considered "elderly" or "homebound" by society's terms, can be a valued volunteer from the comfort of their living space by engaging as a Stay Connected friendly caller. We outreach and present opportunities to volunteer and give back to our community so that older adults can feel a sense of purpose and empowerment.

26.118
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Program Name: Walnut Avenue Early Education Center Condition: Lifelong Learning & Education Tier: Medium Budget: $45,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 120 136
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
80 DRDP15 assessments will be completed and activities to address areas of educational need will be added into the daily classroom curriculum plans.
80 44
4 new quality EEC staff hired and compensated with a “living wage” and bilingual differentials as appropriate. 4 4
120 participants will have access to food via weekly food bags. 120 136
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 38% 26%
6-18 25% 39%
19-59 34% 34%
60+ 3% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 32% 22%
Spanish 61% 70%
Other 7% 3%
Unknown 0% 5%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 6%
Asian 1% 6%
Latino 85% 86%
Multi-racial 3% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 10% 1%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 49% 39%
Male 51% 61%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 6% 0%
Santa Cruz 77% 69%
Scotts Valley 11% 18%
Watsonville 6% 7%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 3% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 3% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 120 27
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey, that will be completed by 06/30 for each fiscal year.
80% 94%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of children in our EEC will score 4 or 5 (the two highest scores) on the DRDP15 assessment tool in all domain areas.

Scoring a 4 or higher indicates readiness for kindergarten. 80% 80%
80% of families will report on annual parent survey that their family is better off due to having the ability to seek
employment, work, go to school or have the time they need to seek housing (if they are unhoused), due to having care for their child at Walnut Avenue’s Early Education Center
80% 100%
100% of enrolled families will have access to our Food Pantry program (weekly supplemental food bags, toiletries and
diapers) and support with finding other needed community resources as measured by participant’s reporting needs during meetings with the Early Education Center Program
Administrator (EEC Admin). EEC Admin will document
resources requested and assess progress on an ongoing basis. 100% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.119

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)

1. We have addressed equity in pay by offering a living wage to childcare workers who are historically roles held by woman and POC. We were also able to exceed our goal related to program participants due to the outreach and coordination efforts of our administrative staff. Our teaching staff successfully focused curriculum plans on social-emotional development of the children, a critical piece of kindergarten readiness, because DRDP findings showed children were 6-8 months behind in development after the Covid19 Pandemic.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A parent reported on our survey that because of the access to early care and education at our center they were able to keep their job and housing.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

There is a teacher shortage in the childcare field. We are struggling to fill positions which limits our ability to provide more care for families that need it and limits the time staff have to complete their DRDPs. To address this we have changed supervision of the department from our Executive Director to the Director of Operations who will provide more oversight and support to the center.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Just that in the CORE reports ethnicity and race are all under ethnicity so our totals do not equal 100% because Latinx folks are noting they are Hispanic or Latino but also are reporting being Caucasian so we had to remove data to fit your reporting parameters.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Just clarity about question in 5.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We have an equity committee to facilitate discussion and keep the agency on track to include equity in all aspects of the center operations, we developed a DEI plan, we train all early education center staff on civil rights especially as it relates to our school food program, we have developed pay rate scales that take equity into account (experience & education) and we have redesigned spaces to make them more accessible.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Equitable access to affordable quality care so that parents/guardians who are experiencing a low income can work or go to school to increase income/financial security while also being provided wrap around social services from our organization. Our center provides equitable access to high-quality education and learning opportunities so that children have equity in school readiness.

26.120
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Coastal Watershed Council Program Name: Watershed Rangers Condition: Lifelong Learning & Education Tier: Medium Budget: $63,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 250 224
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
10 Watershed Rangers lesson series 10 10
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 100% 100%
19-59 0% 0%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 81% 83%
Spanish 19% 10%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 7%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 2%
Asian 4% 0%
Latino 41% 12%
Multi-racial 5% 12%
Native American/Alaskan 0.50% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.50% 0%
White 48% 57%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 17%
Gender
Female 48% 52%
Male 52% 36%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 12%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 100% 100%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 0% 0%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 250 224
80% of CORE program participants’ teachers will report
being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey completed by June 30th of each fiscal year.
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
70% of participants have improved mental health, specifically improved social emotional development, as indicated by: 1) an increased feeling of responsibility to help others, and/or 2) perceived ability to be effective in helping others as measured by an age-appropriate program survey using the Social and Personal Responsibility Scale at the end of the lesson series. 70% 91%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The Coastal Watershed Council’s Watershed Rangers program successfully integrated social and emotional learning (SEL) and equity-driven practices into its Watershed Rangers environmental education lesson series. The Watershed Rangers program fosters environmental awareness, literacy, and protection of the San Lorenzo River itself as well as the human communities that depend on a healthy San Lorenzo River. In partnership with 10 teachers from Bay View Elementary and Gault Elementary, 224 students successfully received unique education opportunities aligned with Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and completed student-driven action projects to empower others to support a healthier San Lorenzo River and community.

26.121

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
One student displayed disruptive behavior in his 3rd grade class. His teacher would reprimand him for speaking out of turn, which clearly embarrassed him, but did not change his behavior. Using the CASEL framework of Social and Emotional Learning, CWC redirected his energy. CWC encouraged responsible decision-making and self-awareness by providing him and his classmates with opportunities to share their ideas verbally in small groups in addition to writing in their journals. He immediately benefitted from being able to speak more during class and, over the duration of the 4-week program, not only was he speaking out of turn less often, but he also displayed better self-awareness when speaking and listening in small groups.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

One challenge had to do with the delivery of the CORE demographic survey (details shared below in response to question 5). An additional challenge was with two teachers who were unable to meet our agreed upon Watershed Rangers lesson series schedule. One of the two teachers overbooked her schedule, and unfortunately, we were unable to accommodate the changes she needed to participate in Watershed Rangers. The other teacher was unresponsive to Watershed Rangers emails following their registration for our program. These challenges resulted in our program reaching fewer students than anticipated, but also opened a window of opportunity to provide a lesson series for one teacher who had been put on a waitlist during program registration.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
As Watershed Rangers participants range from age 6 to 11, we had to request that parents fill out the form. As CWC delivers the program in partnership with schools and teachers, this required us to send the form home with students for their parents to complete. This was challenging to ensure that we received a response, and a larger challenge arose when we were contacted by a parent who had spoken with the school principal and was very upset by the content of the CORE student demographic survey. Their primary concern was that the content of the survey was inappropriate for their student to receive directly, given their age.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
We are grateful for the support of HSD staff for supporting our team in navigating the demographic survey challenge. We were able to adjust survey delivery and to include HSD staff in emails with the school principal who was concerned about the survey, given the parent complaint. By creating an accessible pathway for them to ask questions of HSD staff, we were able to alleviate the concerns and move forward with delivering the survey.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Coastal Watershed Council (CWC) CORE program staff engaged in equity related training and implemented changes to improve equity in Watershed Rangers. Staff participated in trainings led by Justice Outside to “engage in learning and practice toward greater equity and cultural relevancy.” CWC is now more equipped to support and uplift youth from populations facing inequity, specifically students of color who are low-income and/or English-language learners. In response to the question “How well did CWC support all students' voices and their participation in the classroom, including multi-lingual learners?” 100% of teachers responded with a score of 5 out of 5, which recognizes our effectiveness in increasing equity in youth education.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
The Watershed Rangers program is designed to address equity issues facing students of color, particularly those who are low-income and/or English-language learners. One teacher noted, “I loved how Sam really encouraged my Hispanic students to write or speak in the language they felt most comfortable in.” Thanks to CORE funding, CWC journals now feature Spanish text, and CWC has modified the language in student journals to support students in who are at a lower English reading level due to learning lag during the Covid-19 pandemic.

26.122
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Program Name: Youth Homeless Response Team Condition: Stable, Affordable Housing & Shelter Tier: Medium Budget: $134,550.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 100 177
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Case management services provided to 100 at-risk youth and young adults, primarily unaccompanied (U/YYA) and young children.
100 177
100 U/YYA and young children will be provided housing
navigation support and housing placement per their YSP/case manager identified need.
100 100
100 U/YYA and young children will be provided
education/vocational training or employment services, or access income strengthening supports.
100 100
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 18% 35%
6-18 10% 10%
19-59 72% 55%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 35% 37%
Spanish 60% 63%
Other 5% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 0%
Asian 1% 0%
Latino 81% 75%
Multi-racial 3% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 10% 24%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 1%
Gender
Female 50% 54%
Male 48% 45%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 1% 0%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 1% 0%
Santa Cruz 20% 23%
Scotts Valley 1% 0%
Watsonville 50% 45%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 12% 2% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 1% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 5% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 10% 0%
Unknown 0% 30%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 100 26
80% of core program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by June 30th by each FY
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
75% of U/YYA participants who develop a YSP will report improved mental health due to positive adult/peer connection, measured by post-service surveys by June 30 of the FY.
75% 92%
66% of U/YYA with YSP’s will report improved
economic/housing stability, as measured by quarterly postassistance housing retention surveys.66% 58% 60% U/YYA with YSP’s will report improved economic
stability due to education/training/job/income as measured by case notes in client files and client surveys.
60% 77%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
CAB’s YHRT was able to utilize the CORE client assistance funds to support with security deposits, utilities, move-in costs, furniture, transportation, etc. Overall, 84% of YHRT’s new 22-23 caseload have been stably housed!

26.123

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A youth came to us after being terminated from another housing program. After providing housing navigation, our program was able to cover all her move-in costs, as well as a purchase of new furniture. Now she and her babies have a safe and stable place to sleep at night.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

A challenge includes not having enough local affordable housing to place youth in our community. Many youth came to our program with little hope of finding stable, affordable housing. However, through advocacy and research, our case manager was able to successfully place many of them.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NA.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
NA.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
CAB has a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Through frequent program team meetings, every other month all-staff meetings, and professional development opportunities such as CAB’s internal Equity Academy, CAB staff are engaged in, trained on, and committed to infusing equity into service delivery. This includes ensuring that equity goals focused on representation, participation and outcomes attainment are met.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
CAB/HPIS' YHRT CORE equity issue is race/ethnicity. YHRT’s staff is bilingual and bicultural, and reflective of the community it serves, which is primarily Latinx Youth and Young Adults (YYA). In 2022/2023, YHRT’s CORE programming participants were 75% Latinx. Due to staff being community reflective, YHRT staff are able to provide housing navigation, case management and other services in a culturally competent manner, centering services on equity.

26.124
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Program Name: Youth Prevention Program Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Medium Budget: $27,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 75 69
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
24 Youth Advisory Meetings 24 29
100 Parenting Support 100 66
150 Youth Mentoring Sessions 150 178
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 20%
6-18 75% 65%
19-59 23% 15%
60+ 2% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 75% 95%
Spanish 25% 5%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 10% 20%
Asian 5% 5%
Latino 40% 32%
Multi-racial 10% 10%
Native American/Alaskan 2.50% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2.50% 2%
White 30% 31%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 42% 55%
Male 42% 29%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 1% 0%
Other 14% 16%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 5% 1%
Santa Cruz 45% 50%
Scotts Valley 5% 0%
Watsonville 12% 13%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 18% 32% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 12% 1% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 1% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 75 26
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/30 of each fiscal year.
80% 85%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
80% of participants in the Parenting Support Program will report improved confidence in their ability to build a healthy relationship with their children, as measured by participants self-reporting on post program surveys
80% 85%
80% of youth in the Mentoring Program will report an
increased confidence in recognizing safe and unsafe
relationship behaviors, as measured by participants selfreporting on post program surveys. 80% 90%
80% of youth participating in the Youth Advisory Committee will report, increased confidence in leadership skills, and selfadvocacy, as measured by participants self-reporting on post program surveys.
80% 80%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.125

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
The youth prevention program has successfully reestablished in-person prosocial opportunities for adolescent youth both on-site and in the community with our community partner, Nueva Vista Community Resources, in the form of a once-a-week Teen Group. The parenting support program was able to successfully provide culturally informed support to domestic violence survivor parents who were from communities of color, or whose children were biracial, neurodivergent, or had another marginalized identity. Finally, the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) trained and launched a pilot peer-educator program to support young people in becoming leaders and educating their peers on healthy and unhealthy relationships.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Parent M sought the guidance of the parenting support program after she discovered her son using a vape pen. Through the guidance of the parenting support program, M was able to develop an emotional regulation plan for herself in addition to taking steps in getting her son the support he needed to overcome his drug use. Parent M reports that due to the parenting support program, she used healthy communication skills, built and reinforce healthy boundaries within her family, and fostered a healthier relationship between herself and her son. By the time of the end of fiscal year 22-23, Parent M reports significant improvements in her son’s behavior and overall improvement to their parent-child relationship.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The only challenge our organization experienced in implementing the CORE funded program was the departure of one of our youth advocates. This put some of the work we had been doing, particularly around one-on-one mentoring, on pause until we were able to find another staff person to take on some of their work.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
For some of our programming, attendance by participating youth is very sporadic throughout the school year, so collecting quality data to determine the efficacy of programming for specific participants can prove difficult.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Provide workshops or toolkits on both quantitative and qualitative data collection options that can be applicable to groups of people with varied levels of participation in programming.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Throughout the year, we always kept checking in with each other as a team and gathered input from participants in order to ensure that equity was being ensured in our programming development and implementation processes. We primarily focused on ensuring our programming was accessible and relevant to LGBTQ+ youth and youth of color in our community.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We are addressing the equity issue of age through the Youth Advisory Committee to ensure that the voices of our youth are lifted, and programming is culturally responsive, relevant and age appropriate.

26.126
Large Tier
Contracts

26.127
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Senior Network Services, Inc. Program Name: Aging in Community Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Large Budget: $135,000.90 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 1200 2600
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
450 Medicare Counseling intakes/sessions 450 1299
850 Information, Assistance and Referral intakes/sessions 850 510 3 client education presentations 3 63
20 Housing Navigation intakes/sessions 20 59
3 Shared Housing Matches 3 3
5 Home Help Matches 5 13
3 Family Caregiver Support matches 3 12
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 5% 0%
19-59 85% 6%
60+ 10% 56%
Unknown 0% 38%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 85% 34%
Spanish 15% 8%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 58%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 2%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 15% 13%
Multi-racial 4% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 70% 49%
Other 5% 1%
Unknown 0% 33%
Gender
Female 59% 49%
Male 40% 23%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 28%
Location
Capitola 0% 4%
Santa Cruz 0% 32%
Scotts Valley 0% 4%
Watsonville 100% 16%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 0% 17% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 3% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 22%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 1200 1809
80% of CORE program participants report being either
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a one-question participant survey that will be completed by June 30th of each FY.
80% 85%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
By the end of the fiscal year, 85% of clients will report that SNS services helped support them in living independently (score of 4 or 5 on SNS survey).
85% 100%
By the end of the fiscal year, 85% of clients will report increased access to and better understanding of available senior services in their community (score of 4 or 5 on SNS survey).
85% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
A. During the fiscal year, SNS saw greater success in Medicare counseling sessions, as clients began to stir from being homebound out of fear of Covid. We saw great attendance at educational presentations, and a huge uptake in housing navigation opportunities. Caregiving grew and support matches increased as families ventured out and allowed individuals back into their home spaces.

26.128

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

A. Due in large part to the torrential rains which caused major flooding, power outages, mud slides and a lot of road closures in multiple areas of the county, during much of the time from January through late spring; we found ourselves almost completely overwhelmed by the phone calls and long lines of clients hoping to speak to someone for information and assistance. This is reflected in a larger number of “unknowns” in various reporting demographics as we were just trying to get to everyone and hear them out.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
A. In FY 22/23 SNS moved from collecting data via an early database to implementing and collecting data via the platform Salesforce. Due to Salesforce’s sensitivity and precision in collecting and interpreting data, refining Salesforce as well as training staff to consistently accurately capture data via the platform has taken longer than anticipated.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
None

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
A. With a staff of 20, SNS is proud to share that 50% are Persons of Color, Bi-Racial or Other. Within the leadership of the organization, 55% are Persons of Color, Bi-Racial or Other. Five staff members are bilingual –Spanish, 1 is bilingual-Farsi.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
A. The organization has invested in its priority to outreach to communities of color by creating brochures and many of its forms in languages aside from English. We have fully bilingual-Spanish staff at each of our sites. Further, we are continually conducting and attending events to introduce services to these communities. All of this positively impacts equity.

26.129
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Program Name: CAB - South County Housing Collaborative Condition: Stable, Affordable Housing & Shelter Tier: Large Budget: $314,550.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 325 379
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
CAB will assist 10-12 families at risk of eviction, with 1-2 months of rent assistance ($22,500 of CORE request) and assist homeless families with temporary motel stays pending shelter or RRH as funds/needs exist.
10 10
FIT will Rapidly Rehouse (RRH) approximately 8-9 homeless households and provide rent assistance if needed after RRH ($13,500 of CORE request).
8 6
CRLA will provide an expected 36 legal consultations to help referred families avoid eviction and strengthen tenant
education and knowledge around rights/responsibilities. FIT and CAB will provide MI and TIC informed case
management, financial/budgeting and individualized housing stability planning and support for clients.
36 91
PVSS will provide 10 referred families with shelter for up to 6 months and 30 transitionally housed families with services such as savings habits to support high rates of exit to permanent housing with savings.
10 11
PVUSD’s Healthy Start staff (RT) will identify and refer homeless/housing vulnerable students and families to CAB’s SCHC Coordinator, provide school support supplies including backpacks, clothing/hygiene items, enroll/renew families into health insurance and CalFresh and other behavioral health services.
1 110
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 10% 6%
6-18 38% 54%
19-59 50% 38%
60+ 2% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 10% 8%
Spanish 70% 90%
Other 20% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 0%
Asian 1% 0%
Latino 83% 91%
Multi-racial 3% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 2% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 0%
White 9% 9%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 58% 57%
Male 40% 43%
Transgender- Female 1% 0%
Transgender- Male 1% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 0% 0%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 75% 98%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 10 0% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 0% 0% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 15% 2%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 325 75
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?

26.130
100% of households receiving rent assistance and rapid
rehousing support will avoid eviction as measured by housing retention surveys (program developed) which will be
completed quarterly.
100% 100%
70% of households receiving rental assistance rapid rehousing support will remain housed 6 months post assistance, as measured by housing retention surveys. Surveys will be
completed after 6 months of housing.
70% 100%
85% of those receiving case management services will report improved economic stability as measured by post-service surveys (program developed).
85% 85%
75% of transitionally housed families will exit to permanent housing as measured by client surveys (program developed) and/or lease agreements and bank records by June 30 of the FY.
75% 85%
70% of served PVUSD students will have improved school
performance (attendance, improved grades, or reduced
disciplinary actions), as measured by PVUSD MARS
database records (program developed) by June 30 of FY.
70% 84%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
CAB and its SCHC partners thank the County for its CORE support, which has helped over 100 South County households with school aged children access shelter, avoid eviction, secure housing and school supplies and supports and legal assistance to improve their housing stability.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A client family was staying in a shelter with a newborn while fleeing domestic violence.

Facing multiple barriers, she worked with her SCHC partner case manager to access housing and apply for a housing voucher, which was granted. SCHC was able to assist with security deposit and now she and her children are safely housed.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The need for rent assistance and security deposits continues to outweigh demand for such assistance. However SCHC partners leverage resources as much as possible, and support light housing navigation for clients to secure housing to the extent possible with available infrastructure and staffing.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NA.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
NA.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
CAB and its SCHC partners have a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Through frequent program team meetings, CAB's every other month all-staff meetings, and professional development opportunities such as CAB’s internal Equity Academy as well as partners trainings, CAB/SCHC staff are engaged in, trained on, and committed to infusing equity into service delivery. This includes ensuring that equity goals focused on representation, participation and outcomes attainment are met.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
CAB/SCHC's CORE equity issue is race/ethnicity. CAB/SCHC's staff is bilingual and bicultural, and reflective of the community it serves, which is primarily homeless and housing vulnerable Latinx families. In 2022/2023, SCHC's CORE programming participants were 91% Latinx. Due to staff being community reflective, SCHC staff are able to provide rent assistance, RRH, case management and other services in a culturally competent manner, centering services on equity.

26.131
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Dientes Community Dental Care Program Name: Dientes Community Dental Care Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Large Budget: $194,040.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 8900 12319
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
32,040 Dental Visits 32040 45174
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 9% 8%
6-18 35% 32%
19-59 38% 40%
60+ 18% 20%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 52% 56%
Spanish 35% 35%
Other 7% 9%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 1% 1%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 37% 37%
Multi-racial 2% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 1 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1% 1%
White 44% 39%
Other 12% 1%
Unknown 0% 16%
Gender
Female 52% 51%
Male 48% 48%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 1%
Location
Capitola 4% 4%
Santa Cruz 24% 27%
Scotts Valley 3% 3%
Watsonville 25% 25%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 29% 26% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 1%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 6% 6% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 4% 3%
Unknown 3% 5%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 32040 12319
80% of patients report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with services as measured by a patient satisfaction survey completed by June 30th.
80% 95%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
45% of Dientes patients have improved physical health,
specifically oral health, as measured by the absence of caries at recall (cavities at checkup). Data will be gathered through electronic health records.
45% 55%
75% of Dientes patients will have access to a regular source of oral health care and establish a dental home, as measured by the number of patients who have received preventative care. Data will be gathered through electronic health records. 75% 89%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
During FY22-23, Dientes successfully surpassed our activity goals, serving 12,319 patients with 45,174 visits. Our growth in patients was due to the opening of a new 11-chair clinic in Live Oak on Capitola Road. After opening the new clinic in December 2022, we have been gradually ramping up operations and are excited to better meet the demand for affordable dental care.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Peggy, a 73-year-old resident of Westside Santa Cruz had no dental insurance. She could not afford to see the dentist and deferred care for years. Eventually, she had two crowns fall off revealing deteriorated teeth underneath. She came to Dientes where she received new crowns and other work to restore her smile. She stated, "I've been so appreciative, almost like a renewed hope. I always had a beautiful smile but over the years things just got worse. I was able to get my broken teeth fixed and I'm so grateful I will be smiling proudly again." Now, with access to regular care at Dientes, Peggy will be able to smile without shame, eat nutritious foods and talk clearly – restoring dignity through a healthy smile.

26.132

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

The biggest challenge in implementing the program is recruiting and retaining staff. Due to the high cost of living and lack of affordable housing in Santa Cruz County, it is difficult to recruit staff at all levels – from providers to front office staff. In response, Dientes has raised our minimum pay to $24/hour and improved benefits. We also have implemented several workforce development programs that give staff an opportunity to grow in their careers in exchange for commitment to Dientes. We have workforce development programs to grow and attract dentists (residency program), RDA with Extended Functions, RDAs, and Hygienists.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
N/A

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
We use electronic health records (Dentrix), Tableau and Practice Analytics to collect data.

These programs are unique to Dientes and therefore there’s little assistance HSD can provide.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
In FY22-23, Dientes started to provide DEI training to its management team, which includes the executive team as well as mid-level managers, clinic managers and Lead Dentists from each site. We have also prioritized equity issues at management and board meetings. We have begun to update and improve any policies with equity in mind. In the upcoming year, we look forward to expanding the DEI training to all staff.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Dientes intended to address equitable access to affordable, quality oral health care, specifically in regard to income. Of the over 12,000 patients we served, 97% live at or below the federal poverty level. Our priority is always to provide the best quality care regardless of income. As a critical part of the healthcare safety net in Santa Cruz County, we offer a dental home for low-income families. With sliding scale fees and free care for uninsured patients and the largest provider of care for those with Medicaid, Dientes’ program helps reduce cost as a barrier to care.

26.133
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Community Bridges Program Name: Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County (MOW) Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Large Budget: $405,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 284 284
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
24,533 Home Delivered Meals (HDM) will be provided to
qualifying older adults 24533 24533
3,991 Congregate Meals will be provided to any older adult 60+ 3991 3991
Qualifying adults will participate in the Fourteen Meals Strong program 32
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 0% 0%
6-18 0% 0%
19-59 1% 1%
60+ 99% 97%
Unknown 0% 2%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 85% 86%
Spanish 15% 14%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 1%
Asian 2% 2%
Latino 32% 30%
Multi-racial 2% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 2%
White 61% 61%
Other 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 1%
Gender
Female 56% 54%
Male 44% 44%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 2%
Location
Capitola 4% 4%
Santa Cruz 36% 28%
Scotts Valley 4% 4%
Watsonville 30% 24%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 12% 18% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 7% 8% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 7% 11%
Unknown 0% 3%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 284 117
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 6/30 of each fiscal year.
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
Economic Stability 80% of HDM seniors will report that they have improved housing stability as a result of receiving meals as measured by annual survey by June 30th of each FY.
80% 94%
Physical Health 85% of Congregate diners will report eating healthier as a result of participating at a dining site as measured by annual survey by June 30th of each FY.
85% 100%
Physical Health 85% of "14 Meals Strong" program
participants will show improved physical health as measured by their Nutritional Risk Score, assessed at six month
85% 85%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Meals on Wheels was able to improve access to nutritious meals for 284 eligible participants under this funding. Out of the total meals served, 24,533 were delivered directly to the residences of eligible adults, while 3,991 were provided to older adults who qualify at four dining sites located across the county.

26.134

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
“Bob”, a recipient of home delivered meals, lives alone in San Lorenzo Valley just above the river. He has suffered a stroke and finds many of the activities of daily living a challenge. This past winter we provided “Bob” with flashlights, batteries and shelf stable meals, contacted the Ben Lomond Fire Department to do welfare checks and even ensured “Bob’s” companion cat has food and TLC from Meals on Wheels.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

A surging older adult population means a soaring demand for meals. Only 284 older adults were served with CORE funds out of the total 1,563 clients. Fundraising was needed to meet the local need of 639 older adults, 28,524 meals were CORE funded while an additional 75,105 meals were unfunded by any other contract. Over 2,163 residents turn 65 yearly; many living on public benefits and struggling to survive in the Santa Cruz-Watsonville area, the most expensive rental area in the nation. Social Security payments are lagging behind inflation and food insecure seniors have more hospitalizations; 72% of our clients live in poverty, 56% live alone, 73% are at a high nutritional risk, 57% are disabled, 15% speak only Spanish, and 1% are unhoused.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
NA

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
No technical assistance is requested at this time.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
We believe that every eligible older adult should have access to meals. It is our innermost conviction that no older adults should be put on a waitlist for food due to poverty or hunger. In order to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, we provide DEI training programs for our staff. Together with our staff, we work on creating innovative menus that celebrate different ethnicities, offering a wider range of meal options. We also encourage continuous learning by providing resources, such as complimentary tickets to thoughtprovoking talks and book tours by renowned authors like Ibram X. Kendi and Nic Stone at Kaiser Arena. Each pair of tickets comes with a copy of the authors' recently published book, "How to be a (Young) Antiracist".

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
MOW impacted the equity issue of food insecurity by ensuring equal access to nutritious meals for older adults, regardless of their ability to contribute financially. This approach is particularly important considering that poverty rates are higher among ethnic minority groups. To address this, we have taken steps to diversify our food offerings to better suit the cultural preferences of the ethnic minority groups we serve. Additionally, we strive to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion through various initiatives. This includes offering educational programs and raising awareness through DEI training. We also provide agency employees with complimentary tickets to attend anti-racist talks, enabling them to confront biases and stereotypes.

26.135
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County Program Name: Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County Condition: Health & Wellness Tier: Large Budget: $224,382.60 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 65000 61397
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
10 million pounds of food distributed 10000000 1092366
40 Cooking Club sessions – 4 locations 40 25
6 nutrition workshop sessions 6 6
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 10% 9%
6-18 20% 12%
19-59 45% 62%
60+ 25% 17%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-2
Language
English 80% 79%
Spanish 20% 21%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 2% 1%
Asian 3% 5%
Latino 43% 57%
Multi-racial 17% 2%
Native American/Alaskan 0% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0%
White 35% 30%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 4%
Gender
Female 55% 55%
Male 45% 45%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 4% 1%
Santa Cruz 35% 23%
Scotts Valley 6% 2%
Watsonville 31% 48%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 7% 3% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 2% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 6% 4% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 9% 4%
Unknown 0% 15%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 65000 1686
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey, that will be completed by 06/30 for each fiscal year.
80% 99%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
Provide at least 10 million pounds of food for our partners to distribute to their clients. As measured by quantitative food distribution records. This data will be reviewed and
aggregated prior to the end of each FY.
100% 100%
10% increase over the previous fiscal year in the amount (lbs.) of food that our partners have the capacity to distribute to their clients, as measured by quantitative food distribution records tracked by our partner agencies. This data will be reviewed and aggregated prior to the end of each FY.
10% 1%
50% of Second Harvest's Cooking Club participants, children and adults, will improve their food literacy as measured by pre-post surveys.
50% 93%
50% of Nutrition Workshops participants will improve their understanding of healthy diet behaviors as measured by prepost workshops surveys.50% 95% Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
So far, this fiscal year we were able to host twenty-five cooking clubs at various locations such as Starlight Elementary after school program, one at New Image Apartments, and two with expecting mothers in collaboration with WIC. We are also taking time as the nutrition team to prepare ourselves to offer Nutrition education at every direct distribution site.

26.136

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
This period we have had our community of Pajaro go through a challenging time because of the levee breaking in March 2023. There was a time that a family of five all came to a community distribution, and they quickly told us their story of how the garage they were renting had been flooded and they were living in a motel and did not have a timeframe of when they would return to their home. It wasn’t a regular satisfaction survey, but the dad was very willing to express to us how supported he felt by the Food Bank and that his family did not know where they would be if they did not have our services. It truly brought joy to us hear from the community how much our work meant to them.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Our primary barrier this period was the reoccurring floods. Residents were forced to evacuate in the middle of the night after an atmospheric river surge broke the Pajaro Levee and sent flood waters flowing into the community. As a food bank we are first- responders and dropped our everyday tasks to help our community in need and provide them with the resources they needed.

We also find that language is a barrier to collecting data, most of our South County attendees speak only Mixteco.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
Collecting data during the winter months challenging as we paused much of our normal programs to respond to the federal disaster declarations.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
Survey tools and methodology

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
Every calendar year the food bank trains all staff on civil rights, focusing on the protected categories. We then provide a training for our volunteers that support us out in the community so they too know how to interact with our participants.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
We identified groups most in need of healthy foods and nutrition education. As a result, we partnered with WIC to provide nutrition education to pregnant women and teach them healthy recipes to encourage them stay healthy during their pregnancy. We also worked with our local farm workers in providing culturally appropriate food.

26.137
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: Ventures Program Name: Semillitas
Condition: Economic Security & Mobility Tier: Large Budget: $405,000.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 1755 2280
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
Universal, Automatic Enrollment in Semillitas for all Santa Cruz County newborn 100 100
Collaborate with partners to create health-related program milestones 3
Provide four family education in financial capability and child development workshops. 4 8
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 49% 50%
6-18 2% 1%
19-59 49% 49%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 51% 60%
Spanish 44% 36%
Other 5% 4%
Unknown 0% 0%
Ethnicity
African American 0.20% 1%
Asian 2.50% 3%
Latino 59% 58%
Multi-racial 1.10% 0%
Native American/Alaskan 0.30% 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.20% 1%
White 35.50% 37%
Other 1.20% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Gender
Female 48% 50%
Male 52% 50%
Transgender- Female 0% 0%
Transgender- Male 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Location
Capitola 2% 3%
Santa Cruz 23% 26%
Scotts Valley 2.60% 4%
Watsonville 51% 47%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 9% 8% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0.20% 1% Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 1.60% 6% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 6.40% 5%
Unknown 4.20% 0%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 1755 146
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey, that will be completed by 06/30 for each fiscal year.
80% 75%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
60% of MC eligible Semillitas families will qualify and obtain contributions to their Semillitas account based on achievement of at least one established Milestone as measured by data collected and shared by program partners.
60% 100%
Collaborate with at least two (2) partner agencies to establish and implement a clear and effective process for the referral and tracking of Semillitas parents’ participation in agencyprovided workshops on child development and effective parenting, as measured by partner agency agreements in place to launch the new Milestone Contribution in 2023.
2% 2%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.138

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
We were able to open 2,280 new (CSAs) for all newborns in Santa Cruz County with the support of CORE funds. In addition, Ventures collaborated with two new partners to establish and implement new Milestones Contributions. The first being the new Children’s Savings Account (CSA) Pilot, which launched in November 2022 with the Central Alliance for Health. This new partnership with Ventures on the CSA Pilot provides grant funding, collaborates on a data sharing agreement, supports evaluation design. The two-year CSA Pilot builds on Venture’s existing CSA program, Semillitas, and supports the addition of two health-related milestone contributions. Our second partnership was with First 5 Triple P – Positive Parenting Program.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
Citlali, a mother of a child enrolled in the Semillitas program, expressed her interest in learning more about saving and budgeting after attending one of our Salud Financiera workshops in December. She was not only inspired by the program but also motivated to open a new college savings account for her other child, who is not part of our Semillitas Program.

Citlali plans to contribute to both of her children’s college savings accounts to support their future studies.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Due to the severe storms and floods in the County, many of our families had been directly impacted by the flooding. The floods had caused road closures, making it even more challenging for families to access essential resources and attending workshops.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
n/a

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
n/a

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
All our staff have taken Racial Equity training to understand implicit bias and co-create with our community members. Equity is at the center of our organization and its approach.

Ventures believes that HOW the work is done is just as important as the work itself. As such, they are highly focused on defining and establishing community-owned structures. These structures ensure community members, and staff, hold decision-making power over policies and programs.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
Semillitas is designed to address current inequities and lead to the following communitylevel impacts under four, interconnected CORE Conditions: Improved social, emotional, and behavioral health of mothers and children (Health & Wellness, Thriving Families); Increased post-secondary educational attainment (Lifelong Learning & Education); and Increased assets and prosperity (Economic Security & Mobility).

We have established new partnerships with new opportunities for Milestones contributions which include parent education (positive parenting classes) milestone and 2-health related milestone contributions. This continues to encourage ongoing positive behaviors that address existing inequitable economic, health, and educational outcomes.

26.139
Targeted Impact Tier
Contracts

26.140
FY 22-23 Program Report
Agency Name: United Way of Santa Cruz County Program Name: Cradle to Career Condition: Thriving Families Tier: Targeted Budget: $715,500.00 Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Unduplicated Participants
Total UnduplicatedParticipants 385 408
How Many Activities/Services Will Be Provided?
3 new hires (Community Organizer deployed at 3 school
sites) 3 3
C2C Promotoras deployed at 3 schools 3 3
Develop initial collaborative action plans with two or more school districts 2 3
At least one new service or activity at 3 schools 1 1
Countywide Advisory Board in place 1 1
One or more Hopes and Dreams workshop at 3 schools 1 1
One or more designated youth-focus C2C Advisory Board
meetings with Youth Action Network members 1 1
Learning and Leadership Circle Formed and launched with two or more meetings held 2 2
Goal FY 22-23
Age
0-5 20% 13%
6-18 50% 46%
19-59 30% 41%
60+ 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 0%
Goal FY 22-23
Language
English 75% 27%
Spanish 25% 56%
Other 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 17%
Ethnicity
African American 3% 1%
Asian 5% 1%
Latino 50% 37%
Multi-racial 10% 1%
Native American/Alaskan 1% 1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.50% 2%
White 30.50% 19%
Other 0% 1%
Unknown 0% 37%
Gender
Female 48.50% 39%
Male 48.5 20%
Transgender- Female 0.50% 0%
Transgender- Male 0.50% 0%
Other 2% 0%
Unknown 0% 41%
Location
Capitola 0% 0%
Santa Cruz 34% 33%
Scotts Valley 0% 0%
Watsonville 0% 6%
Unincorporated Mid-County (e.g., Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos ) 33% 31% Unincorporated North County (e.g. , Davenport ) 0% 0%
Unincorporated San Lorenzo Valley (e.g., Ben Lomond ) 33% 19% Unincorporated South County (e.g., Freedom ) 0% 0%
Unknown 0% 11%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
How Well Did We Provide Service?
How many participiants did you survey? 385 83
80% of program participants report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with program services as measured by a onequestion participant survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Direct Services)
80% 88%
80% of people engaged with capacity-building activities report being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with participation as measured by a one-question survey that will be completed by 06/30/2023. (Capacity Building)
80% 100%
Goal FY 22-23 Goal FY 22-23
Is Anyone Better Off?
100% of participating schools will increase the number and diversity of services and supports at schools by one or more activities, measured by the development of MOUs by
06/30/23.
100% 100%
100% of participating schools will increase the number of families engaged with their student’s education at the school site, measured by counts of family engagement activities (ongoing, reported by 06/30/23).
100% 100%
Additional CORE Questions (The maximum length is limited to 750 characters in the below boxes)

26.141

1. Briefly describe any progress and/or successes your CORE program achieved implementing its activities during FY 2022- 2023. (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
C2C expanded to 3 new districts through 5 new schools as a result of CORE funding. MOUs were developed with each school, and infrastructure was built across districts to support partnerships. School leadership worked with C2C to assess their systems and structures of family engagement and equity. Community Organizers met and initiated relationships with the school staff and with families to understand their hopes and dreams for their children and for the school community. The Learning and Leadership Circle was launched, engaging families and formal decision-makers to identify policy priorities and build skills for change. The Circle was county-wide, engaging people from across the county.

2. (Optional, Success Stories) Please share a short story about the experience of a participant or family that received services funded through this contract during FY 2022-2023. Please state the specific activity that was provided and the impact or positive change that occurred as a result of the service(s) provided. *Please make sure to change any identifying
information, such as names.*
A mom from SCCS contacted a C2C Organizer to ask for support. She had found black mold growing in her apartment, making her daughter sick. The landlord responded by giving the family 30 days to move out. The Organizer immediately supported the mom in housing websites, building computer literacy skills, and providing translation. They checked in regularly. The Organizer continued to help the parent respond to emails and set up tours. Thankfully, the family successfully moved into a new apartment before the end of the month. She also applied for a new neighborhood low-income housing longer-term option. Lastly, the Organizer helped the parent sign her daughter up for the SC Soccer Camp Scholarship. She was very grateful for the support.

3. Please describe any challenges your agency experienced in implementing its CORE funded program.

Community Organizers had difficulty fully connecting and establishing themselves in 2 of the 3 new districts.C2C started its work in the new school sites mid-year, which wasn’t the ideal time for outreach. At least one of these districts, San Lorenzo Valley, experienced natural disasters that also impacted access. Office space was at a premium at all schools, and the Organizers did not have office space available to work at the school site. Often principals were very busy and did not have time to meet with the Organizer to troubleshoot challenges or approve the parent-requested activities and programming.C2C staff reviewed these challenges and identified new pathways and solutions for the 2023-24 school year.

4.Have you encountered challenges in collecting
CORE program or participant data?
Yes No

5. If you answered yes, what challenges did you experience? (Recommended 2-4 sentences)
C2C invested considerable time in developing data infrastructure, but it was not ready to fully implement during the reporting time frame. C2C also experienced setbacks in data sharing and privacy concerns with schools but will continue to work towards effective data sharing in service of students and families. Challenges with data collection are evidenced in “unknown” counts in some aspects of demographics.

6. What technical assistance can HSD or the CORE Institute provide to support your data collection activities?
There are also continued challenges in matching CORE data collection requirements to the C2C model. Defining “service” can be challenging, and asking families for demographic information has felt understandably uncomfortable for some C2C participants. In the next year, we will revise the data collection approach to better meet CORE needs and also hope to continue discussions about how to balance CORE expectations with what is realistic for families and schools to provide. for families and schools to provide. It may also help to include a place in reporting to provide additional explanations for counts and metrics.

7. During FY 2022-2023, did your CORE program staff
participate in a CORE Institute event (e.g., Coffee Chats or Conversations)?
Yes No

8. During FY 2022-2023, how did your CORE program
engage its staff on issues of equity?
The C2C Racial Equity committee developed and conducted Racial Equity training for staff, community partners, and Parent Coordinators. The committee is made up of both parents and C2C staff. The training, which was simultaneously translated, was facilitated by one of the C2C parents and a trainer. The committee agreed to bring this training to more Parent Leaders and the Promotoras, so all C2C participants will have shared language and understanding of racial equity and how to address inequities in the community.

9. In the CORE RFP, your program indicated an equity issue your program would address. How has your program
impacted this equity issue in FY 2022-2023?
C2C addressed equity at multiple levels. At the school/structure level, assessments with school leadership helped to identify strengths and gaps in school communication and family engagement opportunities. This assessment centered equity. At the individual level, C2C organizers focused on support for families that may face barriers to engaging with school.

Organizers accomplished this through personal outreach. Finally, and perhaps most impactfully, C2C addressed equity through listening and action. Organizers learned about issues and opportunities from families and supported relevant activities (e.g., technology workshops and summer program scholarships) to support children and families.

26.142
1 Overview of Emerging Themes from the Community Engagement Process • There was interest in clarifying the intent for CORE funding. Participants asked whether this money is intended for existing safety net services, for new innovative programs, or both? • Most believe funds should be distributed using a data informed approach aligned with an equity framework. Data should be disaggregated by age, geography, race and ethnicity. • Most believe the RFP should not prioritize applicants that have the ability to leverage funds (state and federal).
• Most believe the RFP should not score past performance of programs. • Most believe large agencies should be limited from applying for smaller grant amounts and that a large agency should be defined by both staff and budget size. • Most believe the RFP should set a cap on the total amount of CORE funding agencies can apply for.
• There was no alignment on how to prioritize the CORE funding by a population of focus (e.g., children or older adults), CORE condition, or region (e.g., San Lorenzo Valley or South County).
• There was no alignment on whether a percentage of CORE funding should be set aside (i.e., not included in the RFP process) for distribution after the recommended awards. • Any prioritization within the RFP should include evidence-based data, full transparency, and clear guidelines and parameters of the process.

Summary of Community Engagement Questions and Comments
In the community engagement sessions, respondents were shown graphics on the RFP process timeline and poverty data as a part of the discussion prompts, prior to being asked a series of questions. Survey respondents were also provided the poverty data followed by the same series of questions.

Request for Proposal (RFP) Process and Timeline
In the engagement and listening sessions respondents were shown a graphic of the RFP process and timeline. Feedback shared during the engagement sessions and the survey echoed themes raised during the most recent RFP Lessons Learned process.

Collective of Results and Evidence-based Investments (CORE) Request for Proposal (RFP) Community Engagement Process From October 16 through November 3, 2023, Human Services Staff (HSD) held 6 Community Engagement Sessions (4 virtual, 2 in-person) and provided an online survey about the CORE Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Both the engagement sessions and survey provided an opportunity to respond to questions regarding the CORE RFP process. This document provides a summary of those responses.

26.143
2 • Most appreciated that the RFP’s timeframe was extended from the last RFP. • Many wanted clearer definitions of who is eligible to apply, how equity will be operationalized, and the scoring rubric in the RFP.
• Many wanted the RFP Technical Assistance to have a more explicit focus on the scoring rubric used by the reviewers.
• Participants wanted increased panelist diversity in the scoring process of the RFP. • Most asked for the RFP to be simplified by making the application less time consuming and having clearer questions.

Using Data to Prioritize CORE Investments Funding
In both the engagement sessions and the survey, respondents were shown poverty data disaggregated by race as an example of using data to set funding priorities. They were asked how these data related to their work and other data points their organization uses. • Most participants stated their organizations are working directly with individuals in poverty or can connect different aspects of their work with the metric. • Many stated that you need more data/indicators than just poverty to understand community needs.
• Other data suggestions included community health, hospital, school, crime, populationspecific, geographically based, and climate data.

What are the equity implications of treating applicants differently based on whether they can leverage state and federal funds?
• Most participants were against treating applicants differently based on leveraging funds because it excluded many agencies that do not have the capacity to leverage state and federal funding sources.
• Some participants were in favor because it would allow more funding and resources to be brought into Santa Cruz County to amplify the work and services offered in the community.

What are the equity implications of treating applicants differently based on their prior contracted performance with the City and County? • Most participants were against this approach because it would favor already funded programs and may disadvantage new programs that do not have prior history as a contractor with the City and County.
• Some also questioned how this criterion would be incorporated fairly. For example, if an agency’s staff were different than a prior team, should they be accountable for prior performance issues?
• Some were in favor because it provides accountability with potential of an improvement plan and can result in funding effective and (data) proven programs.

26.144
3 What are the equity implications of excluding large agencies from applying in the small grant tier? How do we define a “large” agency? For example, is it based on the size of their budget versus staffing?
• Most were in favor because smaller agencies have fewer resources to apply for funding compared to larger agencies and this would allow a more equitable distribution in the community.
• Some were against because it puts artificial limits on larger agencies who still may have small programs (within their larger agency) that need funding. • Many participants suggested defining a large agency by their budget and staff size.

What are the equity implications when agencies are restricted from applying for unlimited or large proportions of CORE funding?
• Most participants were in favor because limits promote the local monies having a varied, collective impact on local needs by distributing funds among different programs. • Some were against because limits not based on merits restrict agencies from funding and resources that would allow them to expand important work in the community.

If a portion of the CORE funding were prioritized to meet specific critical community needs such as unsheltered individuals or natural disasters, what would be the equity implications in making this type of shift? • Opinions were divided on this approach, but most agreed that clear and evidence-based data would have to be provided to make this shift and justify the prioritization. • Those in favor thought CORE funding could be used to meet emerging needs in the community.
• Those against felt this would limit an already small pool of funding, which may further compound community inequities.

If a percentage of CORE funding was not included in the competitive RFP process and was set aside for distribution after the recommended awards are announced, what would the equity implications be?
• Opinions were divided on this item. Those in favor thought this could work if the decisions are based on data demonstrating needs and priority areas, including full transparency, clear guidelines, and parameters of the process.
• Those against felt the RFP process should dictate CORE funding, since all CORE conditions are important, and all other programs would have to compete. They also expressed this creates the opportunity of introducing political bias and conflict of interest from the Board of Supervisors and City Council and may threaten the integrity of CORE.

26.145
4 Major Themes and Suggestions
Agency on Aging (AAA) Santa Cruz County:
• CORE funding priorities should be clear and consider current and historically funded programs in its priorities, particularly those funding older adult services. • CORE funding decisions should account for both programs getting funded and those losing funding.
• Consider ways to increase the CORE budget to be able to fund more programs. • Consider how to make the RFP appeals process more transparent.

South County Triage Group:
• CORE should commit to disaggregating data by geography, race and ethnicity, income, age, and other factors.
• Include the Pajaro community residents in CORE and other county investments. • The CORE RFP review panels and any other decision-making body should be proportional, and representative of community members.
• CORE funding should be proportional to the needs in the community, based on data, and address the disproportionate needs of South County residents. • CORE funding should prioritize agencies with a confirmed commitment to equity, data disaggregation, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
• Align the CORE process with the City of Watsonville’s Health in All Policies and with Santa Cruz Health Services Strategic Plans.
• Consider prioritizing agencies engaged in anti-poverty prevention and service work.

Childhood Advisory Council
• CORE should consider funding early childcare programs, which have consistently been cut by the Board of Supervisors and the City of Santa Cruz. • CORE should clearly articulate its funding priority areas. This will help agencies understand whether or not they should apply for CORE funds. • Technical Assistance sessions for the CORE RFP should continue.

26.146
CORE Prioritization Methodology
The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments is both a funding model and a movement designed to equitably improve the well-being of county residents. Based on the 2022 Lessons Learned report and direction given to staff at the April 25, 2023 Board presentation to engage the community in a priorities and values conversation, prior to the next RFP draft, staff completed the analysis below. Specifically, staff looked at available data and reports as well as the County budget using the CORE Conditions of Health & Well-being equity framework.

Methodology Development
Through the CORE lessons learned, community engagement, county analysis and recent adoption of a County equity statement, key questions emerged about what data should be used to inform decision making for the limited General Fund dollars available through CORE. HSD developed a methodology to support prioritization of the limited CORE funding to create maximum equitable impact. The CORE Conditions of Health and Well-being (see Table 1) will continue to be used as the foundational equity framework to align strategic priorities. More information on this can be found at Santa Cruz (datasharescc.org).

Table 1: CORE Conditions of Health and Well-being
CORE Condition CORECommunity ImpactStatements
Lifelong Learning & Education ● Equitable access to high-quality education and learning opportunities ●Quality of education and learning opportunities and environments ● Participation in education and learning opportunities ● Skills & educational achievement
● Educational attainment & workforce readiness
Community Connectedness ●Connection to others
●Access to diverse community arts and cultural experiences ● Increased civic engagement
Thriving Families ● Increased resilience of children and youth ● Increased resilience among adults
● Increased resilience among older and dependent adults Healthy Environments ●Quality of the natural environment and natural resources ●Climate change resiliency
● Safe, affordable, accessible recreational spaces
● Safe, affordable, accessible transportation system
Stable, Affordable Housing &
Shelter
● Increased inventory of housing, especially affordable housing ● Increased availability of safe shelter
●Access to safe, stable, affordable housing
Safe & Just Community ● Individuals and families are free from all forms of violence ● Neighborhoods and communities are safe
● Justice systems are fair, restorative, and promote healing Health & Wellness ● Equitable access to affordable, quality care ●Appropriate utilization of care
●Behaviors that maintain or improve health
●Optimal health status
Economic Security & Social
Mobility
● Increased economic vitality
●Higher levels of self-sufficiency
● Increased social, economic, and occupational mobility ● Increased generational wealth

26.147
County Data + Funding Context = Impact Opportunity
CORE Conditions of Health & Well-being
The methodology requires leveraging the use of existing County reports, authored and presented by subject matter experts, to demonstrate critical needs in each of the CORE Conditions of Health and Well-being. This in addition to a high-level analysis of the current County budget deconstructed to align with the CORE Conditions of Health and Well-being (see Table 2) provide an opportunity to collectively impact identified needs in our community (see Table 3).

County Budget by CORE Condition
Summary
Analysis of the County budget is a multifaceted and nuanced process due to numerous funding sources and complexity within those sources. To better understand how the budget aligns with the CORE Conditions of Health & Well-being the FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget was apportioned into the CORE Conditions. The first column, “FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget Expenses” is how much money the County allocates to each CORE Condition followed by a column that demonstrates the overall percentage of the budget. The “General Fund Contribution” column is how much of our County’s discretionary revenue is assigned to each of the CORE Conditions followed by a column that demonstrates the percentage ofthe General Fund contribution. The majority (65%) of the General Fund is invested in Safe & Just Community.

Table 2: County Budget by CORE Condition*
CORE Condition
FY2023-24Adopted
BudgetExpenses
% of Adopted
BudgetExpenses
GeneralFund
Contribution
% ofGeneralFund
Contribution
Lifelong Learning & Education $ 8,911,187 1% $ - 0%
Community Connectedness $ 11,729,625 1% $ 11,008,854 5% Thriving Families $ 42,436,112 3% $ 956,411 0%
Healthy Environments $ 48,711,936 4% $ 10,432,322 5%
Stable, Affordable Housing &
Shelter $ 89,670,955 7% $ 6,555,997 3%
Safe & Just Community $ 247,688,955 20% $ 139,300,285 65% Health & Wellness $ 394,650,114 31% $ 21,717,831 10%
Economic Security & Social
Mobility $ 418,984,495 33% $ 25,728,274 12%
GrandTotal $ 1,262,783,380 100% $ 215,699,974 100%
*Each item in the current County Budget was assessed and allocated a primary CORE Condition. County operational costs were counted separately and spread proportionally amongst the CORE Conditions.

26.148
Table 3: County Budget by CORE Condition and Aligned County Reports CORE Condition
FY 2023-24
Adopted Budget
Expenses
% of
Budget
Expenses
Aligned County Reports and Highlighted Issues
Lifelong Learning &
Education $8,911,187 1%
Santa Cruz County Office of Education 2019-2024
Strategic Plan
Only half of all children ages 3-4 were enrolled in preschool or Transitional Kindergarten. (pg.6)
Santa Cruz County Early Care, Education, and After-School Care Strategic Plan - 2023
There is a shortage of about 14,700 spaces across all age groups in the County, or, 51% of children that need a childcare space do not have one, and 49% of demand for childcare for all ages is being met. (pg. 29)
Community
Connectedness $11,729,625 1%
A Santa Cruz Like Me
• 16% ofrepresentatives identify as Latino and 17% of
representatives identify as having a disability compared to 35% and 34% of the County population respectively. There was no young adult representation from the survey participation, compared to 13% of the County population. (pg.2)
• The City of Watsonville, which is 31% of the County population, is significantly underrepresented with only 16% representation in County Boards and Commissions. (pg.2)
Thriving Families $42,436,112 3%
Thrive by Five
Strong Start scores (max of 12) for the two largest cities, Santa Cruz (10.1) and Watsonville (8.5), illuminate geographic differences in the conditions into which children are born. The Strong Start Index can be used to understand the number of assets children have at birth, including identifying areas of the community in which children have fewer assets and where additional services and supports may be important to promote equity. (pg. 22)
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Board Memo- Update on AARP “Age Friendly” Designation August 8, 2023
Master Plan on Aging, 5 Bold Goals: Housing for all ages and stages, health reimagined, inclusion and equity not isolation, caregiving that works, affording aging need aligns with significant increase in older adult population in Santa Cruz County by year 2030 (presentation slides 5 & 6)
Healthy
Environments $48,711,936 4%
County of Santa Cruz Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled through higher density zoning for housing developments along transit corridors and optimize use of remote work. (pg. 39)
• Reduce at-risk communities from wildfire risk through improved forest health management. (pg. 49)

26.149
Stable, Affordable
Housing & Shelter $89,670,955 7%
Santa Cruz County Homeless Count and Survey
• Decrease in homelessness exceptfor an increase in the City of Watsonville. (pg. 13)
• A large number of people experiencing homelessness with a disabling condition. (pg. 24)
Safe & Just
Community $247,688,955 20%
Santa Cruz County CCP Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan
• Open and bring the South County Success Center to full operation, including services during non-traditional hours. (pg. 9) • Complete the survivor services system mapping and develop a plan and proposal for a Santa Cruz County Trauma Recovery Center that addresses specific populations to be served. (pg. 10) Health & Wellness $394,650,114 31%
SCC Community Health Improvement Plan
• Increase the number of children ages 0-5 in Santa Cruz County accessing quality dental care. (pg. 19)
• Increase access to quality and affordable primary care. (pg. 23) Economic Security
& Social Mobility $418,984,495 33%
Santa Cruz County State of the Workforce
• Housing costs continue to have sizable effects on the current and potential workforce for the county. (pg. 18)
• A declining and aging workforce in the transportation, water, housing, and energy sectors implies bigger problems in the future. These sectors will need to replenish and grow their labor force by tapping into younger talent and expanding the pipeline of potential workers. (pg. 25)
Recommendation
By using the methodology outlined above and with the information in the tables presented in this document HSD has developed a first recommendation to focus on CORE Conditions where additional General Fund investment will yield the greatest impact.

FY 2023-24
CORE Condition Adopted Budget
Expenses
% of
Budget
Expenses
Aligned County Reports and Highlighted Issues

26.150

26.151
• Recommended Actions
• Annual Report
• Community Engagement
• Next RFP: Prioritization
Agenda

26.152
• Accept & File Materials
• Direction on Staff Recommendations
• Direct Staff to return by April 30, 2024
Recommended Actions

26.153
• Promotion of Equity
• Data Framework & Transparency
• Key Trends
• Challenges
• Successes
Annual Report
Because of the access to early
care and education, I was able to
keep my job and housing.

26.154
Areas of alignment
• Prioritize disaggregated data & transparency
• Equity framework
• Cap the total amount one agency can apply
• Should not prioritize leveraging funds
• Limit large agencies from small grants
• RFP should not score past performance
Community Engagement
Areas without alignment
• Purpose of CORE funding
• How to prioritize CORE funding
• Set aside for elected officials
Community meetings and online survey

26.155
CORE Prioritization Methodology

26.156
Proposed Prioritization

26.157
Next RFP - Prioritization
Public Hearing opportunities: Prioritization

1. Today - staff recommendation to focus on 3 CORE conditions & any additional direction

2. Spring 2024 - Draft RFP, incorporating 12.12.23 Direction

3. Fall 2024 - Staff summary of applications received, seek final direction

4. Winter 2024 - Recommended Awards

26.158
Board of Supervisors Update
December 12, 2023, Board of Supervisors Action:

Approval of the staff recommended CORE Conditions, plus the addition of Healthy Environments.

26.159

26.160
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/21/2023
AGENDA OF: 01/09/2024
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing/Planning and Community Development/Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Revised Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Environmental Determination (ED/PL/PR)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution adopting the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report;
2) Adopt a resolution approving Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
3) Adopt the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan, subject to one of the following packages of modifications proposed by staff ; and
a) The Revised Master Plan, as is, plus additional revisions recommended in this report; or, b) The Revised Master Plan, with the alternative chapter for end of Wharf development and all references of the Landmark Building removed, plus additional revisions recommended in this report.
4) Direct staff to prepare a Public Works Plan with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for implementation of the Wharf Master Plan.

BACKGROUND: The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“Master Plan” or “WMP” or “Project”) is a 20 to 30-year vision to expand public safety and access, recreation, promote sustainability, and preserve the Wharf as an iconic historic asset. The Wharf Master Plan is now the product of roughly twelve (12) years of community engagement and planning. A thorough discussion of the EIR Process is included in the attached Planning Commission Report for the November 2, 2023, hearing.

The Master Plan was previously adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2020 and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was certified at the same time. Shortly thereafter, a group known as Don’t Morph the Wharf (DMTW) challenged the EIR in court, alleging that the City’s findings were inconsistent and inadequate basis for rejection of the “environmentally superior” alternative in the EIR (“Alternative 2”), that would have removed the

27.1 Westside Walkway; and, that the City had not properly evaluated and mitigated perceived impacts to historic resources, aesthetics, and recreation and related land use policies, amongst other claims. In February 2022, the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (Court) ruled in favor of DMTW on limited grounds, unrelated to historical impacts or the Westside Walkway, and ordered that the EIR and Wharf Master Plan be rescinded.

Specifically, the Court ordered that the City had not sufficiently supported its analysis and conclusions related to potential recreation impacts and related land use policies and that the City’s reasons for rejecting Alternative 2 in its findings of fact did not adequately “bridge the analytical gap” between analysis and decision-making, consistent with rationale allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Related to these issues, the Court found that the City Council’s commitment in last minute changes to the adopted Wharf Master Plan to preserve or relocate the “sea lion viewing holes” did not include sufficient analysis demonstrating that doing so was feasible and had clear objective standards. The Court upheld the adequacy of the remaining EIR however, including the finding of no significant impacts to historic resources, aesthetics and views. In doing so, the Court effectively ruled that the remainder of the EIR, which includes historical, biological, and aesthetic analysis, among many other topics, is adequate to support informed decision making, contains appropriate support for its findings and mitigation, and does not need revision or corrections. The Court decision also considered only the adequacy of the EIR and related findings and made no statements against the Master Plan itself. The City retains its substantial discretion over whether to approve the Plan or any component therein; so long as the revised EIR and the revised findings of fact address the issues identified by the Court and comply with CEQA.

Since the Court did not fault remaining sections of the EIR, the rest of the analysis remains substantially unchanged and complete. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows lead agencies to recirculate only the chapters or portions of the Draft EIR that have been revised.

The lead agency may also request that reviewers limit comments to the revised sections, and the agency need only respond to comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the revised Draft EIR sections. The City used this approach with recirculation of the new EIR section and Summary of Impacts related to recreation and land use, and clarifying statements in the project summary and project description. All revised sections were circulated for the required 45-day public comment in the Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR) from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023.

An online community meeting was held during the public comment period that attracted 31 total attendees, including five staff. All comments received on the RPDEIR are responded to by the City in the Final EIR (FEIR) – Volume 2. The City also received some comments on other sections of the EIR that were not revised and are not subject to the court ruling. For these comments, staff provided citations in the FEIR – Volume 2 directing readers to the appropriate EIR section and/or to previous responses already included original FEIR (Volume 1), although this level of response is not required under CEQA. Additional information on this process can be found in the FEIR – Volume 2 or in the attached Staff Report from Planning Commission (Attachment 5). A Notice of Availability for the Final EIR – Volume 2 was published on September 1, 2023 and noticed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on September 7 and 10, 2023.

The updated Wharf Master Plan EIR analysis includes both RPDEIR revisions and the FEIR Volume 2, as well as unchanged sections of the EIR not found by the Court to be flawed. These combined volumes, together with the counsel of advisory commissions (discussed below)

27.2 provide a comprehensive record for City Council deliberation on whether to recertify the EIR and adopt the Wharf Master Plan and associated resolutions. The revised Wharf Master Plan and Draft EIR, RPDEIR, and FEIR Volumes 1 and 2 are all available online with other relevant documents at the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Resource Page (https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/economicdevelopment/development-projects/santa-cruz-wharf-master-plan). Should the City Council approve the staff recommendation, the City would then file a return to the writ that documents compliance with the Court ruling and CEQA. The proposed recommendation also directs staff to work with the Coastal Commission on a Public Works Plan that would provide a framework for future permitting of proposed Master Plan improvements.

As the majority of the Wharf Master Plan EIR has not been changed, this staff report largely focuses on new information provided in the RPDEIR and FEIR, results of renewed public process and hearings, and revisions to the Wharf Master Plan.

Policies and Actions
The Wharf Master Plan includes policies and actions for the preservation, restoration, improvement, and management of the Wharf, some of which recognize the Wharf’s potential as a more significant recreational resource within the unique environment of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). Wharf Master Plan policies and actions related to enhancement of recreational and public access are found in Table 4.8-1 (Attachment 6).

Proposed Facilities
The proposed Wharf Master Plan includes a range of recommendations for new facilities and improvements that would expand, enhance, and improve upon existing recreational facilities and uses at the Wharf. These also include proposals to enhance cultural, educational, and scientific research opportunities, as well as traditional recreation and commercial uses. Key improvements proposed are described in the EIR Project Description and are portrayed with the concept plan in Attachement 7 (Figure 3-2).

Summary of RPDEIR Analysis
The recreation chapter added with the RPDEIR, and in response to the Court ruling, views recreation holistically using the most expansive definition of “recreation” and “recreation facility” in California law. The Santa Cruz Wharf is a unique, multi-use commercial and recreational facility that offers a diverse array of recreational and cultural opportunities. Many of these activities do not fit cleanly within the City’s definitions of recreation, which generally relate to outdoor activity, play, and sports. For this reason and to ensure the analysis would be as complete as possible, the broader state definition was used. A brief overview of the RPDEIR recreational analysis is provided below, but a more thorough summary of the analysis can be found in the attached Planning Commission Report from November 2, 2023. No new significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified, nor are any updated mitigation measures needed as a result of the RPDEIR analysis.

Land Use Policy Consistency
Alignment of the Wharf Master Plan with recreation policies in adopted land use documents is summarized below, and a complete analysis of the Wharf Master Plan for consistency is provided in the RPDEIR. In-depth discussion can be found in the Planning Commission staff report for November 2, 2023, and an updated summary of General Plan and Local Coastal Program determinations of consistency is attached to this report. The Wharf Master Plan,

27.3 including its policies and proposed improvements, are consistent with Parks and Recreation and Land Use elements and policies of the following relevant plans:
• Santa Cruz General Plan 2030
• Local Coastal Program
• California Coastal Act
• Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan
• City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030
• Santa Cruz Active Transportation Plan
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan Specifically, the WMP would protect and expand public access to an existing coastal recreation resource, would not interfere with public access to the coast, would not reduce fishing access, would expand multi-modal access to the coast, increase recreational and economic opportunities at the Wharf, and would not intrude upon public beaches or coastal bluffs.

Recreational Impact Thresholds
In accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines (including Appendix G), City of Santa Cruz plans, policies and/or guidelines, including City CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, and agency and professional standards, the RPDEIR considered whether the project’s recreationrelated impact would be considered significant if the project would:

REC-1 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

REC-2 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
REC-3 Conflict with established recreational, educational, cultural, or scientific uses or policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area.

Based on criteria REC- 1, adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would lead to future construction of improvements to the Wharf, which would result in physical alterations to the wharf structure and potential significant impacts to biological resources and marine water quality, as previously identified in the original Draft EIR. Significant impacts resulting from construction of improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan are addressed in the attached Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. All indirect and potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the previously proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, potential indirect impacts resulting from development of new and expanded recreational facilities are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures include marine life and bird nest monitoring, soft start and cushion blocks for pile driving, exclusion zones, and waste capture and hazardous materials/fuel containment to avoid water quality impacts, among others.

Under the REC-2 thresholds, impacts are considered less-than-significant. The analysis finds that implementation of the Master Plan would potentially increase use of the Wharf, but would largely align with broader population and visitation trends, including crowds that would be better accommodated through the expanded public space and mobility improvements proposed in the

27.4 Master Plan. Commercial infill and greater seasonality enabled by year-round events at new public buildings like the Events Pavilion will also help increase revenues for maintenance and Wharf operations, offsetting wear. Similarly, new walkways and widening around the Wharf will wrap the existing structure in a protective layer of new infrastructure. This will help protect vulnerable pilings beneath buildings, above deck structures, and allow the Wharf Crew to focus on maintenance of the aging Wharf core.

The REC-3 threshold considers whether improvements proposed in the Wharf Master Plan would conflict with existing recreational facility uses or policies. The proposed Project would not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf or conflict with policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area (PR-3), including fishing, which was an identified concern of the Court. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Improvements recommended in the Wharf Master Plan would provide new and enhanced public access and recreational facilities, including more space overall for fishing, while also wrapping the Wharf in a protective layer of new publicly accessible recreation facilities.

Recreational Opportunities
The Wharf and its surroundings are home to a wide variety of recreational activities, almost all of which would expand or be enhanced through implementation of the Master Plan. The following opportunities for recreational activities were evaluated in the RPDEIR, which contains the complete analysis. A summary of findings is provided in the attached Planning Commission report and relevant exhibits are provided. Notable takeaways are detailed below and no significant environmental impacts were found for the activities studied:
• Walking, Biking, and Active Transportation
o Expands Wharf perimeter by 11% and creates a 1-mile circuit around the Wharf, that connects to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail. o The East Promenade and separated fishing areas will eliminate access conflicts between fishers and pedestrians, including those with mobility challenges, and would separate bikes and pedestrians from vehicle lanes. o The Westside Walkway would provide new multi-modal access along the western wharf where access is currently restricted and would reduce the areas that are currently restricted access by approximately 22% or over 320 linear feet. • Nature and Wildlife Viewing (Attachment 9)
o Preserves existing viewing opportunities, including the sea lion viewing holes.

Several feasible ways to achieve this previous Council commitment are included in Figure 4.8-8.
o Expands viewing areas with the Westside Walkway, Terrace Overlook, belowdeck viewing, wharf-edge seating, second-story uses, and overwater permeable decking, among others.
o Wi-fi and communications infrastructure could open new digital viewing and interpretive opportunities, not only on-site but also around the world. • Recreational Fishing
o Fishing would remain free of charge and not subject to fishing licenses as currently allowed under state law.

27.5 o Overall fishing opportunities would expand by 21% (nearly 1,000 linear feet) and fishing would be preserved or expanded in each of the fishing zones studied.  Zones depict distinct experiences and typical catch nearby. o New seating along the East Promenade would preserve fishing opportunities, while reducing pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with “tailgate” fishing. The new separated seating along the Wharf edge would remain conveniently close to parking (~20-feet away), and would include new accessible ramps and ADA parking.
o “Tailgate” fishing, however, would be limited to pathways wider than 10 feet, where conflicts with pedestrians and other activities could be minimized. This would reduce fishing directly from tailgates by about 1,705 linear feet, while roughly 822 linear feet would remain, providing about 80-100 parking spaces out of the existing 440 would remain available.
 Tailgate fishing would be available in each of the current fishing zones, as depicted in Figure 4.8-4, and would primarily occur in the East Parking Lot, near Lifeguard HQ, or in the roundabout area by Stagnaro’s. • Small Craft Boating
o Existing boating operations would be consolidated into the new Small Boat Landing and upgraded with new universal water access for those with mobility challenges (i.e., ADA-accessible).
o Vessels, like the MBARI research vessel Rachel Carson, which may draft too deeply for the Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor and are generally expected to reach a maximum size of about 200 tons or 120 feet in length, would be able to access Santa Cruz via the South Landing.
o Combined boat landing would support visitation by recreational boaters along the National Marine Highway, as well as allow bay cruises, whale watches, commercial fish landings, fishing charters, and emergency water access, among other uses.
o Recreational boating opportunities would expand through the new landings. • Open Water Sports
o New universally accessible water access would be created via the new landings and the Open Water Swim Float along the west side of the Wharf., o Enhanced lifeguard facilities would improve marine safety and response for water sports.
• Education and Science
o Three new public buildings support public or quasi-public cultural uses, which may include museums, educational or research facilities, and a welcome center. o The Wharf Interpretive Plan would balance and provide guidance on the many diverse educational narratives available at the Wharf which may include history, science and the environment, and cultural topics.
o Ongoing and future partnerships with local and regional education and research partners would be supported through Master Plan policies and initiatives. • Cultural Activities, Events, and Entertainment
o New public buildings would also expand capacity for year-round events and entertainment, especially in and around the Event Pavilion.

27.6 o New multi-modal improvements like the East Promenade and Westside Walkway will increase access and capacity for events, reducing the reliance on parking. o Public art and cultural materials are anticipated as part of the Wharf Interpretive Plan and are likely to increase.
• Dining and Shopping
o Commercial infill (up to 4,000-square feet), second-story additions (up to 18,000 square feet), and “liner uses” outlined in the Design Standards, would diversify opportunities and access to existing dining and shopping. “Liner uses” are smaller, secondary uses that occupy spaces along otherwise blank building facades to better activate the pedestrian realm.
o Complementary commercial uses, like gift shops or cafés could also be integrated into new public structures.
• Temporary “Pop-up” Recreation
o Implementation of the Master Plan and the Wharf’s historic nature of change and adaptation will continue to provide new opportunities for temporary activations, prototyping new ideas and best practices, and programming public space based on changing needs and desires of the community.

Findings and Project Alternatives
The proposed CEQA Findings of Fact, with discussion of Alternative 2 (the WMP without the Western Walkway) feasibility have also been substantially revised and expanded in response to the Court ruling and are included in Attachment 2. The revised findings more fully explain and cite additional substantial evidence in the record that supports a recommended finding of infeasibility of all alternatives, which is within the City Council’s discretion to decide. CEQA allows agencies to reject alternatives based upon “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities…” (PRC Section 21081), among other considerations.

Determination of feasibility for any project alternative must consider whether the modifications proposed in the alternative would achieve the project objectives that are summarized in the EIR and Findings of Fact and are listed below. Expanded descriptions of these objectives can be found on page 7 of the attached Revised Wharf Master Plan.

Summary of Project Objectives

1. Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

2. Expand and enhance maritime activities.

3. Integrate education and research initiatives.

4. Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5. Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

6. Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces.

7. Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience.

8. Improve service and maintenance operations.

9. Enhance public safety.

10. Improve business and economic development opportunities

11. Increase the effectiveness of leasing, marketing and regulatory practices. (DEIR, pp. 3- 7 to 3-8.)

27.7 Project Alternatives
• No Project – Required by CEQA
• Alternative 1 – Reduced Project
o Reduced width of East Promenade to 14’ from 21’
o Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings  40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint
• Alternative 2 – Modified Project
o Eliminate Westside Walkway
o Reduced height and size of the new public use buildings  40’ maximum height + 5 to 10% reduced footprint
Findings
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Additional requirements related to alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR (Volume 1).

Based on these considerations, the Final EIR (Volume 1) stated that “Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 2 would best achieve project objectives, while also reducing the severity of identified significant impacts and therefore, is considered the environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives reviewed.” Previously adopted findings of fact stated the following as rationale for rejection of Alternative 2.
“Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project Objectives. However, under this alternative, elimination of the Westside Walkway would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf and protect pilings beneath buildings, as would occur with realization of the walkway in the full Project proposal. Additionally, the removal of the Westside Walkway would not expand public access, recreational opportunities, or enhance the pedestrian environment as effectively as the full project proposal. For these reasons the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is infeasible and is hereby rejected.” Findings have now been revised based on review of new evidence, master plan goals, Court direction, and public process (Attachment 2).

The Westside Walkway has proven a contentious project element that has repeatedly been challenged by Don’t Morph the Wharf, whose members call for its removal from the plan. The City maintains that its near-term construction is not prioritized over other elements like the East Promenade. Projected conditions resulting from climate change will likely require additional reinforcement and barriers along the westside to mitigate marine debris collisions and to disrupt the force of wave damage to buildings and pilings beneath them. Storm damage witnessed within the region on January 5, 2023 and documented in archival plans from 1982-1983 storms is substantial evidence of the type of damage that must be mitigated, particularly as storms intensify with climate change. It is extremely challenging, impractical, and not cost effective to replace pilings underneath buildings while the structure stands and therefore proactive defense is recommended by the project engineers, Moffat and Nichol, who bring local and global expertise to the challenge of climate change adaptation and resilience. The Westside Walkway and associated Open Water Swim Float would also offer new emergency access for marine response and firefighting which does not exist today; this new access is supported by the Fire Department (Attachment 10). Additionally, the City staff asserts that public access provided by the Westside

27.8 Walkway, and requested by Coastal Commission staff when the plan was drafted, is necessary for fully achieving the project objectives above.

Given calls to remove the walkway from the Plan and the potential of the Westside Walkway to help preserve the Wharf long-term as a recreation facility and economic engine, as well as its potential to expand public recreational coastal access, staff recommends that City Council preserve the Westside Walkway and reject Alternative 2 as infeasible on grounds that, as compared to the proposed project, it would not protect public safety, property and economic interests, would not expand social and recreational uses, would provide less fishing opportunities, and would not provide the necessary engineering and technological solutions needed to ensure the Wharf remains resilient long into the future. In particular, the Council is asked to consider that implementation of the Wharf Master Plan without the Westside Walkway would not fully accomplish the Project Objectives proposed in plan based on new evidence in the recreational analysis and raised during the public process.

Commission Reviews
The Wharf Master Plan and EIR have been reviewed several times by each of these following commissions; Parks and Recreation; Historic Preservation; and Planning Commission. Following revisions to the Master Plan and EIR, and recirculation of the RPDEIR, these commissions have once again considered the Wharf Master Plan and EIR as relevant to their bylaw mandates.

Recent commission actions and feedback on the Wharf Master Plan and EIR are summarized below, while broader background and discussion on all commission reviews is provided in the attached Summary of Commission Actions.
• Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) – At the October 9, 2023 hearing, the PRC suggested that staff consider including a safe water sport passage beneath the Wharf to reduce potential conflicts with fishing lines and suggested that the plan better address equity concerns in its implementation. Staff has recommended policy language in the discussion for City Council to consider including in the attached Plan. The PRC also rejected a motion to remove the Westside Walkway (2-5), before voting (5-2) to support staff recommendations to advise that the City Council adopt the Wharf Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt required resolutions. • Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) – The HPC was briefed on the updates to the Master Plan and EIR at its September 20, 2023 hearing, before voting to form a subcommittee to draft recommendations and to continue the item to October 18, 2023. At the October 18, 2023 hearing, staff recommended that HPC consider adding policies to the Master Plan that would lead to a Historic Alteration Permit (HAP) exemption for Wharf maintenance, establish thresholds for permit review, and develop objective design standards for both new construction and modification of non-historic buildings to promote historically sensitive design. Staff also provided documentary evidence of prior non-historic expansions along the westside of the Wharf in response to the subcommittee recommendation, which is contrary to the historical record; specifically, the statement that the Westside Walkway site is historically significant. The HPC rejected staff recommendations and approved a statement (4-1) for City Council regarding design review and removal of the Westside Walkway. Allegations by the HPC’s majority in support of the Commission’s recommendations are not consistent with the historical record or the EIR analysis. These background documents can be found in the attached Summary of Commission Reviews – see materials from Historic Preservation Commission September 20, 2023 and October 18, 2023.

27.9 The City’s consulting architectural historian has also provided a letter in response to the HPC recommendation and has not identified any new impacts that would alter the historic determinations in the EIR. A copy of this letter is attached to this report. • Planning Commission (PC) – On November 2, 2023 the PC considered the Revised Wharf Master Plan in light of the new evidence included in the RPDEIR and FEIR – Volume 2.

The Commission was broadly supportive of the public access, cultural, and recreational benefits of planned improvements, and appreciated that the plan provided flexibility to adapt to needs and uses that have not even been considered yet, which is appropriate for a Master Plan. The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Master Plan and EIR, consistent with staff recommendation. The lone dissent was specific to the Landmark Building and otherwise expressed support for the plan. The Commission also expressed concerns for protecting birds, but acknowledged the regulatory balance that exists between habitat and maintenance needs.

Additional expert discussion regarding bird nesting on the Wharf has been prepared by Dudek, the City’s CEQA consultant, and is attached.

DISCUSSION: When the City Council adopted the Wharf Master Plan in November 2020, several revisions were made by the Council in response to community concerns about the sea lion viewing holes, reducing allowable building heights, expanding educational and interpretive opportunities, and barring cruise ship activity from the Wharf; all of which seemed to have widespread support, leading to modifications to the plan adopted by the Council at its final meeting concerning the Wharf in 2020. These revisions did not, however, address project elements that DMTW found most objectionable, specifically the inclusion of the Landmark Building and Westside Walkway. Staff has maintained that these elements are only conceptual in the Master Plan and define the outside limits of potential future projects, which have less than significant impacts, and that they are essential elements in the plan for public access, safety and climate resilience, recreation, and economic reasons. Despite attempts by the City to compromise regarding the elements DMTW finds objectionable, DMTW has been unwavering in their demands to remove the Westside Walkway and Landmark Building. This led to over a year of litigation, the court ordered rescission of the EIR and Master Plan, and the City’s revision process, totaling roughly three years of delay in plan implementation. These delays have unfortunately occurred during a time of unprecedented levels of potentially available state and federal funding for infrastructure and resilience. Without an approved plan and a certified EIR, the Wharf has been ineligible for most grant programs.

In response to the court order, the EIR and Findings of Fact have now been expanded to include in-depth analysis of recreation and related land use, as well as revisions addressing limited other issues identified by the court. The Master Plan has similarly been modified to propose language previously adopted by Council, as well as clarifying updates and limited other revisions to align policies with community sentiment. For instance, in addition to limiting maximum commercial building heights to 35 feet, the Revised Master Plan now proposes reducing minimum floor heights and window glazing dimensions so that buildings can be constructed within that envelope at a wider variety of heights. Modifications already proposed in the Revised Wharf Master Plan have been underlined, and additional staff recommendations in response public comments are proposed in Attachment 13. Sections of the EIR which were not found inadequate by the Court remain unchanged and are part of the full Final EIR.

No new significant impacts or discrepancies have been identified in either the new analysis or through public comment and commission hearings. With the Final EIR, in its entirety, as well as

27.10 the Revised Master Plan open for Council consideration, the project team is confident the record adequately addresses all issues identified by the Court. It is also the team’s understanding that while unchanged portions of the EIR are not open to further legal challenges, they are part of the record that Council may consider when deciding whether to approve the Wharf Master Plan.

With the environmental review now complete, climate impacts intensifying, and the opportunity for infrastructure funds quickly narrowing, it is essential that the Wharf Master Plan move forward.

Numerous individuals and organizations participated in drafting the plan and are believed to support it as is. Organizations, like Save our Shores, Visit Santa Cruz, Friends of Parks and Recreation, SCC Chamber of Commerce, O’Neill Sea Odyssey, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, as well as many local businesses; hoteliers; sporting clubs; at least eight local, state, and federal agencies all participated or provided feedback that has been incorporated into the planning process. Numerous commissions have also recommended approval of the plan with all features intact. However, it is a distinct possibility that, if the Council reapproves the project as is and certifies the revised EIR, DMTW may continue to oppose the adequacy of the City’s return to writ in court, potentially prolonging the litigation and delaying implementation of the plan.

At this stage, staff and the City’s consultants have taken every effort to conduct thorough analysis, clarify misconceptions, and solidify a complete, legally defensible environmental analysis. The hope is that these efforts allow the Council to focus on our community and consider the best plan for our needs; based upon the broadest consensus and with capacity for future adaptation and improved resilience. New recreational analysis in the RPDEIR and updated Findings of Fact highlight many of the public benefits and needs addressed by the plan. While it is clear that a “perfect” plan that has full support of the entire community will not be possible, many good improvements might be achieved more quickly if the Landmark Building were removed. For this reason, staff has prepared an alternate chapter for development at the bayward end of the Wharf which, if adopted, would also remove all other references to the Landmark Building from the Revised Wharf Master Plan (Attachment 4). City Council is asked to consider both versions and approve whichever version the Council determines will best meet the community’s needs. The following discussion offers final perspective from staff on the Landmark Building and Westside Walkway.

Landmark Building
For nearly half a century, the end of the Wharf was anchored by a large iconic warehouse structure that supported diverse Wharf uses, including fishing, shipping, food service, and passenger travel. Large functional buildings that offer flexibility for adaptation and diverse uses are commonly found on successful wharves, and it can be argued that the loss of this structure, together with construction of the Santa Cruz Harbor, contributed to the Wharf no longer serving as a “working” Wharf. The Landmark Building proposed in the Master Plan would restore this tradition, while offering new cultural and activity space as well as potential support for maritime and visitor uses. Nevertheless, the tall, open structure of up to 40 feet in height and up to 6,000square feet in size is seen as too large by some. The WMP designer envisioned the structure’s size and open façade as reimagining the historical proportions of that former warehouse, while opponents foresee monolithic walls that would obstruct views of Santa Cruz and the Monterey Bay. Further, the WMP preserves flexibility by not specifically defining the structure’s final use. In response, opponents feel it is not needed at all and are doubtful that public uses would be viable. It should also be noted that the final future design of this structure

27.11 would be subject to the City Council-adopted Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects, garnering public input before a final design is approved. In fairness to the public process, the City has also received support letters for the Landmark Building throughout and it is supported by many involved in drafting the plan or recommending it to Council.

That stated, the Landmark building remains a source of contention that has delayed implementation of other, more widely supported elements of the plan. This forces the City to consider root goals for the end of the Wharf and to reevaluate the importance of a landmark structure. According to the Master Plan, creation of the Landmark building would create a visual terminus at the end of the Wharf that would attract visitation, support diverse uses, and energize adjacent public spaces. It is envisioned to support “cultural, educational and commercial uses as well as the possibility of a small conference and lecture facility capable of heightening the destination attraction of the Wharf’s southern-most point.” The opportunity for new and redeveloped structures at the end of the Wharf is also crucial to attracting investment and revenues that help repair and sustain the Wharf as a whole. The vision of attracting visitation and tourism activity to the end of the Wharf is therefore important to the economic, social, recreational, safety, and educational objectives of the Wharf Master Plan.

At its core, the plan aims to revitalize the end of the Wharf with a structure that supports yearround activity, expands visitor capacity, and creates a point of interest to attract exploration. The debate over the Landmark Building, however, has highlighted that there are differing visions of how to achieve this goal. While some see no changes necessary, others might imagine a smaller building or group of buildings, public art, active indoor/outdoor uses, or recreational elements like a playground. Over the life of the plan, new development at the end of the Wharf will be needed to fund repairs at the end of the Wharf, address facilities needs, or as structures like the Dolphin Restaurant and restrooms age out. It is difficult to forecast future construction costs, but it is reasonable to expect that replacement in kind may not be cost effective without some expansion. Deck expansion at the end of the Wharf also offers additional opportunities for reimagining wharf structures, although public access is the priority. With these considerations in mind, staff offers an alternative chapter of the Master Plan that refocuses the discussion on revitalization and activation, while removing references to the Landmark Building and the call for its construction.

Westside Walkway
The debate around the Westside Walkway is similarly contentious, although the need for the Walkway has only grown since the plan was first proposed. The multi-benefit walkway would provide not only public access, recreation, and new viewpoints, but would crucially help defend vulnerable pilings beneath the buildings from marine debris collisions and the structures above from the force of waves. Evidence of this need and wave mitigation in action can be seen at the Seacliff Pier and Capitola Wharf, during the January 5, 2023 storms. It can also be seen below in the damage sustained by the Santa Cruz Wharf during that same storm:
- 18 lost pilings
- 300 ft. of lost fire sprinkler system
- Reconstruction of Kayak landing needed
- Public Landing 1 needed new perimeter fence
- Various Hatch landings needed to be rebuilt
- 700 ft. of lower ledgers damaged/destroyed in different locations - Damaged and flooded sewer pump houses

27.12 The Westside Walkway would assume a frontline position for this defense. It would likely be closed seasonally due to winter conditions or bird nesting, and necessary storm repairs. New construction techniques, materials, and thoughtful engineering employed at the future design stage will help mitigate these risks. The Walkway would effectively serve as a fender for the Wharf by design. Even if it is damaged, it would be easier and less costly to repair than the buildings, businesses, and jobs it is meant to protect. Similarly, design solutions, such as minimalist railings, height changes, and paint color, could be considered at the design stage to minimize the visibility of the walkway when viewed from afar. Based on these considerations, staff recommends retention of the Westside Walkway in the plan but notes that this feature is not currently designed at a project level, requires further engagement, and is not prioritized ahead of nearer-term projects like the East Promenade and Entrance Gate relocation.

Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Recommendation
HPC has put forward recommendations regarding design review and historic alteration permitting, and removal of the Westside Walkway based upon perceived impacts to historic resources. Staff agrees that projects on the Wharf should be subject to review under the historic preservation ordinances. Unfortunately, the Historic Preservation (Santa Cruz Municipal Code

24.12.410) and Historic Alteration Permit Ordinances (SCMC 24.08.1000) are unclear on terms like “minor” and “major” projects, which dictate the level of review and are subject to interpretation. A resolution adopted by HPC on May 5, 2016 (attached) attempts to clarify this ambiguity and assign administrative review to staff, however, references in the resolution, like rear of lots, visibility to the public, and accessory structures are not suitable for the wharf. The Wharf is also subject to near constant maintenance, construction, and repairs. If read strictly and absent additional clarification on the implementation of the ordinance, much of this work could be considered to require Historic Alteration Permits. Commissioners expressed concern that suggesting maintenance could subject to historic review made the preservation ordinance sound burdensome and felt strongly that the HPC has not historically required HAPs for maintenance.

The Historic Alteration Permit ordinance allows only three clear exemptions; 1) landscape maintenance of non-historic landscapes and objects; 2) installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations; and, 3) painting and interior modifications. Staff recommendations that sought to clarify these concerns were rejected by HPC, and no alternatives were suggested by HPC.

However, staff maintains the recommendation for Council consideration, attached.

Wharf construction and maintenance often involves adaptation and modifications including piling and deck modification, railing retrofits, roof replacements to non-historic buildings, landing repairs, and other retrofits that occur in response to lessons learned. Whether a HAP should be required for any of this depends on the interpretation of “material change;” a term that clearly has many interpretations as evidenced from recent disputes over the WMP and EIR. Were maintenance and adaptive modifications to existing Wharf infrastructure required to secure HAPs, this would add tremendous workload and cost to both the Planning and Community Development Department and Parks and Recreation Department, including preparation of scaled plan drawings, photo documentation, and extension of project timelines. This additional workload would compound existing Coastal Commission and California OSHA regulations that already stress the Wharf Crew and the city’s maintenance budget and narrows the amount of work that can be completed in any given year. For this reason, staff recommends that the Wharf Master Plan include policy recommendations to update the ordinance or clarify implementation of it to exempt wharf maintenance with a future update.

27.13 The HPC recommendation states that all development on the Wharf is required to secure historic alteration permits, whether administrative or subject to HPC review. Staff does not dispute that significant projects should be reviewed for conformance with the historic preservation ordinance, however, HPC’s recommendation does not provide a path to clarify the types of projects that should be reviewed by HPC versus staff, as recommended by staff; nor is there direction to develop guidance on designing for historic sensitivity in new and existing non-historic buildings on the Wharf. Based on discussion at HPC, it is believed that HPC's use of the term “development” is consistent with the definition of “development project” as defined in the Municipal Code (SCMC 24.24.265). If so, the HPC recommendation implies that ministerial projects such as most maintenance would not be subject to HAPs. However, this assumption is based on HPC discussion of historical precedent in decision-making, rather than clear legal text within the Municipal Code and does not clearly specify any exemption.

In summary, staff does not agree with the HPC assertion that the Western Walkway would impact historical resources and does not support removal of the walkway as recommended by HPC, based on statements that are inconsistent with the EIR analysis and subsequent review by the city’s architectural historian. Staff further maintains that goals of the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be better achieved by clearly streamlining maintenance activities and with the development of clear guidance for permitting and design of projects on the Wharf; guidance that would be developed in consultation with the HPC. Staff has updated its recommendations in response to this discussion, as detailed in Attachment 13.

Additional Recommended Modifications
Details of additional staff modification to the Revised Wharf Master Plan, which are intended to respond to public comment, administrative needs, and commission discussion are included in Attachment 13.

Conclusion
In the absence of any verifiable and objective impacts resulting from Wharf Master Plan improvements, the environmental review is believed to be complete and to have addressed all mandates of the court. If adopted, the City Attorney and CEQA Counsel will file a Return to the Writ documenting the City’s full compliance with the court ruling and seeking to have the court discharge the writ. DMTW could decide not to oppose the return, oppose the return as not fully compliant with the court’s directives, and/or DMTW or a different plaintiff could file a new lawsuit. Under the second two scenarios, the scope of judicial review is limited to whether and how the City has complied with the writ and the adequacy of the revised analysis. No challenger may raise new claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation (i.e., on sections of the EIR that were not revised) or that were resolved in the City’s favor in the earlier proceedings.

The political issue of what plan to pursue remains and Council is presented two alternate versions of the Wharf Master Plan, one with the Landmark Building and one without. City Council is urged to consider the public process leading to the Master Plan, the various constituencies involved, the realities of implementing the plan in face of likely continued opposition, and the additional permitting needed beyond the City’s jurisdiction. With those issues in mind, City Council is urged to adopt the Wharf Master Plan it determines is best for Santa Cruz, and to certify the EIR and related resolutions, all subject to additional modifications included in Attachment 12.

27.14 HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES:

Adoption of the Wharf Master Plan and implementation of the recommendations therein would expand or enhance recreational public access to the Santa Cruz Wharf, improve public safety and resilience to storm damage, and generally promote healthy lifestyles and fitness by enabling safer modes of active transportation access for users of all income levels and abilities to the Wharf.

The EIR has not identified any impacts to public health or safety as result of proposed Master Plan improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Wharf Master Plan would not immediately result in any impacts to the general fund. As they are prioritized, proposed projects will need to secure funds and be budgeted in the Capital Investment Program (CIP). Preliminary costs estimates for proposed improvements are provided (in 2014 dollars) in the Master Plan, beginning on page 58.

When the Master Plan was adopted, the proposed improvements were estimated to cost up to $29 million, but are broken into smaller component costs. The 2014 Engineering Report also estimated the restoration cost of existing Wharf infrastructure to be approximately $11.6 million.

Both cost estimates will need to be adjusted to present day dollars as recent construction bids suggest that construction costs are now substantially higher. Grant funding will be sought to provide much of the capital costs for proposed improvements. Completion of public access components, the entrance gates, and restriping of parking, together with commercial infill, and increased seasonality through features like the Events Pavilion and a warming climate are all expected to increase ongoing revenues, and would support ongoing maintenance of both new and existing facilities.

Prepared By:

David McCormic
Asset and Development
Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development and Housing
Eric Marlatt
Assistant Director Planning
and Community Development
Tony Elliot
Director of Parks and
Recreation
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MASTER PLAN AND CERTIFYING THE WHARF MASTER PLAN EIR.DOCX

2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND MMRP.DOCX

3. REVISED WHARF MASTER PLAN.PDF

4. ALTERNATE CHAPTER - CREATING AN EXPERIENTIAL FOCUS AND DESTINATION.DOCX

5. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 2023.PDF

6. RECREATION - SUMMARY OF POLICIES AND ACTIONS.DOCX

7. PROPOSED WHARF MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS.PDF

8. WHARF MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.DOCX

9. FIGURES 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-8A+B.PDF

10. FIRE DEPARTMENT SUPPORT LETTER FOR WHARF MASTER PLAN - NOV. 6, 2023.PDF

27.15 11. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REVIEWS.PDF

12. LETTER FROM ARCHITECTURE + HISTORY REGARDING REVISED WHARF MASTER PLAN (DEC. 19, 2023).PDF

13. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS.DOCX

14. RESPONSE TO SC BIRD CLUB LETTER - DUDEK - DEC. 14, 2023.PDF

15. STORM DAMAGE EVIDENCE (JANUARY 5, 2023 AND WINTER 1982-1983).PDF

16. HPC RESOLUTION - MINOR HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMITS - MAY 18, 2016.PDF

27.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS-_____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ADOPTING THE SANTA CRUZ WHARF MASTER PLAN AND CERTIFYING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SANTA CRUZ WHARF

MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (the “Project” or “Plan”) was issued by the Economic Development Department of the City of Santa Cruz on November May 24, 2017; and
WHEREAS, an EIR Scoping Meeting was held on June 14, 2017 to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR” or “Draft EIR”) was prepared and issued for agency and public review and comment on March 30, 2020, for a 59- day review period that ended on May 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS, thirty-four (34) comment letters were received on the Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations and individuals; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR” or “Final EIR”), incorporating all comments received on the DEIR and responses to comments was issued on September 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission recommended that City Council adopt the Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt associated resolution at their respective hearings of October 14, 2020 (6-0-1) and October 15, 2020 (6-1); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Project and certified a Final EIR for the Project on November 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS, in December 2020, an unincorporated association called Don’t Morph the Wharf filed a petition for writ of mandate in Santa Cruz Superior Court challenging the City’s compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Project;
WHEREAS, in February 2022, the Santa Cruz Superior Court issued a ruling in favor of some of Don’t Morph the Wharf’s arguments, finding that the City’s determination that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to recreation activities on the Wharf was not supported by substantial evidence and that the EIR’s table regarding Project consistency with applicable land use policies did not

27.17 provide a sufficient analysis of the evidence of the Project’s impacts on land use, specifically with respect to consistency with recreation-oriented policies in the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The Court further held that the City’s CEQA findings regarding the infeasibility of Alternative 2 were not adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside its approvals of the Wharf Master Plan and its certification of the Master Plan EIR, with the exception of: 1) pursuit of time-sensitive opportunities to acquire funding or further approvals for, and implementation of, relocation and construction of the entry gate; (2) replacement of 5% of Wharf piles as directed by the Plan, including those located under the demolished Miramar restaurant; (3) improvements to the asphalt pavement and substrate; (4) improvements to the trash collection system; and (5) enlargement and American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliance for 3 public restrooms. The Court also directed the City to prepare and certify a partially revised EIR and Project approval addressing the specific CEQA deficiencies described in its ruling; WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS30,050 rescinding its prior Resolutions No. NS-29,747 and Resolution No. NS-29,748, effectively setting aside the certification of the 2020 Final EIR and rescinding the Project approvals;
WHEREAS, the City, in response to the court ruling, prepared a Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (“Recirculated Draft EIR”) for the Project. The purpose of the Recirculated Draft EIR is to provide additional and revised environmental analysis in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the Writ of Mandamus; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of potential recreational impacts under the most expansive definition of recreation in California law, as well as documentation of how existing fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities at the Wharf would be preserved or expanded by the Project, and; WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR further documents how the Project would protect public access to coastal areas by removing barriers to access from conflicting uses such as tailgate fishing on narrow walkways, replace existing boat landing landings with new universally accessible boat landing, and maintain, relocate, or expand wildlife viewing opportunities; and,
WHEREAS, improvements in the Wharf Master Plan are consistent with General Plan policies to “protect or enhance publicly accessible coastal…areas” and specifically would not intrude on any beaches or coastal bluffs with non-recreational structures or incompatible uses, nor interfere with the public’s right to access the ocean; and, WHEREAS, the City circulated the Recirculated Draft EIR for public comment from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023 and hosted an online community meeting for the Recirculated Draft EIR on May 30, 2023, with approximately 31 persons in attendance; and

27.18 WHEREAS, a total of 12 letters and emails were received containing comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. The City considered these comments and provided responses in the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (“Recirculated Final EIR” or “Recirculated FEIR”); and
WHEREAS, the City distributed the Recirculated Final EIR to agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR more than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission held public hearings on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on September 20, 2023 and again on October 18, 2023, and issued recommendations (4-1-2) to the Council to consider the Commission’s proposed language requiring historic alteration permits and to remove the Westside Walkway from the plan based on the Commissioners’ beliefs that the Walkway would have an adverse impact on the historical significance of the Wharf. The EIR findings, review by an architectural historian, and archival evidence presented by staff show that this section of the Wharf is not historic and that no significant impacts have been identified related to aesthetics or historic resources, that would support this recommendation; and,
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on October 9, 2023, and issued recommendations (5-2) to adopt the Revised Master Plan, subject to staff recommendations, and certify the EIR and related resolutions. Commissioners further suggested that the Council should consider providing some restrictions on fishing on a portion of the Wharf to provide space for unobstructed travel underneath the Wharf for small watercraft like paddleboards and kayakers, to avoid entanglement or obstruction by fishing lines above the Wharf.

However, no action was taken by the Commission to codify these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on November 2, 2023 and issued recommendations (4-1-2 ) to the City Council to adopt the Revised Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt related resolutions, subject to staff recommendations. The Commission was broadly supportive about the public access, cultural, and recreational benefits of planned improvements, and noted that the plan provides flexibility to adapt to needs and uses that haven’t even been considered yet. The lone dissent was specific to the Landmark Building and otherwise expressed support for the plan. The Commission also expressed concerns for protecting birds, but acknowledged the regulatory balance that exists between habitat and maintenance needs; and
WHEREAS, state and federal funding of improvements to the Wharf are essential to the foregoing protection of the public welfare, and as CEQA conformance is required for the Wharf to be eligible for any state or federal funding (PRC §21150, NEPA) the City Council finds and determines that should any term, element, analysis, finding, or mitigation of impacts in the EIR be challenged in court, appealed, or to any extent found invalid, illegal, or incapable of being

27.19 enforced, such item shall be excluded to the extent of such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability, until such matters have been settled by a court of law; all other parts of the certified EIR hereof, which remain valid or unchallenged on their own or collective merits, shall be severable and remain in full force and effect.

WHEREAS, the record, including the entire EIR, public comment, staff presentations, Master Plan and Engineering Report, and archival information shows a long history of infrastructure damage resulting from waves and debris, together with increased risk from climate change impacts, project engineers have recommended improving Wharf resilience through maintenance, lateral stabilization, and wave and debris impact attenuation from features like the Westside Walkway, among other efforts, based upon their extensive experience with a variety of approaches to coastal infrastructure. The record therefore supports the determination that proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements, as a whole and including the Westside Walkway, are needed to wrap the existing Wharf in a protective layer of new infrastructure that will reduce risks to public health, safety, and economic activity, while also expanding access and recreational uses, consistent with the project objectives; and, WHEREAS, the complete Final EIR consists of the April 2023 Recirculated Draft EIR and March 2020 Draft EIR, comments received on those documents, and responses to comments contained in the 2023 Recirculated FEIR and the September 2020 FEIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft EIRs that are also included in the Final EIRs, appendices to the Draft, Final, and Recirculated EIRs, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the EIR documents; and WHEREAS, the complete Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the February 2022 ruling of the Santa Cruz Superior Court, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) (the “State CEQA Guidelines”) and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
• The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the February 2022 Santa Cruz Superior Court ruling, CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto. • The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1.
• The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received prior to approving this resolution.

27.20 • The City Council therefore hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and,
• The City Council hereby adopts the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan as guiding document for development and sustainability at the Wharf.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

27.21 RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADOPTING

FINDINGS OF FACT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE REVISED SANTA CRUZ WHARF MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (the “Project”) was issued by the Economic Development Department of the City of Santa Cruz (the “City”) on May 24, 2017; and WHEREAS, an EIR Scoping Meeting was held on June 14, 2017, to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR” or “Draft EIR”) was prepared and issued for agency and public review and comment on March 30, 2020, for a 59- day review period that ended on May 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS, thirty-four (34) comment letters were received on the Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations and individuals; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR” or “Final EIR”), incorporating all comments received on the DEIR and responses to comments was issued on September 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission recommended that City Council adopt the Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt associated resolution at their respective hearings of October 14, 2020 (6-0-1) and October 15, 2020 (6-1); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Project and certified a Final EIR for the Project on November 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS, in December 2020, an unincorporated association called Don’t Morph the Wharf filed a petition for writ of mandate in Santa Cruz Superior Court challenging the City’s compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Project; WHEREAS, in February 2022, the Santa Cruz Superior Court issued a ruling in favor of some of Don’t Morph the Wharf’s arguments, finding that the City’s determination that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to recreation activities on the Wharf was not supported by substantial evidence and that the EIR’s table regarding Project consistency with applicable land use policies did not provide a sufficient analysis of the evidence of the Project’s impacts on land use, specifically with respect to consistency with recreationoriented policies in the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The Court further held that the City’s CEQA findings regarding the infeasibility of Alternative 2 were not adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside its approvals of the Wharf Master Plan (“WMP”)and its certification of the Master Plan EIR, with the exception of: 1) pursuit of time-sensitive opportunities to acquire funding or further approvals for, and implementation of, relocation and construction of the entry gate; (2)

27.22 replacement of 5% of Wharf piles as directed by the Plan, including those located under the demolished Miramar restaurant; (3) improvements to the asphalt pavement and substrate; (4) improvements to the trash collection system; and (5) enlargement and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliance for 3 public restrooms. The Court also directed the City to prepare and certify a partially revised EIR and Project approval addressing the specific CEQA deficiencies described in its ruling;
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-30,050 rescinding its prior Resolutions No. NS-29,747 and Resolution No. NS-29,748, effectively setting aside the certification of the 2020 Final EIR and rescinding the Project approvals; WHEREAS, the City, in response to the court ruling, has prepared a Recirculated Partial Draft EIR (“Recirculated Draft EIR”) for the Project. The purpose of the Recirculated Draft EIR is to provide additional and revised environmental analysis to address the Court-identified flaws in the City’s EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of potential recreational impacts under the most expansive definition of recreation in California law, as well as documentation of how existing fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities at the Wharf would be preserved or expanded by the Project, and;
WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR further documents how the Project would protect public access to coastal areas by removing barriers to access from conflicting uses such as tailgate fishing on narrow walkways, replace existing boat landing landings with new universally accessible boat landing, and maintain, relocate, or expand wildlife viewing opportunities; and,
WHEREAS, improvements in the Wharf Master Plan are consistent with General Plan policies to “protect or enhance publicly accessible coastal…areas” and specifically would not intrude on any beaches or coastal bluffs with non-recreational structures or incompatible uses, nor interfere with the public’s right to access the ocean; and, WHEREAS, the City circulated the Recirculated Draft EIR for public comment from April 17, 2023 to May 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, a total of 12 letters and emails were received containing comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. The City considered these comments and provided responses in the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (“Recirculated Final EIR” or “Recirculated FEIR”); and
WHEREAS, an online community meeting was held on May 30, 2023, with approximately 31 persons in attendance over the duration, including five staff. Staff’s presentation provided an overview of the WMP/EIR process to date, as well as the court ruling and the City’s proposed revisions to the WMP and Recirculated Draft EIR as a result. Public comments received during the meeting have been incorporated in the FEIR and responded to as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed the Recirculated Final EIR to agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR more than ten (10) days prior to the first public hearing; and

27.23 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission held public hearings on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on September 20, 2023, and October 18, 2023, and adopted recommendations (4-1-2) for the City Council to consider the Commission’s proposed language requiring historic alteration permits and to remove the Westside Walkway from the plan based on the Commissioners’ beliefs that the Walkway would have an adverse impact on the historical significance of the Wharf. EIR findings, review by an architectural historian, and archival evidence presented by staff, show that this section of the Wharf is not historic and that no significant impacts have been identified related to aesthetics or historic resources, that would support this recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on October 9, 2023, and adopted recommendations to certify the EIR as revised and adopt the proposed CEQA findings and mitigation and resolutions necessary to approve the revised Wharf Master Plan. Commissioners further suggested that the Council should consider providing some restrictions on fishing under a portion of the Wharf to provide some space for unobstructed travel underneath the Wharf for small watercraft like paddleboards and kayakers, to avoid entanglement or obstruction by fishing lines above the Wharf. However, no action was taken by the Commission to codify these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project and the Recirculated FEIR on November 2, 2023 and issued recommendations (4-1-2 ) to the City Council to adopt the Revised Master Plan, certify the EIR, and adopt related resolutions, subject to staff recommendations. The Commission was broadly supportive about the public access, cultural, and recreational benefits of planned improvements, and noted that the plan provides flexibility to adapt to needs and uses that haven’t even been considered yet. The lone dissent was specific to the Landmark Building and otherwise expressed support for the plan. The Commission also expressed concerns for protecting birds, but acknowledged the regulatory balance that exists between habitat and maintenance needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Recirculated Final EIR at a public meeting on January 9, 2024; and
WHEREAS, state and federal funding of improvements to the Wharf are essential to the foregoing protection of the public welfare, and as CEQA conformance is required for the Wharf to be eligible for any state or federal funding offered through state agencies (Pub. Resources Code, § 21150), the City Council asserts that should any term, element, analysis, finding, or mitigation of impacts in the EIR be challenged in court, appealed, or to any extent found invalid, illegal, or incapable of being enforced, such item shall be excluded to the extent of such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability, until such matters have been settled by a court of law; all other parts of the certified EIR hereof, which remain valid or unchallenged on their own or collective merits, shallbe severable and remain in full force and effect.

WHEREAS, the complete Final EIR consists of the April 2023 Recirculated Draft EIR and March 2020 Draft EIR, comments received on those documents, and responses to comments contained in the 2023 Recirculated FEIR and the September 2020 FEIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft EIRs that are also included in the Final EIRs, appendicesto the Draft, Final, and Recirculated EIRs, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the EIR documents; and

27.24 WHEREAS, the complete Final EIR outlines various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s significant effects on the environment, as well as a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, which would provide some environmental advantages over the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is required, pursuant to CEQA, to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of a proposed Project; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), requires a public agency, before approving a Project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adoptfindings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible; and WHEREAS, Sections I through VII of Exhibit A to this Resolution is a set of Findings of Fact prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a); and
WHEREAS, as the Findings of Fact explain, the City Council, reflecting the advice ofCity and Agency Staff, the Planning Commission, and extensive input from the community, has expressed its intention to approve the proposed Project in spite of its significant environmental impacts that will be mitigated to be less than significant; and WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistently with the CEQA mandate to consider feasible Project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of the Project as proposed; and WHEREAS, all of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project, as approved, can either be substantially lessened to a less than significant level or avoided through the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the Recirculated Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in approving the Project as proposed, hereby also adopts all mitigation measures set forth in the Findings of Fact; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record, including the entire EIR, public comments, staff presentations, Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Report, and archival information shows a long history of infrastructure damage resulting from waves and debris, together with increased risk from climate change impacts. Project engineers have recommended improving Wharf resilience through maintenance, lateral stabilization, and wave and debris impact attenuation from features like the Westside Walkway, among other efforts, based upon their extensive experience with a variety of approaches to coastal infrastructure. The record therefore supports the determination that proposed Wharf Master Plan improvements, as a whole and including the Westside Walkway are needed to wrap the existing Wharf in a protective layer of new infrastructure that will reduce risks to public health, safety, and economic activity, while also expanding access and recreational uses, consistent with the project objectives; and,

27.25 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based on the reasons and substantial evidence set forth in the Findings of Fact, that none of the alternatives addressed in the Recirculated Final EIR are feasible and environmentally superior to the Project, and that Alternative 2, the alternative determined to be environmentally superior in the Draft EIR, is also not feasible based on the Findings set forth below and in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, in the exercise of its inherent discretion to weigh and balance project objectives and policy and planning goals for the City, that while Alternative 2 would reduce potential biological impacts resulting from construction, the exclusion of the Westside Walkway in this alternative would not meet the project objectives of expanded public access, enhanced pedestrian environment and recreational opportunities, and public safety as well as the proposed Project would; specifically, that elimination of the Westside Walkway would not expand pedestrian access to circumnavigate the Wharf, nor provide a defensive barrier to disrupt waves and intercept debris, nor enhance public safety through increased emergency and fire response access, nor expand maritime and recreational uses to the westside of the Wharf, nor protect property, jobs, and economic livelihood provided by Wharf businesses, and as such, for any of these reasons individually or all of them cumulatively, the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is not feasible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the City’s obligation, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to ensure the monitoring of all adopted mitigation measures necessary to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B to this Resolution is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan prepared in order to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

In approving this Resolution, the City Council adopts Sections I through VIII of Exhibit A attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21081, subdivision (a);
In approving this Resolution, City Council adopts Exhibit B attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a); and The City Council hereby approves the Project and directs City Staff to file with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research in Sacramento a Notice of Determination commencing the 30-day statute of limitations for any legal challenge to the Project based on alleged noncompliance with CEQA.

27.26 RESOLUTION NO. ________
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:__________________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

27.27 DISQUALIFIED:

27.28 RESOLUTION NO. _______

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
for the

SANTA CRUZ WHARF MASTER PLAN
January 2024

27.29 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 1 CEQA Findings of Fact I.

INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Cruz (“City”), as lead agency, has prepared a Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan (“the Project”). In 2023, in response to a court ruling finding its prior final EIR and findings to be inadequate in certain respects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City prepared a Recirculated Partial EIR for the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan. In its entirety, the Recirculated EIR now consists ofthe April 2023 Recirculated Draft EIR (“Recirculated Draft EIR” or “DEIR”), the unchanged portions of the March 2020 Draft EIR (“Draft EIR” or “DEIR”), the August 2023 Recirculated Final EIR (“Recirculated Final EIR” or “RFEIR”) and the September 2020 Final EIR (“Final EIR” or “FEIR”). The EIR is a program- and project-level EIR pursuant to Sections 15161 and 15168 of the State “CEQA Guidelines” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). The Project consists of adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan (as revised in 2023), and construction of two near-term projects recommended in the Master Plan: Entry Gate Relocation and the East Promenade, as well as possible expansion/renovation of the existing Lifeguard Station. (RDEIR, pp. 3-1–3-25.)
These findings have been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Santa Cruz CEQA Guidelines. The Recirculated EIR in its entirety is hereby incorporated by reference to this resolution and this attachment.

II.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The City of Santa Cruz is located along the northern shore of Monterey Bay, approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco, 25 miles south of San Jose and 40 miles north of Monterey.

The Santa Cruz Wharf is situated at the southern end of Pacific Avenue at Beach Street within the Beach Area of the City of Santa Cruz (see Figure 1-1 in DEIR). The Wharf extends into Monterey Bay for a distance of approximately 2,700 feet; the initial 200+ feet span the City’s Main Beach. The Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and the City’s Main Beach are located to the east, and Cowell Beach and the Dream Inn are located to the west. A mix of visitor-serving and commercial uses is located along Beach Street to the north of the Wharf. (DEIR, p. 3-1.) The Wharf currently is approximately 7.5 acres in size, 67% of which is used for vehicular circulation, parking and commercial development. The Wharf is supported by 4,445 12to-16-inch diameter Douglas fir timber piles. The Wharf is one of a number of destination attractions in theCity’s Beach Area; the Beach Area is an important visitor attraction during the summer months and on weekends during the off season when the Boardwalk is open. The Wharf currently has approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial building space, which is occupied by tenants with a variety of short- and long-term ground leases, building leases and licenses from the City. Of this total, approximately 40,000 square feet is leased to restaurants and 20,000

27.30 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 2 CEQA Findings of Fact square feet to retail uses. The Wharf provides opportunities for pier fishing, as well as kayak and small fishing boat rentals. There are five active landings presently on the Wharf for boat access. Two are available to the public, two for boat and kayak rentals, and a landing is used by Wharf staff. The Wharf also supports demonstration and/or research projects. (DEIR, pp. 3-1 to 3-2.)

27.31 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 3 CEQA Findings of Fact B. Overview
The Wharf Master Plan includes the elements and recommendations listed below. The nearterm projects considered in the EIR are construction of two projects recommended in the Master Plan within two to five years: Entry Gate Relocation and the East Promenade Renovation. Possible expansion of the existing Lifeguard Station may also occur within the next several years. (DEIR,p. 1-2.)

1. Policies and Actions

2. Recommendations for Expansion, New Construction and Improvements ■ Wharf Expansion and New Facilities: The Master Plan recommends the following new facilities: expansion of the Wharf to create a new promenade on the east side of the Wharf (East Promenade) for public pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access; anew walkway on the west side of the Wharf (Westside Walkway); three new publicuse buildings, totaling approximately 15,000 square feet; and two new accessible boat landings. The Master Plan also considers remodeling and intensified use of existing structures, including potential expansion of existing commercial buildings totaling approximately 22,000 square feet and redevelopment of the existing lifeguard station.
■ Structural Wharf Improvements: Recommended improvements include installation of new and replacement Wharf support piles, lateral bracing, and roadway and utilityimprovements, including improvements to the Wharf’s pavement, drainage system, and trash collection system.

3. Circulation/Parking. Improvements are proposed to more efficiently utilize the existing circulation area and encourage alternative transportation, including relocation of the Wharf entrance further south onto the Wharf. Other improvements include restriping of existing parking areas that would result in approximately 45‒65 additional parking spaces, widening existing sidewalks for improved pedestrian access, and provision for up to 150 bicycle parking spaces.

4. Design Standards are included in the Master Plan that address building design elements, including height, materials, design, windows, roofs and displays. (FEIR, p. 3-1 to 3-2.)
C. Project Objectives
The Wharf Master Plan recognizes that the Wharf serves different roles within the City, and the Plan addresses a number of study objectives established by the City related to economic development, design and development standards, re-visioning of public spaces, enhancement of recreational use and public access, integration of educational and scientific resources and assets, and public safety. The project objectives that were articulated during the development of the Wharf Master Plan and/or emerged or were reinforced during the community outreach and planning process include the following:

1. Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access.

27.32 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 4 CEQA Findings of Fact

2. Expand and enhance maritime activities.

3. Integrate education and research initiatives.

4. Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices.

5. Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities.

6. Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces.

7. Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience.

8. Improve service and maintenance operations.

9. Enhance public safety.

10. Improve business and economic development opportunities

11. Increase the effectiveness of leasing, marketing and regulatory practices. (DEIR, pp. 3- 7 to 3-8.)
Based on its own review of the EIR and other information and testimony received in connection with the Project, the City Council finds these objectives to be acceptable. In choosing to approvethe Project, the City thus accords these objectives significant weight in considering the feasibilityof alternatives analyzed in the EIR. (See California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001‒1002 (CNPS); Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121
Cal.App.4th 1490, 1507‒1508; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills).)
D. Project Description
The Project consists of adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan, and constructionof the two projects recommended in the Master Plan within 2 to 5 years: Entry Gate Relocation and the East Promenade Renovation. Possible expansion of the existing Lifeguard Station may also occur within the next several years. (DEIR, p. 1-2.) Wharf Master Plan
Policies and Actions. The Wharf Master Plan includes ten policies and supporting actions that address the preservation, restoration, improvement, and management of the Wharf over time.

According to the Master Plan, the policies and actions ''recognize the importance of the Wharf as a visual and historic landmark, its potential as a more significant recreational and open space resource within the unique environmental setting of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and its potential for becoming a more attractive commercial recreational destination that contributes to the quality of life and economic vitality of the Beach Area, the City and the region as a whole." (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-10.) One of the Master Plan "Actions" is to provide opportunities for research and demonstration projects, including but not limited to the marine environment, energy, water use, and

27.33 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 5 CEQA Findings of Fact recycling.

27.34 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 6 CEQA Findings of Fact Specific types of projects are not identified, but based on existing demonstration projects underway at the Wharf (wind research, photovoltaic energy), such projects are anticipated to be related to scientific research and in some cases could involve temporary installations or uses. The Master Plan Actions also call for the City to foster and participate in mutually cooperative relationships and ventures with science and educational entities such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center, the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the Moss Landing MarineLaboratories, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. (DEIR, p. 3-8 through 3-9.)
Proposed New Facilities and Development. The Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan includes recommendations for expansion of the Wharf and construction of new facilities and structures.

The proposed improvements will expand the Wharf by approximately 2.5 acres. These improvements include the East Promenade, Westside Walkway and two boat facilities. The Wharf would be expanded to the east with the recommended East Promenade, which will provide the backbone for a series of other improvements, including the Small Boat Landing, the South Landing, and a Terrace Overlook, which are all intended to enhance public access along the entire length of the Wharf and add to the recreational, educational, and scenic dimensions of the Wharf. The East Promenade is proposed for enhanced public access. No parking or new structures are proposed within the East Promenade. A "Terrace Overlook" is proposed at the southernmost tip of the Wharf, extending from the East Promenade. A new "Westside Walkway" is proposed on the west side of the existing commercial buildings, approximately eight feet below the existing Wharf deck level to provide public access and to complete a full one-mile circuit of pedestrian access around the entire perimeter of the Wharf. The Westside Walkway is also critical to protecting public safety by increasing lateral resiliency of the Wharf and creating a buffer to protect the pilings underneath buildings from marine debris and the force of waves. Public comment and staff discussion with the Fire Department and Marine Safety also indicate that the presence of the Westside Walkway would improve emergency and fire response access to the west side of the Wharf, which is not currently functionally available for emergency response.

The Wharf Master Plan recommends construction of two new boat landings for expanded and ADA-accessible marine-related activities along the East Promenade. The "Small Boat Landing" would provide expanded facilities for smaller recreational vessels, including kayaks, paddleboard, and fishing boat rentals and for Wharf operations. This facility would be approximately 315 feet long and generally located across from the Wharf Headquarters between Bents 68 and 89. The "South Landing" is a larger vessel landing facility that is proposed at the deep water end of the Wharf in the location originally configured for the berthing of vessels that would provide for thetemporary mooring of larger vessels for whale watching, bay tours, sports fishing, and mooring ofeducational and scientific research vessels.

However, this facility is not intended as a terminus for cruise ships of any tonnage, to provide moorings for extended periods of time, or to provide shuttle access for any type of large vessel like a cruise ship.

Three new buildings would result in approximately 15,000 square feet of new building space forpublic-oriented uses. These include: the Gateway Building at the Wharf entrance (3,000 square feet), the Landmark Building at the end of the Wharf (6,000 square feet), and an Events

27.35 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 7 CEQA Findings of Fact Pavilion(6,000 square feet) for a total of 15,000 square feet. The buildings would likely support public and cultural uses rather than commercial uses, such as visitor center and museum.

The Master Plan identifiestwo specific locations for potential infill of existing commercialspace that could result in construction of approximately 4,000 square feet. The Master Plan also encourages the development of second floors on existing buildings for uses such as rooftop dining within existing developed structures. The Plan provides a preliminary estimate that potential remodels and intensification within the existing commercial building footprint could result in a 20-30% increase in building space separate from the three new buildings. This would be approximately 12,000-18,000 square feet based on the existing total approximate 60,000 square feet of buildings on theWharf, including the above specific infill locations. The Master Plan does not propose specificlocations for potential intensification other than the two locations identified above, nor is it knownwhen such expansion and intensification may occur.

Revised Policy 9 of the Wharf Master Plan calls for improvement of public services and facilities to enhance safety, security, comfort and convenience on the Wharf. One Action under this policy calls for expansion of the lifeguard station "to better accommodate service needs and accessibility requirements." Specific site plans have not yet been developed, but City staff has indicated that the expansion would involve either a single-story remodel or remodel with a secondfloor addition. It is estimated that the added deck surface (both sides) would be approximately 1,300 square feet
in size and would be within the overall estimated infill/expansion described above. It is estimated that rescue craft or fireboat support facilities would likely be collocated with the Small Boat Landing, but limited storage or support facilities could also be accommodated in or around the new station as construction plans are developed around existing landings and within the footprint discussed above.

Therefore, the EIR considers potential development of approximately 15,000 square feet of public use space in three new buildings and 22,000 square feet of commercial use as part of infill and expansion of existing buildings.

Overall visitor use at the Wharf could increase, although there are no projections offuture visitor use at the Wharf. The City estimates that approximately 2.5 million visitors currently come to the Wharf annually. Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan could result in some increase in visitors to the Wharf due to: 1) enhancement of existing public spaces, including expansion and increased public and private events at the Wharf; 2) expansion of opportunities for boat tours, fishing and research vessels, and small craft launches; and 3) potential increase in commercial uses and parking within the existing development footprint. Although the future visitor use at the Wharf cannot be accurately estimated, the City does not expect a substantial increase in visitors, but rather growth commensurate with overall City growth rates, hotel development in the Beach area, and economic conditions.
(DEIR, p. 3-9, pp. 3-14 to 3-16, FEIR p.4-49.)
Design Standards. The Master Plan establishes design development standards aimed at improving the curb appeal of the businesses on the Wharf and the quality of the pedestrian experience.

27.36 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 8 CEQA Findings of Fact TheDesign Standards seek to develop a collective identity and a high standard of quality and sustainable design while allowing for individual expression. The standards require all businesses to have a finished floor at sidewalk grade. In addition, a continuous canopy with lighting that extends from the storefronts over the sidewalk is proposed to provide weather protection for pedestrians. The Design Standards address building form and height; building materials and color; green building design; windows and visual access; roofs; and signage and storefront displays. (DEIR p.3-16.)
Structural Wharf Improvements. The proposed new facilities would require installation of approximately 810 new timber piles in order to support new improvements and/or to increase the lateral stability of the Wharf. Additionally, approximately 225 existing piles will require replacement over time as part of routine Wharf maintenance. New and replacement piles are expected to be 12- to 16-inch diameter timber piles and may vary based upon project specifications and the availability of suitable timber piles. The Master Plan also proposes installation of ten outriggers below the stepped edge of the East Promenade, which will extend 25 feet to the east at the elevation and in the same plane of the existing ledgers. The purpose is to provide horizontal bracing, which will increase the stiffness and reduce the sway of the Wharf at its bayward end and provide better resiliency during extreme storms and potential collisions from debris and/or vessels. There also is a need for a general improvement to the pavement and substrate of the Wharf. The Engineering Report prepared for the Wharf Master Plan recommends replacement of asphalt paving throughout the road and parking areas. Other recommended improvements include removal of all abandoned piping beneath the Wharf and provision of extended fire sprinkler coverage where needed. (DEIR, pp. 3-16 to 3-18.) Circulation, Parking and Utility Improvements. The Wharf Master Plan identifies circulation and parking improvements, including relocation of the existing Wharf entrance, reconfiguration of existing parking areas; parking management programs; and improvements to bicycle, pedestrian and other alternate transportation modes. The existing Wharf entrance gates are proposed to be relocated further south on the Wharf as one of the two specific projects proposed to be implemented in the near term. The Master Plan also proposes installation of a sign at the relocated entrance gate of up to approximately 6- to 8-feet high, that announces the Wharf as the Gateway to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Although an example is provided in the Master Plan as shown on Figure 3-6 in the DEIR, the Master Plan indicates that mock-ups of the proposed gateway signage, addressing size, shape, color and potential illumination, would be further reviewed before the sign design is finalized.

Reconfiguration of existing parking areas is proposed, which could provide a 10‒15% increase in the number of spaces within the existing parking footprint (approximately 45‒65 spaces).

Other improvements include repaving of the Wharf, which will be designed to collect the water into inlets that can treat the runoff through media (carbon filtration) before discharge into the bay waterfor stormwater quality treatment. New walkways constructed with decking boards and gaps to allow for drainage would not require treatment since the surface would be pervious. The Wharf Master Plan recommends improvements to the existing trash collection system for the Wharf to eliminatethe use of centralized garbage and reliance on large garbage trucks that are currently the greatest source of damage and incur the greatest amount of maintenance costs to

27.37 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 9 CEQA Findings of Fact the City. The Master Plan suggests that consideration be given to the use of an automated vacuum collection system or alternative approaches, including use of smaller collection trucks and more frequent pick-ups combined with smaller refuse and recycling compactor locations on the Wharf or with a close-by offsite collection center to which refuse and recyclables can be delivered by electric or other alternatively powered vehicles. At this time, there is no proposal to install such a system, nor are there any details regarding system design and off-site collection locations. If this system is proposed in the future, additional project-level environmental review would be required.
(DEIR, pp. 3-18 to 3-20.)
Near-Term Projects
Entry Gate Relocation. The existing entry gate to the Wharf is proposed to be relocated approximately 540 feet further south on the Wharf from its current location. The City anticipatesthat this project will be the first project to be implemented under the new Master Plan within the

27.38 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page
10 CEQA Findings of Fact
next two to three years. Construction is expected to take approximately six months to complete. The new entry gate is designed to provide two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes with staffed kiosks at the entrance gate. The entrance gate will be framed with a roll down, transparent gate so that the Wharf can be closed when not in operation. The gate structure would be approximately 18 feet in height and would span the width the Wharf.

The Wharf entrance gate relocation will include a new timber deck extension on the east side of the Wharf with a truss frame and new guardrails. The deck extension totals approximately 800 square feet to accommodate more efficient pedestrian movement. The piles would be installed toa depth of approximately 15 feet below the seafloor surface as is typical with the existing piles. Additionally, six 14-inch steel piles will be installed to support the entry gate frame and sign. The Project includes removal of existing asphalt, decking and stringers in the location of new piles and minor utility relocation.

A sign at the top of the entry gate is recommended in the Master Plan, but a sign is not included in the current project proposal. As previously indicated, the Master Plan proposes installation of a sign with approximate dimensions of up to 6-to-8-foot tall, 70-foot long at the relocated entrance gate, subject to further review and design. The City intends to develop a future entry gate sign design through a public process, and a specific design is not included in this project.

East Promenade. The proposed East Promenade will result in expansion and widening of the Wharf on the east side by 26-30 feet, except for widening by approximately 65 feet at the southern end of the Wharf for a total expansion of approximately 63,800 square feet (1.5 acres). The facility would consist of a hardwood deck supported by 12-to-16-inch timber piles.

The expanded area will be constructed at a slightly higher elevation than the existing Wharf with a step-down section at the eastern edge that will be approximately the same level as the existing Wharf elevation. The existing lower landing and stairway for boat access will be retained; an existing dock will be relocated to the end of the landing with a walkway constructed between the existing steps and dock. Existing parking spaces will be restriped, which will provide an approximately 60 new parking spaces.

An approximate 18-inch tall seat wall is located on the western edge along the parking side of theEast Promenade to provide additional separation from the adjacent parked vehicles and an informal resting place. A seating bench is also proposed on the east side of the proposed promenade. According to the Master Plan, the stepdown along the eastern edge will provide a place for sitting, fishing and viewing without interrupting visual access from the main deck level for those who are walking, strolling, jogging or bicycling. According to the Master Plan, new light fixtures and leaning rails that also serve as bike racks will be placed in line with the seat wall on the west sideof the Promenade.

The East Promenade will be supported by approximately 525 new timber (Douglas fir) piles.

Thepiles are driven approximately 15 feet into the seafloor. The underlying structure will be similar to, and integrated with, the existing Wharf and will be integrated with it. It will be built as an extension of the Wharf and aligned with the existing Wharf bents. The extended timber bents (beams) will be 12 inches by 12 inches in size and will be supported by new piles and stringers or joists).

27.39 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page
11 CEQA Findings of Fact
Ill.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (''NOP") of a Draft EIR on May 24, 2017. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15023, subdivision (c), and 15087, subdivision (f), the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning andResearch was responsible for distributing environmental documents to State agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution ofthe appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse made that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. The NOP was circulated for a 30-day review period on May 24, 2017. Additionally, one EIR Scoping Meeting was held on June 14, 2017 to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP and all comments received onthe NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. 1-

6.)
The previous DEIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Geology,
Hydrology and Water Quality
 Transportation and Traffic
 Water Supply, Utilities and Energy
 Land Use
 CEQA-Required Sections, including Cumulative Impacts and Alternatives Following litigation challenging the City’s compliance with CEQA and the court’s issuance of a judgment finding flaws with certain components of the EIR and Findings, the City rescinded its prior approvals and prepared further analysis to comply with the court’s judgment.

On April 17, 2023, the City released the Recirculated Draft EIR to public agencies, other interested parties, the general public, and the State Clearinghouse for a 45-day public review period, ending on May 31, 2023. The Recirculated Final EIR (“Final EIR, Volume 2”) was published on September 1, 2023 and included additional analysis of recreation and recreationrelated land use policies, as well as clarifying statements in response to the court ruling. The Historic Preservation Commission held public hearings on the Project and complete Final EIR on September 20, and October 18, 2023. The Parks and Recreation Commission held its hearing on the Project and complete Final EIR on October 9, 2023. The Planning Commission considered the Project and complete Final EIR in a public hearing on November 2, 2023. The City Council held a public hearing on the Project and complete Final EIR on January 9, 2024.

27.40 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page
12 CEQA Findings of Fact

27.41 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 9 CEQA Findings of Fact IV.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City's decision on the Project includes the following documents:

The NOP (May 2017), including related comments from agencies, organizations and individuals, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; The Draft EIR for the Project (March 2020) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited orreferenced therein;
The Final EIR for the Project (September 2020) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
The Recirculated Draft EIR for the Project (April 2023) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
The Recirculated Final EIR for the Project (August 2023) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and publichearings held by the City in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to or by the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
Any and all resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses,and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in the Draft, Final, and Recirculated EIRs and these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the Wharf Master Plan project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391‒392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents informed the

27.42 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 9 CEQA Findings of Fact experts who provided advice to CityStaff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to the adoptionof the Wharf Master Plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.)

27.43 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 10 CEQA Findings of Fact The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members by appointment at the City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department, 334 Locust Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060.

V.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER
CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must adopt a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the complete Final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the complete Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) Under CEQA, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.) Moreover, “ ‘ feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘ desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001‒1002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level.

27.44 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 11 CEQA Findings of Fact In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a lessthan27.45 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 12 CEQA Findings of Fact significant level. CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impactsthat would otherwise occur.

VI.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B) has been prepared for the Project, and will be approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that adopts these findings, if the Project is approved. The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to trackcompliance with project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

VII.

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The complete Final EIR identified significant environmental effects (or impacts) resulting from the implementation of the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan. The City’s findings with respect to the project's significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth below for each significant impact. The following statement of findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of eachenvironmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the complete Final EIR and adopted by the City, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, accompanied by a brief explanation. Full explanations of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the complete Final EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the complete Final EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the complete Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the complete Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

27.46 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 13 CEQA Findings of Fact A. Biological Resources
Impact BI0-1a: Special Status Aquatic Species-Pile Installation.

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan would lead to future expansion of the Wharf and structural improvements that would require installation of additional piles.

Underwater sound levelsresulting from pile installation could indirectly harm fish and marine mammals, including special status and protected species, if any are present at the time of construction and pileinstallation.

Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan and future construction of proposed improvements would result in new structural development, some of which would require installation of timber piles into marine waters, including construction of the two near-term planned projects - relocation of the Entry Gate and construction of the East Promenade. The Project would not result in permanent direct or indirect adverse impacts on marine habitats or populations of any special status species or marine mammal known or expected to occur in the Project area. However, construction and resulting underwatersound levels,primarily resulting from installation of new Wharf piles, could indirectly affect special status species, protected marine mammals or fish species if any are present in the marine waters in the vicinity of the Wharf during construction activities. Construction activities that could indirectly affect special status fish and marine mammal species include: 1) piledriving in which potential sound levels could impact fish and marine mammals; and 2) construction on the Wharf where sound levels could impact marine mammals. Species that could be affected are: federally-listed sea otters (threatened); other species protected under the MMPA (California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, common bottlenose dolphin, harborporpoise, and whale species that may occasionally be in the vicinity of the Wharf); and special status fish species if present in the area (Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelheadand green sturgeon). San Lorenzo River provides habitat for coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead, and these species may be in the vicinity during times of migration to/from the river, which is located approximately nearly one mile east/southeast of the Santa Cruz Wharf. Although construction is not expected to harm or injure individual fish or marine mammals based on the size of piles to be installed, corresponding underwater sound levels, and regulatory thresholds, underwater sound levels resulting from installation of piles could result in disturbance and/or harassment (referred to as “Level B” harassment for marine mammals) to special status species and protected marine mammals, a potentially significant impact. Expected underwater sound levels would be below thresholds determined to be potentially detrimental to fish.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-la-1, BIO-la-2, and BIO-la-3 would reduce the impact of potential “Level B” marine mammal harassment to a less-than-significant level for each proposed facility construction project recommendedin the Wharf Master Plan that requires installation of new piles as the measures require implementation of a fish and marine mammal monitoring plan, including hydroacoustic measurements and establishment of exclusion zones to avoid exposure of marine mammals to sound levels that could exceed Level B harassment thresholds. This measure, BIO-1a-1, would be refined in consultation with NOAA

27.47 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 14 CEQA Findings of Fact Fisheries. Mitigation Measures BIO-1a-2 and BIO-1a-3 specify techniques for pile driving to reduce effects of impact pile driving.

27.48 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 15 CEQA Findings of Fact MITIGATION BI0-1a-1. Prepare and implement a hydroacoustic, fish and marine mammal monitoring plan that implements measures to avoid exposure of marinemammals to high sound levels that could result in Level B harassment. Measuresmay include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Establishment of an underwater “exclusion zone”--defined as the distance
where underwater sound levels exceed 180 dB SELcum if whales are present,and 185 dB SELcum dB if seals and sea lions are present-- will be established. This will be refined based on hydroacoustic measurements in the field and in consultation with NOAA Fisheries. • Pre-construction monitoring by a qualified biologist to update information
on the animals’ occurrence in and near the project area, their movement patterns, and their use of any haul-out sites. • Pre-construction training for construction crews prior to inwater construction regarding the status and sensitivity of the target species in thearea and the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in the eventof a target species entering the in-water work area. • Marine mammal monitoring of the exclusion zone will be conducted priorto commencement of pile driving and underwater excavation activities.
• Pile-driving activities will not commence until marine mammals are not sighted in the exclusion zone for 15 minutes. This will avoid exposing marine mammals to sound levels in excess of the Level A criteria.
• Underwater noise will be measured with a hydrophone during piledrivingto verify sound levels and adjust the size of the exclusion zone as necessary. This measurement may be conducted once and the results applied to subsequent pile installations to determine the exclusion zone.
• In-water biological monitoring to search for target marine mammal species
and halt project construction activities that could result in injury or mortality to these species.
• Prohibit disturbance or noise to encourage the movement of the target
species from the work area. The City will contact USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to determine the best approach for exclusion of the target speciesfrom the in-water work area.
• Data collected during the hydroacoustic, fish and marine mammal monitoring will be reported to NOAA Fisheries in a postconstruction monitoring report (usually required to be completed between 60 and 90 days after construction is complete). Observations and data will be reported more frequently, if required by NOAA

27.49 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 16 CEQA Findings of Fact Fisheries.

MITIGATION BI0-1a-2. A soft-start procedure will be used for impact pile driving at the beginning of each day's in-water pile driving or any time pile driving has ceased for more than 1 hour. The following soft-start procedures will be conducted:
• If a bubble curtain is used for impact pile driving, the contractor will startthe bubble curtain prior to the initiation of impact pile driving to flush fishfrom the zone near the pile where sound pressure levels are highest.

27.50 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 17 CEQA Findings of Fact • If an impact hammer is used, the soft start requires an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a oneminute waiting period, then two subsequent 3 strike sets. The reduced energy of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because they vary byindividual drivers. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced energy because raising the hammer at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the pile resulting in multiple“strikes”.

MITIGATION BIO-1a-3. A cushion block will be used between the pile cap and the impact hammer. Layers of heavy plywood or baywood soaked in water on top of the pile cap served to dampen the sound of the hammer striking the wood as well as to dissipate friction; plywood not soaked in water was pounded to charred splinters that became very thin and had little value in attenuating sound.

FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project on biological resources (marine mammals and marine species) will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures BIO-la-1, BIO-la-2, and BIO-la-3, which have been required or incorporated into the Project. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Impact BIO-4: Wildlife Movement and Breeding. Construction of future improvements at theWharf could result in disturbance to nesting birdsif any are present at the time of construction. Adoption and implementation of the Wharf Master Plan, including the two near-term projects, would not affect movement or breeding of species in the marine habitat surrounding the Wharf. Nests of pigeon guillemots and potentially other species (including western gull, which is also known to nest on the Wharf, and pelagic cormorant) are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and they are also protected under the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. In addition, the City General Plan specifies that coastal bird rookeries should be avoided. Individual adult pigeon guillemots or other birds are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are highly mobile and would likely leave the area during construction. However, nesting activities by pigeon guillemots, western gulls, pelagic cormorants, and other native bird species could be disrupted, if construction occurs during the breeding season and the birdsare present. Noise and vibration, such as from pile driving, could potentially disturb adult birds and result in abandonment of nests, eggs, and young, and in nesting failure. This would represent a violation of federal and state regulations, and would be contrary to policies in the General Plan. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to nesting pigeon guillemots and common bird species to a less-than- significant level. The measure requires that nesting bird surveys be

27.51 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 18 CEQA Findings of Fact conducted prior to construction activities scheduled to begin during the nesting bird season. The measure

27.52 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 19 CEQA Findings of Fact further requires that, if active nests are found, construction shall be delayed or a buffer shall be established to protect the nesting birds as long as the nests remain active.

Mitigation BIO-4. Conduct a pre-construction survey for any construction that would occur during the nesting season. No more than seven days prior to initiation of construction activities, including pile-driving, scheduled to begin during the nesting season for pigeon guillemot, western gull, or other species potentially nesting on the Wharf (April 15 through August 30, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the City shall have a nesting bird survey conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 150 feet of the disturbance zone.

Pre-construction surveys for pigeon guillemots and pelagic cormorants shall include inspection of areas underneath the Wharf for indications of nesting (by kayak or other method adequate for examining remote crevices and pilings).

Because pigeon guillemots are difficult to detect, adequate surveys will require surveyors to observe for multiple hours before forming conclusions about occupancy.

If active nests for pigeon guillemots or pelagic cormorants are found, establish a buffer of at least 150 feet between each nest and construction activities under the wharf deck that could disturb nesting birds, especially pile driving. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting western gull can be resumed when the nest is vacated and young have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and if there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.

If active nests for western gull or other species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are found, establish a buffer of 100 feet between each nest and construction activities that could disturb nesting birds. Examples of such activities include pile-driving, use of power tools, and above-deck construction activities identified by a qualified biologist as likely to disturb the nesting western gulls. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting western gull can be resumed when the nest is vacated and young have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and if there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.

The nesting disturbance buffer for any species may be reduced if a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, determines that the proposed construction is unlikely to disturb the nesting birds, considering factors including, but not limited to, level of existing ongoing disturbance, the temporary level of disturbance from construction, and visual and sound obstructions between the birds and the disturbance, such as rows of piles or existing buildings.

FINDING:The East Promenade will expand the Wharf structure by 28 feet and include an underlying structure similar to the existing structure, thus providing additional areas for nesting underneath the Wharf and in areas that would increase the ability of birds to nest away from potentially impacted areas. (See DEIR, pp. 4.2-29 – 4.2-30, 4.2-44 –

27.53 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 20 CEQA Findings of Fact

4.2-45.) Bird nesting discussions in the EIR and locations identified on Figure 4.2-1 as well as more recent bird monitoring show a wide dispersion of pigeon guillemot nests around the underside of the Wharf, where their nests are observed on timber pile caps between stringers directly underneath the wharf deck. (Kittleson, 2023 Santa Cruz Wharf Nesting Bird Survey, 11-20-2023.) This suggests that the species has varied nesting habits and its habitat is not limited to the western edge of the Wharf, where commenters have alleged that the Westside Walkway might impact future nesting. (Compton Memo, Dec. 14, 2023, re: Responses to SC Bird Club Comments.) The expansion of the Wharf deck with the Eastern Promenade will provide additional space under which pigeon guillemots may choose to nest; the other prominent nesting species on the Wharf, Western Gulls, more commonly nest on rooftops or in sheltered on deck areas, away from but not completely isolated from human activity.

Moreover, the City anticipates that best management practices presently incorporated in Mitigation Measures may be further modified in consultation with the Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies during permitting for specific Master Plan projects. (FEIR, p. 4-15.) The remaining potentially significant impact of the Project on biological resources (nesting birds) will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which has been required or incorporated into the Project. TheCity hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which, avoid or substantially lessen thesignificant environmental effect as identified in the complete Final EIR.

B. Geology, Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-2: Water Quality. Implementation of the Wharf Master Plan and construction of proposed facilities would result in expansion of the Wharf, but with implementation ofstormwater treatment features recommended in the Wharf Master Plan Engineering Report and project-level construction best management practices, future construction offacilitiesand improvements would notresult in a substantial degradation of water quality, althoughinadvertent discharge of construction debris into marine waters could occur without proper controls.

There are three potential issues affecting water quality as a result of construction of new development and improvements, including the two near-term projects: 1) water quality degradation from stormwater runoff; 2) water quality degradation during construction; and
3) potential water quality issues regarding the type of coating that is on the timber piles. Each will be addressed separately. The Wharf Master Plan Engineering Report recommends a conceptual system that would pre-treat surface runoff from paved surfaces with vehicle use and prevent degradation of the marine waters below the Wharf, and the proposed coating of piles would prevent leaching of potential contaminants into ocean waters. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant water quality impacts relatedto stormwater runoff or pile materials.

During installation of the pilings, benthic sediments would be temporarily disturbed during installation of the piles, which are estimated to take approximately 15‒30 minutes to install

27.54 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 21 CEQA Findings of Fact per pile, resulting in a very minor increase in the water's turbidity in the immediate vicinity on a temporary basis. Given the limited area of disturbance and short duration, the level of temporary turbidity arising from pile driving would not result in a significant impact on water quality due to the temporary and localized nature of the effect. However, future pileinstallation and construction of projects recommended in the Wharf Master Plan could inadvertently result in discharge of construction-related debris and/or contaminants.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-2a and HYD-2b would reduce potential construction-related impacts to marine water quality to a lessthan- significant level with specifications outlined in the measures to prevent construction debris from falling into the water, control equipment fueling, and implement containment measures in the event of evidence of contamination, all of which ensure no inadvertent discharge occurs into the Monterey Bay. Additionally, implementation of Best Management Practices required by the City's stormwater management regulations would avoid or minimize impacts to a less-than-significant level that could result during construction of new buildings. Implementation of best management practices required by

27.55 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 22 CEQA Findings of Fact the City's stormwater ordinance would include measures to protect water quality, such as proper storage, disposal and cleanup of equipment fuels.

MITIGATION HYD-2a. Implement measures during construction of the Wharf substructure (piles, beams and decking), including but not limited to:
• Install a floating boom can be placed in the water to encompass the work area. Any timber that inadvertently falls into the water will float and be captured by the boom. Any metal (hand tools or bolts) that fall into the water can be retrieved by magnet or diver if necessary.
• The crane that installs the piles and beams shall have its hydraulic system converted for use with vegetable oil so that in the event of a hose failure, no petroleum based substance will contact the water, but rather food grade vegetable oil.
• Any fueling operations of the equipment is conducted on a containment area utilizing plastic sheeting and absorbent pad containment to contain any spills during fueling over the water.

MITIGATION HYD-2b. If visual evidence of contamination is observed (e.g., oily sheen) during in-water construction, all work shall stop and appropriate containment measures shall be used to identify the source of the contamination (e.g., buried creosote piles), contain, and/or remove the material; regulatory agencies with authority over the area shall be notified, i.e., the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services or Department of Toxic Substances Control. Any hazardous materials needing to be removed shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of federal and state regulations.

FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project on water quality during construction can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures HYD-21 and HYD-2b, which have been required or incorporated into the Project. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the complete Final EIR.

C. Land Use
Impact LU-1: Conflicts with Policies and Regulations. The proposed project will not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as there are no significant impacts relating to conflicts with policies or regulations.

FINDING: The proposed Project will not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. With regard to the General Plan and Coastal Act/Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies to protect coastal recreation areas and maintain existing public access, several features of the proposed project will enhance public access to the Wharf and surrounding coastal areas and recreation opportunities and

27.56 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 23 CEQA Findings of Fact thereby help to fulfill these policies. (See RPDEIR, pp. 4.8-28‒4.8-45.) For example, the proposed Project includes new boat landings for “expanded and ADA accessible marinerelated activities along the East Promenade,” will remove barriers to access, thereby protecting and expanding public access (Draft EIR, p. 3-12; see also id. at p. 3-7; RPDEIR, pp. 4.8-29‒4.8-32.) The improvements in the proposed Project “w[ill] expand the Wharf by approximately 2.5 acres, and as a result, sections of the Wharf devoted to public access, recreation and open space w[ill] increase from 26% to 60%.” (DEIR, p. 3-8; see also RPDEIR, p. 4.8-36‒4.8-37.) Specifically, with regard to fishing access, the proposed Project will introduce new areas for fishing, including added access on the Western Walkway and the East Promenade. (FEIR, pp. 4-32–4-33; DEIR, Figure 3-1.) The proposed Project will accordingly result in a net expansion of existing recreational uses, including wildlife viewing and fishing; although tailgate fishing which currently conflicts with ADA access and other uses will be reduced to an estimated 80‒100 parking spaces. In no event, will the proposed improvements, intrude on beaches or coastal bluffs with non-recreational or incompatible uses, nor would they interfere with the public’s right to access the ocean.

D. Recreation
Impact REC-1. Result in Substantial Physical Impacts. The proposed Project will not require the expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse effect on the environment. However, the Project supports new and expanded facilities that will enhance recreational uses on the Wharf and which could result in adverse physical effects on the environment (PR-1). This is considered a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a-1, BIO-1a-2, BIO1a-3, BIO-4, and HYD-2a will reduce potential impacts resulting from future expansion of the Wharf and other structural improvements that enhance recreational uses to a less-than-significant level.

FINDING: The potentially significant impacts of the Project on biological resources and water quality resulting from future expansion of the Wharf and other structural improvements, in large part for enhanced recreational uses, will be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a-1, BIO-1a-2, BIO-1a-3, BIO-4, and HYD-2a, which have been required or incorporated into the Project.

The City hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Recirculated EIR. (See RPDEIR, pp. 4.8-22‒4.8-26.).

Impact REC-2. Increased Use of Recreational Facilities. The proposed Project will potentially result in increased use of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is considered a recreational facility, but not to the extent that such use will result in substantial accelerated physical deterioration of the facility (PR-2). This is considered a less-thansignificant impact.

Mitigation Measures. This impact will be less-than-significant and does not require mitigation.

27.57 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 24 CEQA Findings of Fact FINDING: For the reasons stated above and as set forth in the complete Final EIR, the City finds that these recreation impacts related to use of recreational facilities will be less than significant. (See RPDEIR, pp. 4.8-26‒4.8-28.). Further, the City Council determines that the improvements included in the Master Plan will promote the economic vitality of the Wharf, which will generate revenues for maintenance and repairs, offsetting usage impacts and environmental damage occurring to the Wharf. Planned access improvements, including the East Promenade, Westside Walkway, and boat landings will help protect the existing Wharf Structure and provide additional recreational space to accommodate any increased usage.

Impact REC-3. Conflict with Existing Recreational Facility Uses and Policies. The proposed Project will not conflict with and/or eliminate established recreational, educational, or scientific uses at the Santa Cruz Wharf or conflict with policies protecting or encouraging recreational uses of the area (PR-3). This is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measures. This impact will be less-than-significant and does not require mitigation.

FINDING: For the reasons stated above and as set forth in the complete Final EIR, the City finds that these recreation impacts related to potential conflicts with existing recreational facility uses and policies will be less than significant. (See RPDEIR, pp. 4.8- 28‒4.8-45.)
VIII.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Basis for Alternatives-Feasibility Analysis
As noted earlier, Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project

27.58 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 25 CEQA Findings of Fact alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.

Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decisionmaking body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, 999.) As explained earlier, grounds for such a conclusion might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000‒1003.) Alternatives may also be determined to be economically infeasible and can be rejected on that ground. (The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 621‒623.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative as infeasible for such reasons.

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]” For this reason, the objectives described above in section II(C) of these findings provided the framework for defining possible alternatives. Based on the objectives, the City developed two potentially feasible alternatives in addition to the No Project Alternative that were addressed in detail in the Draft EIR.

Per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 and the Project’s objectives, the following alternatives to the project were identified:
• No Project - Required by CEQA
• Alternative 1 - Reduced Project
• Alternative 2 - Modified Project
The City Council finds that that a good faith effort was made to evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project. Alternatives were evaluated that could result in a substantial reduction or elimination of identified significant biological resource and water quality impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5-13.) Scope of Necessary Findings and Considerations for Project Alternatives As noted above, these findings address whether the various alternatives substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Project and also consider the feasibility of each alternative. Under CEQA, “[f]easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) As explained earlier, the concept of feasibility permits agency decision makers to consider the extent to which an alternative is able to meet some or all of a project's objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence.

27.59 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 26 CEQA Findings of Fact

27.60 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 27 CEQA Findings of Fact B. Description of Project Alternatives and Determination of Feasibility Potential alternatives to the proposed Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan were evaluated with respect to the objectives of the Project as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.5, “Project Alternatives” of the Draft EIR and this section of the findings. The Draft EIR identified and compared in detail the environmental effects of the No Project Alternative and two alternatives listed below with environmental impacts resulting from the Project. (See DEIR, pp. 5-14 through 5-21.)
The range of alternatives selected by the City is reasonable given the proposed uses, identified significant impacts and project objectives. Of the other alternatives considered, Alternative 1-NoProject Alternative would avoid the three identified significant impacts with elimination of major improvements to the Wharf, but ongoing maintenance and redevelopment could result in less-than- significant biological and water quality impacts. The other alternatives also would reduce significant impacts somewhat, but not eliminate them entirely, and therefore, the mitigation measures c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e E I R would be required for Alternatives 1 and 2, just as with the proposed Project. Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 2 would best achieve most of the Project objectives, while also reducing the severity of identified significant impacts and therefore, is considered the environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives reviewed pursuant to CEQA requirements. A comparison of Project features and impacts between the proposed Project and the alternatives is presented in Table 5-2 in the DEIR. Analysis discussed and considered during public comment and hearings on the Wharf Master Plan and EIR have identified additional considerations related to the Alternatives analysis and included in the following discussion.

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

1. Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the impacts of a “no project” alternative be evaluated in comparison to the proposed Project. Section 15126(e) also requires that the No Project Alternative discuss the existing conditions that were in effect at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Under the No Project Alternative, the Wharf Master Plan would not be adopted or implemented,however, continued remodeling of the Wharf, including potential second-floor development is likely to occur as this is possible under existing conditions and zoning regulations without the Project. Based on estimates in the Master Plan, approximately 12,000- 18,000 square feet of additional commercial space could be added to existing buildings, including potential infill development identified in the Master Plan and potential remodeling and expansion of the existing Lifeguard Headquarters. Some improvements, such as relocation of the entrance gates could occur without adoption of the Wharf Master Plan. Similarly, there is nothing that would preclude future implementation of other improvements, especially those that are

27.61 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 28 CEQA Findings of Fact consistent with LCP policies; however, it would be speculative to determine which improvements from the Master Plan might be proposed in the future. For the purpose of the Alternatives discussion, the No Project Alternative assumes that in the foreseeable future development at the Wharf would include some second-story building additions at unknown locations and continued replacement of piles as needed as part ofongoing maintenance, but no other improvements recommended in the Master Plan would be developed.

27.62 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 29 CEQA Findings of Fact Absence of a comprehensive plan and approved environmental review for the Wharf has proven to be a limiting factor in the past, when the City has sought grant funding for Wharf projects. It is likely, that without approval of the Wharf Master Plan, the City would continue to have difficulty securing financing for major infrastructure needs on the Wharf, including rehabilitation of existing infrastructure.

2. Analysis of No Project Alternative’s Ability to Reduce Significant Project Impacts
Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives.

The No Project Alternative would not result in construction of major improvements identified inthe Master Plan: the entrance gate relocation, the East Promenade and Terraced Overlook, the Small Boat and South Landings, the Westside Walkway, and three new public use buildings. All three identified significant construction-related biological resource and water quality impacts would be avoided with this alternative. No new significant impacts would occur under this alternative.

3. Feasibility of No Project Alternative
The No Project alternative would not meet most of the project objectives (#1-3, 5‒6, 8‒10) as the Wharf Master Plan provides specific recommendations for future facilities that would improve economic opportunities, enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access, enhance the pedestrian and bicycle use, and improve operations and public safety. It is likely that just three objectives could be addressed as part of the incremental redevelopment on the Wharf (#4, 7, 11).

The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because this alternative would not meet most of the basic Project objectives and would not fulfill the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) policiesand actions to update design guidelines (LU 2.2.1) and to develop and implement a managementplan for the Wharf “aimed at attracting local residents and enhancing recreational and economic opportunities while protecting the Monterey Bay Downtown Plan’s goals to provide additional residential units within the plan area” (ED 2.4.3). Additionally, as noted above, the lack of a comprehensive Wharf Master Plan would make the City less competitive or ineligible for major State and Federal funding sources that are needed to rehabilitate the Wharf. For any of the individual foregoing reasons or all of them collectively, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and declines to adopt it.

ALTERNATIVE 1 (Reduced Project)

1. Description
Alternative 1-Reduced Project would reduce the size of the East Promenade from approximately 21 to 14 feet in width, which is the minimum size that would provide for public and emergency vehicle access. As a result, it is estimated that 145 piles would be eliminated, reducing total potential pile installation from approximately 810 to 665. This alternative also includes a reduced buildingheight for the three new public-use buildings from 45 to 40 feet. This reduction is consistent withexisting zone district regulations, which

27.63 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 30 CEQA Findings of Fact allow a building of three stories and 40 feet. With a reduction in height of the three new buildings, this alternative also assumes a slight reduction in building size of approximately 5‒10%, resulting in new public building square footage of approximately 13,500‒14,250 square feet instead of 15,000. All other potential development identified in the Master Plan would continue to be included in the Master Plan and would be expected to occur for purpose of the evaluation of this alternative.

2. Analysis of Alternative 1’s Ability to Reduce Significant Project Impacts Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives.

Under this alternative, all three identified significant construction-related biological resource and water quality impacts would be reduced, but not eliminated. Mitigation measures would be required as with the proposed Project. No new significant impacts would occur under this alternative.

3. Feasibility of Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would meet most of the Project objectives, except for four objectives that would be only partially met (#1, 2, 5, and 9) with the reduced width of the East Promenade, and would not meet a primary objective to enhance recreational use and public access because of a reduction of the East Promenade, as well as the proposed Project would. Specifically, reduction in the East Promenade width would greatly reduce the recreational and active transportation capacity of the promenade, limiting the effectiveness of the promenade to attract visitors, specifically pedestrians and bicyclists, and associated economic activity (objectives #1, 2, 5). It would also reduce the ability of the promenade to provide emergency ingress/egress, such that larger vehicles like fire trucks could not safely use the promenade, and would not advance public safety project objective #9 for emergency access and response. For all of the foregoing reasons, or any of them individually, the City Council determines that Alternative 1 isinfeasible and is hereby rejected.

ALTERNATIVE 2 (Modified Project)

1. Description
Under the Alternative 2-Modified Project, the Westside Walkway, including its public safety features, would be eliminated. Elimination of the Westside Walkway would reduce total Project pile installation from approximately 810 to approximately 700, but would also reduce the Wharf’s ability to withstand waves and other lateral forces, as well as collisions from vessels and marine debris, and would not expand emergency or fire response access to the westside of the Wharf, as compared to the proposed Project. This alternative also includes a reduced building height for the three new public-use buildings from 45 to 40 feet. This reduction is consistent with existing zone district regulations, which allow a building of three stories and 40 feet. Language previously adopted by the Council and now included in the Revised Wharf Master Plan would reduce the height for commercial buildings to 35 feet, while maintaining the three public buildings’ maximum at 40 feet. With a reduction in height of the three new buildings, this alternative also assumes a slight reduction in building size of approximately 5‒10%, resulting in new public building square footage of approximately 13,500‒14,250 square feet, instead of 15,000. Except for

27.64 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 31 CEQA Findings of Fact the Westside Walkway, all other potential development identified in the proposed Master Plan would be included in this alternative version of the Master Plan and would be expected to occur for purpose of the evaluation of this alternative.

27.65 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 32 CEQA Findings of Fact

2. Analysis of Alternative 2's Ability to Reduce Significant ProjectImpacts Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives.

Under this alternative, all three identified significant construction-related biological resource and water quality impacts would be slightly reduced, but not eliminated. The proposed mitigation measures presented in the EIR would still be required as with the proposed Project and would reduce the potential significant impacts to a less than significant level. No new or different significant impacts would occur under this alternative.

3. Feasibility of Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would a d v a n c e , b u t n o t f u l l y meet all of the Project objectives (#2, 3, and 9) as as well as the proposed Project would. Under this alternative, elimination of the Westside Walkway would not expand or preserve public access opportunities around the entire perimeter of the Wharf for walking, sight-seeing, fishing, or swimming and small watercraft, and would not protect public safety by increasing the lateral resiliency of the Wharf, disrupting wave forces, nor would it protect pilings beneath Wharf buildings, as would occur with realization of the walkway in the full Project proposal. Additionally, without the Westside Walkway and associated Open Water Swim Float, these new emergency access points for water rescue or fire response would not be provided to the west side of the Wharf, including access for below-deck firefighting and variable wind conditions to ensure a favorable upwind firefighting location. (See Letter from Fire Dept., Nov. 6, 2023.)
Alternative 2 involves the construction of approximately 112 fewer piles than the proposed Project, providing insufficient additional structural support. (Master Plan Report, p. 19.) Regular maintenance, repairs, and modest additional structural support alone cannot ensure the necessary public safety required of the Wharf under all the forecasted conditions to which it will be exposed and would not provide additional protection against marine debris and waves. Project engineers have stated that dynamic conditions faced by marine infrastructure result in best practices often evolving from existing use cases. Defensive infrastructure like fenders, guard pilings, and wave force attenuation decking or devices help reduce impact damage and wave overtopping which can destabilize wharfs (as happened at Seacliff Pier) and which could damage above deck structures (as mitigated by the presence of exterior decking at Capitola Wharf on January 5, 2023).

Alternative wave force mitigation measures commonly used, such as seawalls, breakwaters, and jetties would likely have greater visual and environmental impact than the Western Walkway and less community support, including potential impacts to nearby surf breaks in the Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, and are thus not recommended for the Project. Without the Westside Walkway, the Project would not include all the safety improvements and recommendations contemplated in the Engineering Report for improving the safety of the Wharf. (October 8, 2014 Engineering Report, p. 10-23 [recommendation “1” to “[w]iden the Wharf with vertical timber piles to increase its resistance to lateral wave and tsunami forces” and recommendation 5 to “[i]mplement the West Walkway as called for in the Master Plan to protect the west side of the Wharf and buildings”].) The October 2014 Wharf Master Plan Report details the structural support that the Westside Walkway will add to the Wharf:
[The Westside Walkway] will require two piles per bent for a total of 112 new piles. Two 6-inch by 12-inch dimensional lumber beams at each bent line will be provided and bolted to the two new

27.66 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 33 CEQA Findings of Fact piles and extended to the first existing pile on the Wharf for improved lateral stability. Four inch by twelve inch stringers at 24 inches on center will span between the beams and a two-inch grey pultruded fiberglass reinforced plastic decking with a coarse grit forslip resistance will be provided over the stringers to reduce the potential uplift on the structure caused by storm waves. (Master Plan Report, p. 19.)
The Engineering Report concluded that the Westside Walkway is essential to improve safety on the Wharf, as the additional piles that would need to be installed to widen the Wharf for the Walkway “will increase the Wharf’s ability to withstand . . . waves and other lateral forces.” (Engineering Report, p. 10-1.) Specifically, the Westside Walkway will “lessen the impact to the existing piles beneath the buildings where it is far more difficult to replace piles” and “will serve to dissipate cresting wave energy that might otherwise strike the existing building walls and picture windows in the restaurants,” which “will provide increasing benefit as sea level rises.” (Id. at p. 4-

9.)
Preservation and operation of commercial structures on the Wharf is essential for the future economic vitality of Wharf businesses and Wharf maintenance resources. Elimination of the Westside Walkway would not protect vulnerable load bearing piles beneath buildings, potentially resulting in the loss of operating businesses, property, jobs, and infrastructure, risks that are projected to increase as climate change intensifies. Economic impacts resulting from any such occurrence would be significant, both in magnitude and duration, and would involve demolition and hazardous materials remediation in sensitive environments, extensive interagency permitting, replacement costs, loss of employment, loss of business, maintenance and operating revenues, regional economic impacts to tourism, and potential loss of life. As an example, by the time the Miramar Restaurant closed in 2015, the building and structure beneath had degraded to a state that demolition was required. The closure of the restaurant with 42 employees and no ability for reuse resulted in a vacant site for more than 6 years until resources could be attained to demolish the building and repair the structure. Redevelopment of the site remains ongoing, with mounting opportunity costs that would likely total over $15,000,000 since the restaurant closed.

The Engineering Report and City staff also concluded that the Westside Walkway will provide the unique safety feature of serving as a barrier from coastal storm waves and marine debris. (Engineering Briefing Paper, p. 6 [the Westside Walkway will “[protect] the main structure of the Wharf from storm-driven debris from the west”]; October 15, 2020 Planning Commission Hearing Transcript, pp. 38 [staff explaining that the Walkway “itself [would] become a barrier to marine debris, helping ensure . . . wayward redwood trees don’t go knocking out pilings under [the Wharf] buildings” and serve as a buffer to reduce the likelihood of harm from impacts to the structures supporting buildings on the Wharf and increase the overall resiliency of the Wharf]; November 24, 2020 City Council Hearing Transcript, pp. 28–29 [Wharf Supervisor discussing impacts of natural forces on Wharf structure, and the Westside Walkway’s purpose as the “first line of defense . . . designed to . . . reduce the wave force” and “a disruptive measure” to break up these impacts], 59–60 [staff explaining Walkway’s purpose “to create a defense barrier” that includes “a set of guard piles to protect . . . sensitive buildings” on the Wharf]; November 24, 2020 Staff Report, p.

23.5 [staff explaining that the Walkway will “defend pilings under the buildings from the bombardment of waves and logs”].)
Public feedback at the October 18, 2023 HPC hearing also identified that the Westside Walkway will provide important public safety and emergency access. The Fire Department has specifically

27.67 City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Page 34 CEQA Findings of Fact confirmed that emergency access, firefighting, and marine rescue would all be enhanced through construction of the Westside Walkway, consistent with public safety project objectives that could not be as thoroughly achieved without the Westside Walkway. (Fire Dept. Letter, Nov. 6, 2023.) Furthermore, “the planned Western Walkway would protect the west side of the Wharf and buildings, and it can be closed during severe storms and readily repaired if damaged, thus providing a buffer to the main Wharf structure that could sustain greater damage in severe storms if left unprotected . . . .” (Final EIR, p. 4-16; see also Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22–4.4-23 [discussing the same].) The Westside Walkway will similarly provide collision risk protection, which is necessary due to the Wharf’s “significant” risk of collision given its proximity to the Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor, “which has a large volume of boat traffic . . . .” (Engineering Report, pp. 10-21–10-

22.) The Engineering Report explains that the Westside Walkway “would act to provide fendering in the event of . . . a vessel collision.” (Id. at p. 10-22.) Lacking the Westside Walkway, Alternative 2 does not offer the same degree of essential safety protections provided by the proposed Project. The Draft EIR accordingly concluded in the CEQA considerations section that “[e]limination of the Westside Walkway would not increase the lateral resiliency of the Wharf, as would occur with realization of the walkway in the full project proposal.” (Draft EIR, p. 5-19.)
Public commenters have alleged that the Western Walkway is not necessary because they assert there are other feasible approaches to achieving the desired lateral resiliency and protection that the Western Walkway would provide. However, no one has suggested any such specific, feasible, and equally or more protective measures, and the City has found none throughout its multi-year planning and evaluation process for the Wharf Master Plan. As noted above, other approaches may be possible, but likely have more significant environmental impacts or would have much greater tradeoffs. The EIR concluded that the proposed project, including the Western Walkway, would not result in any significant impacts relating to aesthetics or historic resources, and the court ruling did not find fault with those conclusions, despite Don’t Morph the Wharf’s arguments to the contrary. Additionally, the proposed project, including the Western Walkway, would not result in any impacts to biological resources (including nesting birds) that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. (Compton Memo, Dec. 14, 2023.) Therefore, the City Council finds that there are no compelling or credible arguments from an environmental perspective to exclude the Western Walkway.

Additionally, the exclusion of the Westside Walkway would not expand public access, recreational opportunities, or enhance the pedestrian environment as effectively as the full Project proposal.

Specifically, removing the Westside Walkway would significantly reduce walking and fishing compared to the proposed Project (a reduction of 1150 LF) and would not protect existing fishing, but rather, result in a net decrease of approximately 105 LF of fishing compared to existing conditions.

For all of the foregoing reasons, and any of them individually, the City Council determines that Alternative 2 is infeasible and it is hereby rejected.

27.68 RESOLUTION NO. NS-
__,___EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan 2030 has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097). A master copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the office of the City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department and shall be available for viewing upon request.

27.69 FRM ENV-20 (Rev. 2-12)

27.70 December 2023 Page1
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Actions
Monitoring/ Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirement
s
Verification
of
Complianc
e
Biological Resources

27.71 December 2023 Page2
MITIGATION BI0-1a-1. Prepare and implement a
hydroacoustic, fish andmarine mammal monitoring plan
that implements measures to avoid exposure of marine
mammals to high sound levels that could result in Level B harassment. Measures may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Establishment of an underwater "exclusion zone"-
defined as the distance where underwater sound levels
exceed 180 dB SEl...cum if whales are present, and
185 dB SEl...cum dB if seals and sea lions are presentwill be established. This will be refined based on hydroacoustic measurements in the field and in
consultation with NOAA Fisheries.
• Pre-construction monitoring by a qualified biologist
to update information on the animals' occurrence in
and near the project area, their movement patterns,
and their use of any haul-out sites.
• Pre-construction training for construction crews prior to in-water construction regarding the status and
sensitivity of the target species inthe area and the
actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in
the event of a target species entering the in-water
work area.
• Marine mammal monitoring of the exclusion zone
will be conductedprior to commencement of pile
driving and underwater excavation activities.
• Pile-driving activities will not commence until marine mammals are notsighted in the exclusion zone for 15
minutes. This will avoid exposing marine mammals to
sound levels in excess of the Level A criteria.
• Underwater noise will be measured with a
hydrophone during pile- driving to verify sound levels
and adjust the size of the exclusion zoneas
necessary. This measurement may be conducted
once and the results applied to subsequent pile
installations to determine the exclusion zone.

Implementation
actionsare
specified in the
mitigation
measure.

The City Economic
Development
Department staffare
responsible for hiring a
qualified consultant to
prepare the monitoring
plan and for hiring a
qualified biologist to
implement the
monitoring measures
during installation of
new piles.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities that
require
installationof new
pilings:
• Relocated Entry
• East Promenade
• Small Boat
Landing
• South Landing
• Lifeguar
d
Headquar
ters
Expansio
n
City Economic
Development
staffshall
require a
complete
monitoring
report with
results from
the
construction
monitor to
document
compliance
with
provisions of
the monitoring
plan.

27.72 December 2023 Page3
• In-water biological monitoring to search for target
marine mammal species and halt project construction
activities that could result in injury or mortality to these species.
• Prohibit disturbance or noise to encourage the
movement of the target species from the work area.

The Citv will contact USFWS and NOAA

27.73 December 2023 Page4
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Actions
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirement
s
Reporting
Requirement
s
Verification of
Compliance
Fisheries to determine the best approach for exclusion
of the target species from the in-water work area.
• Data collected during the hydroacoustic, fish and
marine mammal monitoring will be reported to NOAA
Fisheries in a post-construction monitoring report
(usually required to be completed between 60 and 90
days after construction is complete). Observations and
data will be reported more frequently, if required by
NOAA Fisheries.

Implementation
actionsare
specified in the
mitigation
measure.

The City Economic
Development
Department staffare
responsible
incorporating measure
into future construction
specifications for
projects that include
installation of new
piles for new facilities.
(This does not include
maintenance and
replacement of existing
piles.)
Measure to be
included in
construction
specifications
for thefollowing
projects to be
implemented
during pile
driving
activities:
• Relocated Entry
• East
Promenade
None required.
• Small Boat
Landing
MITIGATION BI0-1a-2. A soft-start procedure will be
used for impact pile driving at the beginning of each day's in-water pile driving or any time pile driving has ceased for more than 1 hour. The following soft-start
procedures will be conducted: If a bubble curtain is used for impact pile driving, the contractor will start the bubble curtain prior to the initiation of impact pile driving to flush fish from the zone near the pile
where sound pressure levels are
.
highest. If an impact hammer is used, the soft start requires an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent
energy, followed by a one minute waiting period,
then two subsequent 3 strike sets. The reduced
energy of an individual hammer cannot be quantified
because they vary by individual drivers. Also, the • South Landing

27.74 December 2023 Page5
number of strikes will vary at reduced energy
because raising the hammer at less than full power
and then releasing it results in the hammer
"bouncing" as itstrikes the pile resulting in multiple
"strikes".
• Lifeguar
d
Headquar
ters
Expansi
on
MITIGATION BI0-1a-3. A cushion block will be used
between the pile cap and the impact hammer. Layers of
heavy plywood or baywood soaked in water on top of the
pile cap served to dampen the sound of the hammer
striking the wood as well as to dissipate friction; plywood not soaked in water was pounded to charred splinters
that became very thin and had little value in attenuating sound.

I
Mitigation BI0-4. Conduct a pre-construction survey for any construction
Implementation
actions
The City Economic Prior to
construction of
A report of the
that would occur during the nesting season. No more than seven days prior
are specified in the Development
Department staff projects findings of the
to initiation of construction activities, including piledriving, scheduled to
begin during the nesting season for pigeon guillemot,
western gull, or other
mitigation measure. are responsible for
hiring a qualified
biologist to conduct
recommended in
theWharf Master
Plan if
survey
and
measur
es
species potentially nesting on the Wharf (April 15 through August 30, or as
pre-construction nesting construction is initiated Implemented shall

27.75 December 2023 Page6
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Actions
Monitoring/ Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirements
Verification
of
Complianc
e

27.76 December 2023 Page
7 determined bya qualified biologist), the City shall have a nesting bird survey conducted bya qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 150 feet of the disturbance zone.

Pre-construction surveys for pigeon guillemots and
pelagic cormorants shall include inspection of areas
underneath the Wharf for indications of nesting (by kayak or other method adequate for examining remote crevices
and pilings). Because pigeon guillemots are difficult to detect, adequate surveys will require surveyors to
observe for multiple hours before forming conclusions
about occupancy.

If active nests for pigeon guillemots or pelagic
cormorants are found, establisha buffer zone of 150 feet between each nest and construction activities under the wharf deck that could disturb nesting birds, especially pile driving. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting western gull can be resumed when the nest is
vacated and young have fledged, as determined by the
biologist, and if there is no evidence ofa second attempt at nesting.

If active nests for western gull or other species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are found, establisha buffer of 100
feet between each nest and construction activities that could disturb nesting birds. Examples of such activities include pile-driving, use of power tools, and above-deck construction activities identified bya qualified biologist as likely to disturb the nesting western gulls. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting western gull can be resumed when the nest is vacated and young have
fledged, as determined by the biologist, and if there is no evidence ofa second attempt at nesting.
survey prior to
construction ofprojects
recommended in the
Wharf Master Plan if
construction is initiated
duringthe bird nesting
period.
during the nesting
period.
be prepared by
the biologist
conductingthe
survey and
submitted to
the City
Economic
Development
Department.

27.77 December 2023 Page8
The nesting disturbance buffer for any species may be
reduced if a qualified biologist, in consultation with
CDFW, determines that the proposed construction is
unlikely to disturb the nesting birds, considering factors including, but not limited to, level of existing ongoing disturbance, the temporary level of disturbance from
construction, and visual and sound
obstructions between the birds and the disturbance,
such as rows of pilesor existing buildings.

27.78 December 2023 Page9
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Actions
Monitoring /
Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirement
s
Reporting
Requirement
s
Verification
of
Complianc
e
Hydrology and Water Quality
MITIGATION HYD-2a. Implement the following
measures during construction of the Wharf
substructure (piles, beams and decking):
■ Install a floating boom can be placed in the water to encompass the work area. Any timber that
inadvertently falls into the water will float and be
captured by the boom. Any metal (hand tools or bolts)
that falls into the water can be retrieved by magnet or diver if necessary.
■ The crane that installs the piles and beams may have
the hydraulic system fit with vegetable oil so that in the event of a hose failure, no petroleum based substance
will contact the water, but rather food grade
vegetable oil.
■ Any fueling operations of the equipment is conducted
on a containment area utilizing plastic sheeting and
absorbent pad containment to contain any spills during
fueling over the water.

Implementation
actionsare
specified in the
mitigation measure.

The City Economic
Development
Department staffare
responsible
incorporating measure
into future construction
specifications for
improvements to the
Wharf substructure
recommended in the
Wharf Master Plan.

During
construction.

None are
required.

27.79 December 2023 Page1
0 MITIGATION HYD-2a If visual evidence of
contamination is observed (e.g.,oily sheen) during inwater construction, all work shall stop and appropriate containment measures shall be used to identify the
source of the contamination (e.g., buried creosote piles), contain, and/or remove the material; regulatory agencies with authority over the area shall be notified, i.e., the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services or
Department of Toxic Substances Control. Any hazardous
materials needing to be removed shall be handled and
disposed of in accordance with the requirements of
federal and state regulations.

Implementation
actions are
specified in the
plan.

The City Economic
Development
Department staffare
responsible
incorporating measure
into future construction
specifications for
improvements to the
Wharf substructure
recommended inthe
Wharf Master Plan.

During
construction.

None are
required.

27.80 O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4
Santa Cruz WharfMasterPlanReport

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ BY ROMA DESIGN GROUP REVISED 2023

27.81 Funded by a grant from the
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration and administered by the Seattle Regional Office
This report is intended for informational purposes and viewing on your computer.

Printed copies are available at the downtown branch of the Santa Cruz Public Library and also at the City Clerk’s office located at 809 Center St., Rm. 10.

All rights are reserved by ROMA Design Group and the City of Santa Cruz.

27.82 O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4
Santa Cruz WharfMasterPlanReport
Table of Contents

THE BASIS FOR PLANNINGAND DESIGN
Introduction 1
Background 3
Unique Qualities of Historical Significance 5
Issues and Study Objectives 7
Engineering Considerations 9
Summary of Policies and Proposed Actions 11

MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Part 1: Engaging the Bay and Expanding Public Access, Recreation and Boating 16 The East Promenade: The Backbone for Enhancing Bay-Oriented Recreation 18 The Westside Connection – Creating Continuity on the Perimeter of the Wharf 21 The Boat Landings Extend Wharf Activities Out into the Bay 21 Bayward End of the East Promenade – Creating an Exhilarating Destination 25 Part 2: Enhancing Existing Public Space and Activities, Circulation and Parking 27 The Landmark Building – Restoring an Icon and Creating a Visual Focus and Destination 29 The Events Pavilion – A Gathering Place that Connects not Divides 31 The Gateway Building – Welcoming Visitors to the Wharf 33 Vehicular Circulation, Parking and the Arrival Experience 35 Part 3: Improving Commercial Vitality and Building Design 41 Design Standards 49
Implementation51
Preliminary Planning Level Budget Estimate 54
Acknowledgements 59

27.83 -
Context and Activity Linkages (Updated 2023)

27.84 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 1

T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N Introduction
Asthe Santa Cruz Wharf celebrates its 100th year anniversary this year, the City has been given a unique opportunity, facilitated by federal US Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) funding, to step back and look at the Wharf from a variety of points of view – economically, functionally, structurally, programmatically and aesthetically – and to plan for the future. The results of this effort is the preparation of a Wharf Master Plan and Engineering Report undertaken by a consultant team, led by ROMA Design Group and working in close cooperation with City staff.

The need for a comprehensive study of the Wharf dates back to 1998 when the Beach and South of Laurel Plan was prepared. During that time, a communityplanningprocesswas undertaken andissues and objectives were identified, including the need to prepare design and developmentstandards. The Coastal Commission also encouraged the City to update its regulatory and permitting framework to guide and facilitate improvement and development of the Wharf. The EDA grant finallymade possible the preparation of a Master Plan study that will create a basis for policy and design guidance, investment decisions and improvement programs. Itis envisioned thatit will become the basis for updating local and coastalplanning documents.

The study process has involved two parallel and closely inter-related tracks. The master planning effort began with a review of existing conditions and available information and meetings with stakeholders, tenants, neighbors and community-wide interests, to gain a better understanding of issues of concern and to develop approaches to help achieve community objectives. At the same time, the project coastal engineers, Moffatt & Nichol, undertook underwater and above grade surveys of the structural conditions of the Wharf, including the pilings, the substructure, and paving to determine its structural integrity, the need for repair and replacement, environmental adequacy, and general longevity. The two efforts were coordinated and information regularly exchanged so that the findings of one effort would inform the other. The results are documented in this Master Plan Study and in the companion Engineering Report.

The Master Plan Study recognizes that the Wharf serves a variety of different roles within the City - as a visual landmark of historic significance, a recreational and open space resource, and as a real estate asset that contributes to the economy of Santa Cruz and the Beach Area. This report addresses a number of study objectives established by the City related to economic development, design and development standards, re-visioning of public spaces, enhancement of recreational use and public access, integration of educational and scientific resources and assets and evaluations and recommendations related to public safety.

Although the City’s study objectives were developed to address specific issues of concern, the response to these objectives required an approach that addressedmultiple objectives in an integrated and strategicmanner.

Of critical importance to the City and of primary concern to the Master Plan effort isthe improvement ofthe economicdevelopment potentialof the Wharf. The Wharf can play an even greater role in the regional and local economy whichis closely tied to tourism, recreation and education.

It can also contribute to the creation of new and expanded employment opportunitiesin a variety of sectors and skill sets. It can become a more attractive location for a variety of appropriate commercialbusiness ventures and enhance the revenue potential ofthese enterprises. In addition, the Wharf,whichis today a fiscallyneutralrealestateasset, can become a more productive resource that adds to the fiscal health and viability of the City. To achieve the full economic development potential of the Wharf, its market appealmust be broadened and diversified to a wider segment of residents and visitors who will be attracted to the Wharfmore frequently, forlonger periods oftime and throughout the year.

Three complementary and inter-related strategies have been developed to address the economic development potential of the Wharf and other community objectives for the enhancement and preservation of this historically significant landmark for many years to come. The first strategy calls for the physical expansion of the perimeter of the Wharf for public access, recreation, fishing and boating. Planned improvements include a wide promenade on the east side of the Wharf as well as new boat landings, overlooks and the completion of a west side walkway.

These improvements will strengthen the relationship of the Wharf to Monterey Bay and the scenic and environmental qualities it offers.

Enhancing the Wharf for recreational and open space purposes and creating newopportunities forjogging, promenading, bicycling,walking, viewing,fishing,open water swimming andboatingwillfurther its appeal to a broader segment of the population and increase year-round visitation. In addition,the improvementswill also create a new platform for science and educationalprogramming, which can extend the experiences offered atthe nearby Exploration Center and complementthe initiatives of the Santa Cruz Wharf Outreach Network. Enhancing the appeal of the Wharf to visitors interested in gaining a better understanding of the ecology andmarine life ofthe Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the research and scientific endeavors that are being undertaken will also strengthen the diversity and market appeal of the Wharf. The improvements and the activities associated with them will create more reasons for visitors to come to the Wharf and the number of times and seasons of the year that they choose to visit. Furthermore, they will help to refresh the image and identity for existing Wharf businesses as well as create new branding and marketing opportunities.

27.85 The second strategy is aimed at enhancing the existing public realm on the Wharf. This includes the significant area currently devoted to vehicular circulation and parking which occupies the largest portion of the Wharf today. It also includes three key, but underutilized, public spaces at the point where the deck widens to accommodate commercial uses, at the change in direction of the line of commercial buildings, and at the bayward end of the Wharf. This strategy includes the reorganization of the parking areas for greater efficiency and effectiveness, to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, and to create a more attractive and inviting arrival experience. For the key underutilized public spaces along the length of the Wharf, the strategy is aimed at expanding the opportunity for publicly-oriented activities and creating a built form that gives structure and orientation to the visitor experience, expresses the unique locational characteristics of the Wharf and adds a more diverse and varied dimension to its venues and offerings. These improvements will create a public realm that enhances the quality of the visitor experience and thus its market appeal and the amount of time and money that visitors are willing to spend at the Wharf.

The third strategy calls for expanding the number, mix and attractiveness of commercial uses on the Wharf within the existing footprint devoted to these purposes. To achieve a more diverse mix of uses, a marketing plan needs to be prepared to guide the proactive efforts of the City to outreach to potential tenants as businesses evolve overtime. The strategy calls forsit-down and take-out restaurants and shops of different types and sizes, and opportunities to feature the “maker” culture aswell aslocal and innovative tenants and incubator businesses. The strategy includes physical design criteria and developmentstandards thatwill encourage attractive and well-fitted buildings thatreinforce a sense of place. These standards also addressthe need to enhance “curb appeal” by creating engaging and interesting storefronts and improving the quality ofthe pedestrian experience. Improving the offerings and the ambiance of commercialdevelopmentwill be an important additional component to broadening the market appeal of the Wharf and realizing itseconomicdevelopmentpotential.

The 1914 Wharf was approximately 4.2 acres. Between the 1950’s and the 1980’s, it was increased by 3.3 acresfor commercial uses and parking.

The Wharftoday is approximately 7.5 acres, 67% of which is used for vehicular circulation, parking and commercial development.

The Master Plan proposes a 2.5-acre expansion for public access,recreation and open space purposes along the perimeter of the Wharf. 2 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.86 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 3 Background
The Santa Cruz Wharf is the last of six piers that were built along the Santa Cruz shoreline into offshore waters and it is the only one remaining today. It was built in 1914 as a City facility to be publicly owned and operated by local government for the transfer of agriculture, lumber, leather, lime and other products, from land to water and from ship to rail. By near unanimous approval, City bonds were used to build the new Wharf that would extend farther out than any previous pier - more than a half-mile into deep water with a bent configuration at the end to provide for the mooring of steamships which docked adjacent to a freight warehouse at the bayward end of the Wharf.

At the time it was built and continuing up to the present day, the Wharf exceeded allstandards of design. Beyond its extraordinary half-mile length,the Wharf is a timber pier, entirely constructed of wood and supported by 4,445 massive Douglas Fir pilings. These pilings create a virtual forest beneath the bay that create a unique ecosystem and support a high platform over and out into the bay. From shallow waters at the shore, the Wharf extends in increasingly deeper water to reach 35 feet in depth at its far end. Within the community of wharves and piers remaining along the coast, the Wharf stands out as a remarkable achievement. Today, it stands as the longest timber pile-supported pier structure in the United States and one of the longest in the world.

Called a wharf because of its early function in off-loading cargo, the Santa Cruz Wharf is, in reality, a pier structure that, unlike a wharf which typically runs parallel to the shore, reaches out to deep water to facilitate the mooring of large vessels. Unlike other piers built in a similar time frame, either here or elsewhere, for pleasure and recreation, the Santa Cruz Wharf right from the start was envisioned as a commercial enterprise built with public funds to further the economic development of the City and trade based in the resources that the region offered. Soon after its construction, the Wharf became an attractive facility for the mooring and off-loadingof commercialfishing vessels. In SantaCruz, commercial fishingwasprimarily undertaken by Ligurianimmigrantswho brought their fishing skills and vessel designs to effectively harvestthe bounty of Monterey Bay and ocean watersbeyond.

Over the years, the Wharf has evolved in role, function and identity.

From its initial incarnation as a cargo handling and shipping pier to its later adaptation to serve the commercial fishing industry, the early decades of the Wharf were closely tied to the resources of the bay. After World War II, there was a shift in identity and beginning in the 1950’s the Wharf was significantly expanded for commercial uses and parking.

The commercial uses were initially a direct outgrowth of the commercial fishing industry, incorporating fish sales and featuring prepared seafood dishes in an open air setting in close conjunction with off-loading and handling of the daily catch. However, today the Wharf no longer serves the commercial fishing industry which has evolved and changed to transcend distance between resource and market. In addition, the increasingly diminished local fish supply and construction of the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor with easy landside accessibility shifted commercial fishing away from the Wharf and it is highly unlikely that it will return.

As time has gone on, the connection to the bay has become more elusive and activities that came into being as a result of the physical configuration and length of Wharf have long vanished. The pulse of activity brought about by the off-loading of the catch from commercial fishing vessels no longer animates the Wharf, and many of the buildings that evolved from that era transitioned from fish markets and casual open diners to more formal indoor dining, and from their early distinctive mixed use form to a more standard vocabulary of inland commercial buildings. As the surface parking areas grew in size, they became the dominant physical focus of the Wharf, distancing visitors from the bay.

The large landmark building that once crowned the bayward end of the Wharf and wasitsicon was demolished.

Today, the Wharf is one of a number of destination attractions in the Beach Area. This area is an important visitor attraction during the summer months and on weekends when the Boardwalk is open. To a great extent, the Wharf attracts visitors by the lore of its past, the uniqueness of its extended form into the bay, its concentration of restaurants and souvenir shops and its conveniently located parking. Although it provides opportunities for pier fishing, kayak and small fishing boat rentals, the Wharf’s identity is more like a one-sided commercial street oriented primarily to the commercial uses along its length, than it is like a recreational pier oriented to the water. Public access along the perimeter, which is most directly related to the bayfront setting, is extremely limited and discontinuous.

Available economic data indicates that the Wharf receives its fair share of the visitor volume to the County and, although revenues were flat for many years, Wharf businesses are today doing much better. However, the operations and maintenance of the Wharf exceed lease revenues. If it were not for parking revenues, the Wharf would lose money. From a fiscal point of view, even with parking revenues, the Wharf is a net neutral operation. Therefore, one of the important considerations for the Master Plan is how to improve the market potential and economic viability of the Wharf and how to make it a more profitable enterprise zone for the City and its tenants.

From a larger community standpoint, the Wharf is an important cultural and historical asset and has a great deal more potential to fulfill recreation and open space opportunities that will contribute to the economy as well as to the quality of life in the city. From a regional, statewide and national perspective, the Wharf is part of a very valuable coastal resource and is located within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Therefore, public access and enjoyment of the bay’s scenic and environmental qualities and helping to promote education and stewardship of the environment are also important considerations.

27.87 4 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T · O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.88 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 5 Unique Qualities of Historical Significance
The Wharf isthe last remaining pier in Santa Cruz and is a unique landmark structure thathasplayed a significant rolein thehistorical, cultural and economic evolution of the City. Its period of historic significance dates from the years between 1914 and World WarII, when its role and functions were most closely tied to the bay andmaritime and commercialfishing activities. Thepreservation and continualmaintenance of its timber piles and wood sub-structure are essential to its identity and historic character. In addition, its linear form that recalls historic maritime functions, reaching out to deep water for the berthing of large commercial vessels, is also an important characteristic. In the late 1970’s, a plan to reconfigure the Wharf with an extension branching to the east to create a new “fishing village” was proposed but fortunately never implemented as it would have significantly diminished the linearity and historical integrity of the Wharf.

Several aspects of the Wharf related to the period of historic significance have been retained to this day and others have been removed. The pattern of development that resulted in a clustering of buildings on the windward side of the Wharf is a historic legacy that arose from the need to provide shelter for activities to the east which were better suited to maritime uses and commercial fishing, including the tie-up of vessels and the off-hauling of the daily catch. Maintaining an open, leeward side is an important characteristic because it not only provides a more appropriate location for working maritime functions, but it also responds to the unique environmental conditions of the bayfront setting and the need to mediate the natural forces of winds, currents and tides. These locational characteristics, and the natural conditions that they respond to, are essential to maintain and reinforce as improvements and development take place in the future.

Many of the original buildings, however, have been demolished, including the historic landmark building that was located at the bayward end of the Wharf. This building was significant, from a historic point of view, because it gave physical expression to the environmental conditions that made deepwater maritime functions possible and that contributed to the configuration of the end of the Wharf to optimize berthing relative to wind and wave conditions. The restoration of this building would re-establish a strong visual terminus to the Wharf, would provide an icon tied to its maritime traditions and create opportunities for activities that would make the end of the Wharf a more significant destination.

The building vocabulary for the new publicly oriented structures on the Wharf should draw upon the simple and straightforward form of historic maritime industrial structures that featured high bay, large volume spaces with positive relationships between interior and exterior spaces, created in part by the need to transfer products and materials from inside to outside.

Even the early commercial buildings that combined fish sales and restaurant service with off-loading and distribution activities developed a form that was distinctive to the Wharf, its environmental qualities and maritime functions. In contrast, as time went on, the identity of new buildings began to lose the distinction of place and emulate buildings within commercial settings that could be found elsewhere in the City or anywhere in the country and therefore diminished the unique placemaking qualities of the Wharf and its environmental setting.

The advantage of traditional formsthat have evolved to meet newuses is thatthey have the capability to be “multi-lingual” and speak the language of the past and the language of the present. They are an adaptive form that hasthe capability to be used inmany differentways,whilemaintaining a sense of authenticity. In historicpreservation terms,they create opportunities for continuity, growth and change. Even thoughmost of the historic buildings from the relevant period are gone, the restoration oftheir form is a worthy pursuit.

Other distinguishing historic characteristics of the Wharf relate to the use of materials, in particular the wood decking that once was the predominant surface treatment throughout the Wharf. Today, this material cannot be used everywhere but certainly could be brought back within the wider pedestrian promenade areas. The placement of the wood decking would not only recallthe historicmaterials of the Wharf, but the open joints between boards would facilitate drainage and create greater visual connection to thewater below.

The historic working wharf functioned like an open platform high above the bay with open edges to facilitate fishing, docking and off-loading activities. Although guardrails are required today for public safety, increasing visual accessibility to the bay in a manner that would recallthe predominantly open and unobstructed feel of a working wharf is desirable. This could be accomplished by the creation of a lowered, stepped edge along the perimeter of the Wharf where railings would be located along with new public access areas. The railing design would also be as transparent andminimalistic aspossible to allow for a stronger visual connection to the bay. The stepped configuration would allow forthe main deck level of the promenade to have unobstructed views and more of a feeling of being on an open pier. At the same time, the lower level would be ideally suited forfishing,without interferingwith the visual experience of other recreationalusers.

27.89 6 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T . O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.90 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 7 Issues and Study Objectives
In developing the Master Plan for the Wharf, a number of issues and objectives were articulated in the work program and emerged or were reinforced during the community outreach and planning process. In summary, these include:
• Improve business and economic development opportunities.

This is an overarching consideration offar-reaching consequence, incorporated throughout theMaster Plan. Specific topics related to thisobjective include theidealbusinessmix; how to better attract residents and visitors to the Wharf; how to create strong local appeal and customerloyalty; whatthe potential branding opportunities may be; how special events can be used more effectively to enhance business; whatthe potential is for additional development or a more efficient use of existing spaces to create a synergy between existing and newbusinesses; andwhat are thephysicalfactors thatwould give the positive economic impact fortheWharf businesses. • Enhance opportunities for recreational use and public access. In addressing thisobjective, considerationwas given to how existing recreational activities canbe enhanced and hownew recreational activitiesthat are not currently atthe Wharf can be located there; what are the physical improvementsneeded to enhance existing and potentialrecreationalactivities;how cantheperimeter accessareas along the edges of the Wharf be improved and how can linkages to other recreationaldestinationsbe enhanced.
• Integrate education and research initiatives. Considerations related to this objective include how the Wharf can be better utilized as an educational and scientific asset and how can historical, cultural and natural environmental characteristics be communicated in a more direct and engaging manner that will enhance visitor appeal. • Promote sustainable development and sound green building practices. The City has established policies that promote sustainability and green building practices. This objective recognizes that the City must lead by example on city-owned property and thus provide leadership in green building for all new and remodeling construction on the Wharf. This includes consideration forstorm water bestmanagement, energyconservation and renewable sources of energy and recycling and trash collection.
• Enhance the pedestrian environment and provide improved bicycle facilities. Wharf improvements in the past have focused on facilitating vehicular circulation and parking, however, pedestrian and bicycle circulation have not been adequately addressed. Currently, there are a number of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, sidewalks and perimeter access areas don’t adequately meet pedestrian requirements, there is no opportunity for family friendly bicycling and there are very limited facilities for bicycle parking. • Prepare design approaches that will provide guidance and elevate the quality of buildings and public spaces. The lack of established guidelines for building and public space design limits the process that is utilized for City and Coastal Commission approvals and sub-optimizes the potential results. A more thoughtful approach is desired that would provide a collective image of the whole that will contribute the attractiveness and appeal of the Wharf. In addition, concern was expressed that more positive relationships are needed between buildings and open spaces, and that the open spaces should be better fitted to activities on a regular basis as well as for special events. • Improve parking control systems and create a more inviting arrival experience. There is a need to increase the transactional speed of the parking controlsystems on the Wharf to enhance the experience ofthe visitor and improve the efficiency of operations.

Additional considerations related to parking control include the ability to more effectively close offthe Wharf to pedestrians as well as vehicles after hours. In addition,there is a perception thatthe entrance to the Wharf is off-putting, does not provide a gracious entry for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists and could benefit from a more visible and attractive sense of arrival.
• Improve service and maintenance operations. The City has identified the impact of heavy garbage trucks and delivery trucks as one ofthe most pervasive causes of damage to the Wharf. In addition, the City hasidentifiedmany issueswith pest control related to the trash andtallowenclosures,including seagulls, rodents and otheranimals.

The trashenclosures are unsightly,takeup valuable space, and interrupt the flow of public access. Alternativemethods fortrash collection and recycling, alongwith the potential elimination of centralized garbage collection areas and reliance on heavy trucks for collection, are needed. • Enhance public safety. Considerations for public safety include how the Wharf can be better designed to respond to extreme storms, sea level rise and seismic events; how pedestrian/vehicular conflicts can be reduced; how the physical environment can create a stronger sense of security and discourage anti-social behavior; how additional presence of security and law enforcement personnel can be provided for; how emergency access can be better accommodated; and how evacuation in case of emergency can be undertaken.
• Increase the effectiveness of leasing, marketing and regulatory practices. City staff felt that it would be beneficial to take the opportunity during the planning process to review the leasing and marketing practices to see ifthere were more efficient and effective ways of achieving the City’s objectives forthe creation of a more vibrant, attractive and successful commercial environment. In addition,the City and the Coastal Commission both agree thatthere would be a significant benefitto developing a Master Plan documentthat could be utilized by both regulatory agenciesthat would give clear and consistent direction for public and private development and the criteria for approval.

27.91 The Wharf is one of the longest pile-supported timber structures in the world and due to the on-going maintenance by Wharf staff it continues to be in serviceable and sound condition. 8 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.92 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 9 Engineering Considerations
The basic timber structure and decking that support the Wharf are essential to its continued existence and performance. Therefore, one of the first steps of the project coastal engineers was to undertake a comprehensive review of the Wharf structure to assess what might be needed in the future. The engineering assessment addressed the condition of the piles, the overall integrity of the structure and the paving and substrate of roadways,parkingareas andsidewalks.

The engineering work involved a visual and underwater survey of the piles and sub-structure to determine their viability and the need for replacement and repair. What was found is that the Wharf is generally in good and serviceable condition, primarily due to the fact that it has been well maintained over the years by the Wharf staff. There is a need for pile replacement under some of the existing buildings in locations that have been difficult to access. This has required remedial bracing for an interim period awaiting replacement or major reconstruction of the buildings thus providing access for the placement of new piles. With the continuation of on-going maintenance and replacement on an as-need basis of the structural elements, the life of the Wharf will be extended well into the future.

When these improvements are undertaken, it will also be necessary to provide for a storm water collection system that will allow for treatment of run-off from roadways and parking areas before the water enters the bay. The storm water collection system will require that the asphalt pavement in the vehicular areas be sloped to drain inlets on either side of the parking area for treatment of the run-off through media filters before draining into the bay. However, new walkways constructed with decking boards and gaps to allow for drainage are pervious and do not require treatment. Rooftop run-off would require treatment for sediment which will be collected in rain barrels or cisterns for sediment filtration prior to disposal into the bay.

A separate Engineering Report has been prepared by Moffatt & Nichol which documents the piling survey and the evaluation of the general structural condition and identifies the engineering improvements required to further the longevity of the Wharf. The report includes methods for increasing the resiliency of the structure to reduce potential damage and to enhance public safety in extreme weather conditions related to climate change and rising sea levels as well as seismic events. It further identifies improvements related to the weight bearing capacity of the pavement and substrate. Finally, the report documents the structural requirements for the Master Plan proposals and includes preliminary budget cost estimates for the entire improvement program.

There is, however, the need for a general improvement to the pavement and substrate of the Wharf. The asphalt pavement of the driveway and parking areas is severely cracked over the majority of the traffic areas. Vehicular loading, particularly from heavy vehicles and large garbage trucks that service the Wharf, and differential displacement of the decking causes continual cracking of the asphalt paving and damage to the substrate. This is one of the main maintenance costs associated with the operation of the Wharf. Furthermore, no provisions are made for the handling and treatment of storm water run-off from traffic and parking areas which currently flow directly into the bay. In order to address all of these issues, the engineering team has developed substrate reinforcement methods that will reduce pavement cracking and provide for waterproofing of the decking and supporting members. Master Plan proposals for widening the Wharf on the east and westsides will increase itsstability and resistance to extreme weather conditions.

27.93 1 0 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T · O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 27.94
T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 1 1 Summary of Policies and Proposed
Actions
This chapter summarizes the framework of policies and proposed actions forthepreservation, restoration,improvement, andmanagementof the Wharf over time. The policies and actions have been developed consistent with broader goals in support of the Wharf as a unique environmental and human-based resource within the Coastal Zone and its sustainable and prudent use for current and future generations. The policies and actions further recognize the importance of the Wharf as a visual and historic landmark, its potential as a more significant recreational and open space resource within the unique environmental setting of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and its potential for becoming a more attractive commercial recreational destination that contributes to the quality of life and economic vitality of the Beach Area, the City and the region as a whole.

1. Maintain and restore the characteristics that distinguish the Wharf as a unique physical and cultural landmark during its period of historic significance, when its role was closely related to the bay and maritime and commercial fishing activities.

Maintain the timber piles and wood sub-structure construction that are essential to the Wharf ’s identity and to its continued longevity.

Maintain the linear form of the Wharf with an open leeward side and buildings clustered on the windward edge.

Construct a new Landmark Building on axis with the main vehicular circulation drive that is reminiscent in scale and industrial form of the large warehouse structure that once was located at the bayward end of the Wharf.

Utilize renewable hardwood decking or hardwood inspired decking1 in pedestrian areas and design minimalist guardrails, where feasible, to recall 1 Recommended revision April, 2023.
the wood structure and unobstructed perimeter of the historic maritime Wharf.

Ensure new buildings are designed in a manner that helps restore the historical character of the Wharf without creating a false historical narrative. The three new cultural buildings and entrance signage should be developed through early consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission to establish objective project goals and to ensure the buildings align with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of historic resources such as the Wharf structure.

Consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Alteration Permits may be required for modifications to the Wharf and associated non-historic structures.
2 2. Strengthen the Wharf and increase its resiliency to extreme weather conditions, seismic events and sea level rise.

Continue the regular maintenance and on-going replacement of piles, bents, stringers, and decking to enhance the condition and longevity of the Wharf.

Provide for the continuity of stringers and caps and additional bolts or side plates at unsupported cap splice locations.

Increase the number of vertical piles in the transverse direction (width of the Wharf ) in conjunction with public improvements that benefit public access, recreational activities and boating to increase the Wharf ’s strength to resist forces imposed by storm waves and earthquakes.

Provide outriggers in the deeper water area between Bents 170 and 179 connected to the existing horizontal ledgers to most effectively enhance the rigidity and reduce the sway of the Wharf in extreme weather conditions or during a seismic event.

Limit truck traffic to the greatest extent possible to minimize damage to the paving and substrate of the Wharf.

Install defensive guard pilings and lateral supports as part of the Westside Walkway that will help disrupt wave force and intercept seaborne debris before 2 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050) it reaches vulnerable pilings beneath buildings.
3 3. Provide for the expansion of the perimeter of the Wharf to create more significant opportunities for public access, fishing, open water swimming, boating and linear recreational activities that will orient the visitor to the Bay and engage the waterfront environment.

Construct a wide promenade along the eastern edge and extend it, as required, through the existing parking area to create uninterrupted opportunities for recreation, to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and to provide for an alternate emergency access route.

Construct a walkway on the western side that provides for continuity of access in a manner that does not conflict with visual access from adjacent commercial uses.

Design the public access improvements on the east and west side so that they add to the structural resilience of the Wharf during extreme weather conditions, sea level rise and seismic events.

Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections to existing and developing trail systems both City wide and throughout the region.

Provide new accessible boating and landing facilitiesthat will enhance water-oriented recreational, scientific and educational opportunities and which can serve for emergency evacuation, if needed.

Construct a small boat landing facility on the east side adjacent to the East Promenade for kayak, paddleboat and fishing boat rentals as well as for Wharf operations.

Construct a landing facility for the docking of larger vessels at the eastern bayward end for science, education, research, sportsfishing and whale watching. Neither the Wharf nor its landings shall be used to land, harbor, or berth ocean line type cruise ships nor shuttles for such vessels.4 3 Recommended revision April, 2023.
4 Ibid.

27.95 12 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 Construct a new gangway, float and ladder adjacent to the Westside Walkway and near the Gateway Building to provide access for open water swimming and water sports5.

Utilize the new recreation, public access and open space improvements to enhance the identity of the Wharf, expand its market appeal and focus its messaging for branding and marketing purposes.

4. Provide public oriented activities and a built form that gives structure and orientation to the visitor experience, expresses the unique characteristics of the Wharf and provides a more diverse and varied dimension to its venues and offerings.

Heighten the visual, historical, and environmental characteristics of three key, but underutilized, locations – and at the beginning of the line of commercial buildings just past the entry gates, at the point at which the Wharf alters direction to the southwest, and at the bayward end.

Construct a Landmark Building that punctuates the bayward end of the Wharf, celebrates its deep-water extension and southwest orientation into the wind for optimal mooring and recalls the historic warehouse structure that once occupied this key location.

Provide a stepped edge along the eastern bayward end of the Wharf adjacent to the Landmark Building that enhances viewing opportunities to marine life, boating andfishing activities.

Heighten the experience of the dynamic qualities of water, the variability of waves and tides and the exhilaration of being out over water by creating a stepped overlook that extends out into the bay.

Consider relocation of the Marcella and associated davits to a more prominent location and consider expanding the collection of historic vessels to help make the bayward end a more attractive destination.

Construct a multi-sided, all-season6 Events Pavilion that creates a continuity of 5 Recommended revision April, 2023.
6 Recommended revision April, 2023.
the commercial uses where the Wharf bends to the southwest and provides a large, weather-protected space.

Construct a Gateway Building at the beginning of the line of buildings on the windward side of the Wharf, facing the shore and graciously greeting visitors to the commercial and recreational experiences that follow.

Consider locating changing rooms, restrooms and a sauna and a gathering space of limited size in a portion of the Gateway Building to support open water swimming activities within the Wharf.

Design the Landmark Building, Events Pavilion and Gateway Building in a manner which will heighten their prominence and architectural distinction and to create positive indoor/outdoor relationships.

Develop more specific programming for public-oriented uses and activities for the Landmark Building, Events Pavilion and Gateway Building and coordinate these with other educational, scientific and cultural venues and events on the Wharf.

Develop a Wharf Interpretive Resources Plan that will identify opportunities and strategies for conveying Wharf history, cultural, and environmental education through historical materials, interpretive elements, and public art. This Plan should consider opportunities within new public buildings and businesses as well as at strategic locations along or near the Wharf to develop a “museum” dedicated to the Wharf and Beach area, as well as a program for funding and sustaining these resources.7
Any potential development at the end of the Wharf, shall preserve to the greatest extent possible, or relocate to a place of greater access and viewing quality, the popular “sea lion viewing” and “fishing” holes at the end of the Wharf. Any redesign of these features must seek to preserve the intimate experience of the current viewing holes and be consistent with the character of the Wharf, as determined through community engagement. 8 7 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050), modified April, 2023.
88 Ibid.

5. Provide for an increase in the number, diversity, seasonality and appeal of events and make the educational, scientific, historic, environmental and cultural dimensions of the Wharf an integral and meaningful part of the visitor experience.

Ensure that the Wharf Interpretive Resources Plan9 for interpretative elements and events is updated on an on-going basis and coordinated with the Santa Cruz Wharf Outreach Network and other affiliated entities and interested groups.

Designate an Events Curator to administer implementation of the Wharf Interpretive Resources Plan10 and to manage and promote year-round events, education and scientific venues and interpretative programs.

Provide for an integration of scientific and educational initiatives and nonprofit and for-profit activities within the Gateway Building that includes interpretative materials and information related to local culture, history and the environment and that orients the visitor to the venues, tours, activities and attractions on the Wharf.

Provide interpretative elements that enhance “noticing skills” and subtly heighten a sense of play, 11individual discovery and personal engagement of the bayfront setting.

Encourage mobile exhibits, docents and dynamic messaging that keep information current, alive and interesting for visitors of all ages 12 without requiring significant maintenance and upgrade on a regular basis.

Provide opportunities for research and demonstration projects including but not limited to the marine environment, energy, water use and recycling; foster and participate in mutually cooperative relationships and ventures with science and educational entities such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center, the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institution (MBARI), USGS, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. 9 Recommended revision April, 2023.
10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

27.96 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 1 3 Identify an appropriate location for the Surfing Museum, in recognition of the role thatsurfing plays in the culture, recreation and economy of the city and itsstatus as a designated World Surfing Reserve.

Consider, as appropriate, the use of the Events Pavilion for community celebrations that will maintain to its public orientation and will help further the tradition of the Wharf as a “living room of the city”.

6. Do not expand the Wharf for vehicular circulation and parking but utilize the existing footprint more efficiently and effectively for these functions and to improve the arrival experience.

Eliminate visual clutter and physical obstructions within the vehicular and parking area.

When the East Promenade is constructed, restripe the parking lot to provide for perpendicular spaces in conformance with City standards and to allow for a widened sidewalk.

With any restriping, consider a variety of parking space sizes to accommodate a diversity of vehicle sizes including large SUVs and compact vehicles.13
Relocate the parking control boothssouthward to Bent 37 where the parking begins to create an appropriate, attractive and inviting gateway.

Improve parking management systems to increase transactional speed and convenience, particularly during the peak summer season.

Encourage the use of validation and demand pricing systems to discourage off-site use of the parking supply during peak periods.

Improve alternative modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit and shuttles that promote accessibility without increasing parking demand.
13 Recommended revision – April, 2023.

Provide for a row of efficient high quality light fixtures on the east side of the parking spine and remove the light fixtures on the west side that constrain pedestrian movement. Incorporate lighting onto the building frontages and storefronts for the sidewalk area. Reduce light pollution whenever feasible. 14
Improve the paving and substrate of the vehicular access and parking areas to reducemaintenance costs, accommodate emergency access vehicle loads and to provide forstormwater best management practices.

7. Do not expand the Wharf footprint for commercial uses but within the existing footprint, increase the amount, intensity, diversity, and appeal of the commercial venues on the Wharf.

Increase the number and continuity of business along the commercial frontage and create a fine-grain mix of shops, take-out, and eating and drinking establishments.

Provide opportunities for establishments of different sizes, offering a variety of products and menus, and a mix of established businesses and innovative new enterprises.

Encourage small food and retail carts at selected locations at the landward end of the Wharf to create continuity, convenience and interest for visitors and to encourage incubator businesses.

Select Wharf businesses and activities that reflect the unique culinary, artisanal and environmental attributes of the region.

Allow and encourage the use of upper floors to free up the ground floor spaces for active, publicly-oriented uses.

Encourage the use of wind-protected rooftop terraces for outdoor dining and viewing.

Consider pop-ups, events, short term commercial uses, and temporary 14 Ibid.
recreational facilities to activate under utilized Wharf areas and opportunity sites awaiting development. 15

8. Improve the appearance of the commercial buildings, the attractiveness of the storefronts and adjacent sidewalk and the quality of the pedestrian experience.

Design storefronts to create a positive relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces and encourage commercial uses that open up to the sidewalk.

Provide for transparency in the commercial storefronts, encouraging views through to the west as well as to the making of goods and products, including craft and small-scale production activities and exhibition kitchens that contribute to an attractive and interesting shopping, dining and walking experience.

Discourage and limit blank walls, indented entrances and awkward and angular building facades. Utilize shallow liner uses along the sidewalk to encourage pedestrian engagement and to shield back-of-the-house functions such as kitchens,storageareasand restrooms.

Encourage sloped roofs with clerestory windows and enclose mechanical equipment within the roof volume.

Promote a continuous permanent canopy over the sidewalk with integrated lighting and signage for comfort and convenience to the pedestrian in inclement weather and during evening hours.

Reduce impediments to pedestrian movement along the sidewalk and maintain the finished floor ofstorefronts atsidewalk grade or locate ramps internally within the premises, so that they do not encumber the public domain.

9. Improve public services and facilities and enhance a sense of safety, security, comfort and convenience on the Wharf.

Provide a more efficient and effective way of collecting trash, tallow and refuse that eliminates the need for centralized trash storage areas that occupy 15 Ibid.

27.97 14 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 valuable space and are unsightly.

Increase the visible presence of police and security guards and provide for improved electronic surveillance, public address, and a well-located and visible incident communication system for rapid response.

Improve and enlarge public restrooms in three locations at the bayward end of the Wharf, adjacent to Wharf Headquarters and at the Events Pavilion and design them to be ADA compliant in consideration of “crime prevention through environmental design” principles, such as “eyes on the street”, visibility of access ways, and other approaches that deter undesirable social behavior through the design of the physical environment.

Expand the lifeguard station to better accommodate service needs, accessibility requirements, and rescue craft or fire boat support facilities. 16 Design the entrance so that the Wharf can be fully closed for both vehicles and pedestriansin after hoursin an attractive and unobtrusive way.

Limit anchorages on the windward westside of the Wharf and implement the west walkway not only to provide public access but also to improve safety and reduce the risk for building collapse and threat to life in the event of a large vessel or marine debris17 impact.

Develop a coordinated plan for rapid response, evacuation and protocols to be followed in the event of an emergency.

Evacuate the Wharf during periods of predicted extreme waves as occurred in 1985, 1998, and 2023.
18 10. Implement proactive management, leasing and marketing for the Wharf.

Build on the marketing strategy and principles set forth herein and develop a detailed marketing plan and actively solicit innovative, 16 Recommended revision – April, 2023. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. desirable, and sustainable new enterprises.

Pursue a proactive approach to tenant selection and utilize a competitive bid process for tenanting the unique and special locations on the Wharf and to allow for the best-in-class selection of tenants.

Pursue coordinated advertising and promotional effortsthat will be of benefit to all of the businesses on the Wharf.

Prepare a detailed implementation program that identifies potential public, private and institutional funding for the implementation of improvements and for on-going maintenance and management.

Augment staff resources as necessary to better achieve market, promotional, and tenanting opportunities as well as for the design of public projects, design review of commercial projects and for enhanced operations, mainte- nance and security.

27.98 T H E B A S I S F O R P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N 1 5 Planned improvements along the perimeter of the Wharf will strengthen the relationship of the Wharfto the Bay and itsscenic and environmental qualities.

The elongated configuration of the Wharf and its half mile length make it ideally suited for linear recreational activities, including walking, jogging and bicycling as well as viewing, sitting and fishing.

27.99 M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T O N E : E N G A G I N G T H E B A Y A N D E X P A N D I N G P U B L I C A C C E S S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D B O A T I N G 16

M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
PART 1: ENGAGING THE BAY AND EXPANDING PUBLIC ACCESS, RECREATION AND BOATING Just as the Wharf gained in meaning and importance to Santa Cruz and the surrounding region for its role in transportation and commercial fishing, today it can gain new meaning for the role it can play as a recreation and open space resource that more fully engages the scenic, environmental, and educational qualities of Monterey Bay. Improving the perimeter of the Wharf for this purpose will not diminish its current role as a commercial recreational attraction. Rather, it will add another dimension which will broaden the market appeal and help the commercial uses on the Wharf and make the City’s real estate asset become more economically viable.

As the role of the Wharf changed over time, so has the perception of the resource value of the bay. As transshipment and commercial fishing declined, the importance of the ecological, scenic and environmental value of the bay increased. In the 1980’s, the Monterey Bay Aquarium was built on the site of a former sardine cannery, and around the same period of time, the Long Marine Lab was built by UC Santa Cruz on nearby coastal bluffs. In 1992, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was created in recognition of its unique marine resources and the need to protect its rich underwater life. Since that time, a number of additional facilities and programs have contributed to the Sanctuary experience by engaging the visitor in the discovery of its resources and building commitment to on-going stewardship. Subsequently, the Sanctuary Exploration Center opened near the landward end of the Wharf and recently, funds were approved to begin implementation of the Sanctuary Scenic Trail.

Today the visitor experience has been distanced from the bay and has focused in toward the center of the Wharf rather than around its edges.

Access along the perimeter of the Wharf is narrow and discontinuous.

For much of the east side, bumpers of parked cars and trash collection bins adjoin a constrained 5-foot wide public walkway, which is further interrupted by boat rental uses and Wharf Operations equipment.

Along the perimeter on the west side, public access adjacent to most of the commercial uses is totally unavailable. The Master Plan proposes to overcome these limitations and strengthen the relationship of the Wharf to the bay by opening up new opportunities for recreation, open space and public access along its perimeter and entire length. The plan proposes the widening of the Wharf to include a broad promenade along the eastern edge, stepped overlooks for greater exposure and immediacy with the open bay, and the completion of public access for continuity of movement along the westside. It also includes the provision oftwo accessible boat landings – one forsmaller craft, including fishing boat and kayak rentals and Wharf Operations, and the other for larger 200-tonvisiting science, research,education,whalewatching and sportsfishingvessels.

The new promenade will significantly enhance linear recreational activities, such as walking, jogging and, bicycling that are very popular today.

The promenade and walkway can become a part of an even larger recreational experience tied to the Sanctuary Trail system and other trails being developed locally and within the region. Furthermore, these perimeter improvements will create improved places to fish, sit, linger, socialize, view, and commune with nature. They will provide a platform for science and education, create opportunities for developing “noticing skills” and improve communication of the environmental narrative of the Wharf and the bay. In addition, the new landings will extend the recreational experience of the Wharf into the bay and greatly expand the scientific, research and educational dimensions of the Wharf experience.

From a strategic point of view, these recreational improvements will be the most important way that the appeal of the Wharf can be broadened to a larger cross-section of residents and thus create additional market support for the commercial uses, particularly in off-season months.

Attracting more of the same market segment that already comes to the Boardwalk during the summer months is not the optimal way to improve the economic viability of the existing commercial businesses nor is it going to enhance off-season usage. Similarly, increasing promotional efforts in and of themselves will not significantly affect the fundamental characteristics of the Wharf’s market support and seasonality.

Enhancing recreation and open space opportunities and linking the identity of the Wharf more closely to Monterey Bay and the National Marine Sanctuary will be effective tools in rebranding the Wharf and making it more attractive to residents. These improvements build on local values and preferences and the interest and enthusiasm shared by residents in the outdoors and in the active pursuit of outdoor recreation activities – whether surfing, swimming, walking, jogging or bicycling. They also would appeal to the many Santa Cruz residents who are interested in nature, concerned about preservation of the environment and in good stewardship of natural resources. It is interesting that, in most visitor destinations, the more residents that are attracted to a place, the more appealing it becomes for visitors. Visitors like authentic places and residents validate their authenticity and underwrite the quality of the commercial establishments.

The proposed Master Plan improvements will not only significantly add to the recreational and open space resources and contribute to the commercial viability of the Wharf and the economy of the city. In addition, they will accomplish a number of other important objectives. They will meet state and national initiatives for public access to coastal resources, will help improve public safety and emergency access, reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and increase the resilience of the Wharf structure to extreme weather and environmental conditions as well as sea level rise.

27.100
17 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 Public access and viewing opportunities are very limited around the perimeter of the Wharf.

Examples of promenades on piers and public access along the waterfrontin San Francisco.

27.101
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T O N E : E N G A G I N G T H E B A Y A N D E X P A N D I N G P U B L I C A C C E S S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D B O A T I N G 18 The East Promenade: The Backbone for Enhancing Bay-Oriented Recreation The East Promenade provides the backbone structure for a series of improvements, including the Small Boat Landing, the South Landing, a Stepped Edge with Outriggers and Terraced Overlook that will enhance public access along the entire length of the Wharf. Each of these improvements will add to the recreational, educational, and scenic dimensions of the Wharf and contribute to a diverse and engaging experience with the bay. The East Promenade itself will provide for a variety of recreational activities that benefit from the length and linearity of the Wharf. It will create space for promenading, jogging and family bicycling, a much-improved place for sitting, viewing and fishing and access to new boat landing facilities. The promenade will be a platform for interpretative exhibits and for educational and scientific activities as well as for guided tours and hosted visits. The additional width provided by the East Promenade will also enhance the lateral stability and strength of the Wharf, provide for a second means of access/egress for emergency vehicles and help to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.

Themajority ofthe East Promenade will be constructed at a slightly higher elevation than the existingWharf with a step-down section atthe eastern edge to approximately the existing Wharf elevation. The stepdown section will provide an ideal place forsitting,fishing and viewing without interrupting visual accessfromthemain deck level for those who are walking,strolling, jogging or bicycling. In addition,this configuration will allow for a lowered guardrailthat will be out ofthe view plane of those on the elevated deck level above and therefore will be reminiscent of the historic open Wharf edge. Inland of the step-down area, a slightly elevated edge will be provided to create a demarcation for the visually impaired and enhanced informal seating opportunities. The main elevated deck level of the promenade will provide a pedestrian and bicycle movement area physically separatedfromthevehicular movement and parking areas. The change in grade and an 18-inch high seat wall will further screen the bumpers of adjacent parked vehicles and focus activities towards thebay.

Typical East Promenade section on either side of Small Boat Landing and adjacent to the South Landing.

27.102
19 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The creation of this 29-foot wide, 2,200 foot long promenade on the east side opposite the commercial establishments will be transformational in redefining the image and identity of the Wharf. This new space, which will be 63,800 square feet, or 1.5 acres, in size will foster recreational, educational and social activities, and will attract residents as well as a broad and more diverse group of visitors thus enhancing visitation both during the peak and off-season months. The fresh and distinctive image created by the East Promenade will also contribute to the marketability, brand identity and economic viability of the commercial uses.

More specifically,the Wharf will be extended eastward fromBent 37, or generally fromthe point where the Wharf widens to accommodate parking, and it will be approximately one foot higherthan the existing deck.

An 18-inch high seat wall will be built along the parking side of the East Promenade to provide additional separation from the adjacent parked vehicles and an informal resting place. New light fixtures and leaning rails that also serve as bike racks will be placed in line with the seat wall. To create continuity with the bayward end, the promenadewill also extend through the East Parking Lot. To do so without a loss of parking, the Wharfmust be extended eastward in this area.

The lighting concept for the vehicular and parking areas on the Wharf calls forthe placement of light fixtures along the inland edge ofthe promenade and on both sides of the East Parking Lot extension. This will resultin the placement oftwenty-six light fixtures at 75 feet on center and in line with the seat wall along the parking lot edge and an additional six light fixtures on the opposite side in the east parking lot area, for a total of 32 light fixtures. The light fixtures will incorporate features to discourage bird perching and will be approximately 18 feet in height. The features will provide adequate lighting forthe promenade as well asthe vehicular access and parking areas, and with additional canopy lighting along the sidewalk,will eliminate the need for light fixtures on the sidewalkadjacent to commercialuses. Nesting low-level way-finding lights will be provided along the bayside edge in the proposed step-down area. The lighting concept is designed to protect the night sky, enhance views to the shore and highlight the commercialstorefronts. The plan also proposes to flank the light poles on either side with a leaning rail that also serves as a bike rack. This would resultin 64 bike racks generally distributed along the length ofthe Wharf where themostintense commercial and recreational activity islocated. Additional bike racks can be added, when demand warrants so that bicycle parking can meet the City requirement for 35% of the vehicular parking spaces, or a total of approximately 150 bicycle parking spaces. In addition, if demand indicates the need for additional bicycle parking during special events, a platform accessible fromthe ramp system attheSouth Boat Landing can be provided for this purpose.

The East Promenade will be designed to support fire truck loading requirements so that it can be used for emergency access. It will also be designed to accommodate ADA accessible pedestrian crossings, at multiple locations from the elevated promenade to the existing Wharf level and across the parking lot to the commercial uses. These crossings will not only facilitate east/west pedestrian access, but they will also allow for service and ambulance access to and from the promenade. Changes in grade to allow access for larger fire trucks will be provided at either end and in the East Parking Lot area.

The East Promenade is designed to accommodate a flexible activity pattern. Along the water’s edge, there will be an approximately 7 foot space, part of which will be at a lower elevation,that provides for “staying” activities,such asfishing,sitting and viewing. On the opposite side, the seatwallwillmark the transition between the parked vehicles and the East Promenade. The approximately twenty feet in between these two zones will accommodate a variety ofmovement activities – including jogging, walking, and family bicycling. If bicycling proves to be intensive, a demarcation of a 10-foot bicycle zone and a separate 10-foot pedestrian zone can also be provided with striping and signage. An analysis of fishing access changes and expansion is provided on the next page. 19 The East Promenade ispartially created through new construction and an eastward extension of the Wharf. It will need to be supported by approximately 435 new timber piles. The underlying structure will be 19 Recommended revision – April, 2023.
similar to that ofthe existing Wharf and will be integrated with it. It will be built as an extension of the Wharf and aligned with the approximately 15-foot modules of the existing Wharf bents. The timber bents (or beams) will be 12 inches by 12 inchesin size, and will be generally supported by three piles. Sleepers will be utilized between the new and the existing bents to adjust forthe desired vertical separation and the new bentswill overlap the existing bents by four feet so thatthe struc- tures can be adequately bolted together. In addition, the design calls fortwo, two inch by six-inch dimensional lumber beams to be bolted onto the two easternmost piles to support the cantilevered section for the lowered promenade edge. Six by twelve inch stringers (orjoists) at 18 inches on center sized to support emergency vehicle loads will span between the bents. In the step-down area,the joists would be fourinch by twelve inchesin size, and will be spaced at 18 inches on center. On top of and perpendicular to the stringers will be placed three by six inch renewable hardwood decking,such asIpe or Machiche,with a 3/8-inch gap for drainage and in compliance with ADA code requirements. The hardwood deck will provide a warm and attractive color and comfort- ablewalking environmentthat recallsthe underlyingwood construction and the historic paving materials of the Wharf. The gaps in the decking will not only provide for drainage but will also allow pedestrians to sense thewater below. Stainlesssteel side clips or other such fasteningmecha- nisms will be utilized to avoid the need for top-screwing, which makes the decking more vulnerable to deterioration overtime. The underside of the promenade will be sprinklered forfire safety.

Along the water’s edge, a stainless steel guardrail with a stainless steel sloped top to facilitate fishing and leaning and with a stainless steel mesh below, is proposed to meet code requirements for safety, prevent debris from the Wharf to go into the bay, and minimize visual obstruction. Fishing facilities, including fish cleaning tables and water supply, will also be provided, in particular within the tailgate fishing area that will remain within the parking lot between Bents 111 and 145. Mobile interpretative exhibits, for example from the Sanctuary Exploration Center, will enhance “noticing skills” of the marine environment, will provide another dimension to the experience and understanding of the bay, and will promote stewardship of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

27.103
M
ASTE R PLA N RECOMMENDATION S - PAR T ONE:ENGAGIN G TH E BA Y AN D EXPANDIN G PUBLI C ACCESS , RECREATIO N AN D BOATING 20

27.104
21 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The Westside Connection – Creating Continuity on the Perimeter of the Wharf A new walkway is proposed on the westside ofthe commercial uses to provide public access and a necessary linkage to complete a full one-mile circuit of pedestrianmovement around the entire perimeter ofthe Wharf.

Thewalkway will extend approximately 870 feet fromBent 135 to Bent 77, will be 12 feet wide and approximately 10,440 square feet in size. It will be built at a lowered elevation, of approximately +15 MLLW or 8 feet below the existing Wharf deck level, to allow for undisturbed visual access fromthe existingrestaurants and commercial spaces alongthatedge.

To accessthe lowered walkway will require a 160-foot slope transition zone at either end, from the existing Wharf grade of +23 MLLW to the promenade grade of +15 MLLW. The transition will be made at a gentle ADA-compliant slope thatis no greater than 5% grade which would not require landings and handrails. At the top ofthe transition zone, where the promenademeets existing grade, lockable gatesare envisioned to control access after dark and during inclement weather. In keeping with the desire to heighten the sense of visual and physical immediacy with the bay, the Westside Walkway will be designed in as transparent a manner as possible. Stainless steel railings, similar in character to those on the East Promenade, will be utilized. Because ambient light levels will be high from adjacent commercial uses and because generally it is not anticipated that the Westside Walkway would be accessible in the late evening hours, it is not anticipated that lighting will be provided along its length.

The walkway will open up a currently inaccessible area to a new recreational experience and, at the same time, provide additional structuring bracing to the Wharf’s more vulnerable west side. It will add space to for recreational activities that are not currently available, providing for walking, viewing, fishing and open water swimming as well as for discovery of the unique marine environment of the bay. It will offer a unique vantage point to view the forest of piles and sub-structure from the west side of the Wharf and to open up views to the distinctive West Cliff shoreline. The walkway will be built in a similar manner as other portions of the Wharf. It will require two piles per bent for a total of 112 new piles. Two 6-inch by 12-inch dimensional lumber beams at each bent line will be provided and bolted to the two new piles and extended to the first existing pile on the Wharf for improved lateral stability. Four inch by twelve inch stringers at 24 inches on center will span between the beams and a two-inch grey pultruded fiberglass reinforced plastic decking with a coarse grit for slip resistance will be provided over the stringers to reduce the potential uplift on the structure caused by storm waves. The deck material would provide a sturdy, walking surface that water can pass through and that, at the same time, will give the pedestrian a sense of the bay below.

Much of the west side is not currently publicly accessible. The thrill of being close to the water and experiencing the bay. Typical Westside Walkway section.

27.105
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T O N E : E N G A G I N G T H E B A Y A N D E X P A N D I N G P U B L I C A C C E S S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D B O A T I N G 2 2 Kayak and fishing boat rentals are an important part of the recreational experience of the Wharf today and the new Small Boat Landing will broaden their appeal and accessibility.

The proposed South Landing will provide for the mooring of scientific and research vessels as well as vessels for whale watching, bay tours, and sports fishing.

27.106
2 3 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The Boat Landings Extend Wharf Activities Out into the Bay The Master Plan recommends the construction of two new boat landings that provide for expanded and accessible marine-related activities and services along the East Promenade. The Small Boat Landing will provide expanded facilities for smaller recreational vessels and Wharf operations.

The South Landing, a berthing facility forlarger vessels, is proposed in a locationwhichwasoriginally configured forberthing large vesselsin consideration ofthewind and wave environment ofthe bay. Thislarger landing will provide for the temporary mooring of vessels up to 200 tons in size for whale watching, bay tours, sports fishing and mooring of educational and scientific research vessels. Both landings will be ADA compliant and serve the potential need for evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Both boat landing facilities will also extend the reach of the Wharf well into the bay and the ocean beyond.

Small Boat Landing
The Small Boat Landing will provide expanded and accessible docking facilities for kayak, paddleboard, and fishing boat rentals as well as Wharf Operations. It also will provide expanded and improved support and storage space for the boating facilities as well as public use for temporary tie-in of small vessels. As a result of the significant need for vertical circulation to meet ADA access requirements, all of the functions will need to be located within one proximate facility, rather than distributed along the length of the Wharf as they are today.

The new facility will be 315 feet long and will be located between Bents 68 and 89 generally acrossfrom the Wharf Headquarters. It will have a 8,500 square foot upper deck level at the same elevation as the East Promenade at +25 MLLW, and a slightly smaller lower platform level at +13 MLLW. The two levels will be interconnected by a vertical circulation system that includes stairs and ADA accessible ramps. The ADA ramps will not only connect the deck to the platform level but also to an 85-foot long gangway and a 540 square foot float. The stairs and ramps can provide access not only forstaff and customers but also on occa- North elevation of Small Boat Landing adjacent to the East Promenade.

27.107
24 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 sion to the general public to descend below the Wharf to see its unique structure and themarine life thatitsupports.

Two kiosks will be located on the upper deck – a larger 600 square foot kiosk for fishing boat rentals, including the storage of motors and fuel and for the relocated bait and tackle shop, and a 300 square foot kiosk for kayak rental offices and sundry support facilities. The kiosks are envisioned as simple, straightforward structures with an industrial aesthetic and sloped roofs. The deck level also provides space for the storage of rental fishing boats and a davit for lowering them as well as space for the storage and display of kayaks. In addition, the deck level will accommodate space for the placement of outboard motors and other preparations for the fishing boats and for the training of kayak users, bringing the boating activities more fully into the recreational experience of the adjacent East Promenade. The deck level also will provide approximately 1,500 square feet for Wharf Operations and for two davits for lowering Wharf Operations vessels.

All of the uses and the vertical circulation at the deck level will be organized so that an approximately six foot wide, 210 foot long area will be available for general public access along the edge of the landing facility.

This area will provide visual access to the boating activities below aswell Plan of the deck and platform levels of the Small Boat Landing The Small Boat Landing will also include Wharf Operations

27.108
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T O N E : E N G A G I N G T H E B A Y A N D E X P A N D I N G P U B L I C A C C E S S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D B O A T I N G 25 as to the bay. The upper deck will be built in a similar way as the East Promenade so that it can support pedestrians as well as truckloads, and will have a hardwood decking and guardrails except where openings are need for davits to lower the vessels.

The lower platform level will be located immediately below the upper deck and will be large enough to accommodate the storage of kayaks, rental boats, and Wharf Operations equipment. The lower platform can also include an outdoorshower and a changing room to wash offsalt water and fortheconvenience of cold-water swimmers,fishermen,kayakers, and WharfOperationsstaff. Fromthe platform level, fourlowered landings at approximately +9 MLLW will be provided to facilitate direct service access by ladder to the vessels and to the float. These lowered landings will be adjacent to where the davitswill lowerthe vesselsfrom above as well as adjacent to the floating dock.

At the lower platform level,there will be a continuous guardrail on all sides for public safety and to prevent sea lions fromhauling out. Four gates will be provided atthe ladder access areas to the float. The float can include a shaped end to provide forstable kayak access as well as side tie up for rental boats orskiffsfrom sail or motorboats anchored offshore. National Marine Fisheries Service and NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration approved sea lion deterrent devices will be provided around the float to prevent sea lion haul-out. The float will be held in place by four guide piles with detachable connections so thatit can be removed duringwinter months. The gangway will have two piles on eitherside that will hold itin place when it israised during the period oftime thatthefloatistakenaway. The lowerplatform willbe constructed with two 6 inch by 12 inch beams bolted on eitherside of the same pilings that are supporting the deck above. Four inch by twelve inch stringers at 24 inches on center will span between the beams and a two-inch grey pultruded fiberglassreinforced plastic decking with a coarse grit for slip resistance will be provided overthe stringers as well as on the lowered landings to reduce the potential for upliftfrom storm waves. All of the guardrails will be made ofstainlesssteel and can be designed to be removable if desired during thewinter storm season if necessary.

SouthLanding
A larger vessel landing facility is proposed at the deep-water end of the Wharf in the location originally configured for the berthing of vessels in consideration of wind and wave conditions on the bay. It includes a 20-foot wide, 75-foot long fixed platform and an approximately 200-foot long, 12-foot wide accessramp. The landing will be designed to provide forthe transient mooring of vessels up to 200 tons and approximately 120 feet in length. It is anticipated thatthislanding will provide temporarymooring forwhalewatching, bay cruises,fishing, and educational and scientific researchvessels,including those ofthe National Marine Sanctuary, the MontereyBay Aquarium, Moss Landing, and UCSC. The facility can also provide landings for public use and emergency evacuation ifthatis ever required. However, it will not serveas a terminus for ocean liner type cruise ships of any tonnage nor to provide moorings for extended periods of time nor to provide shuttle access for overnight or long-haul ocean going20 cruise ships of any size.

The 1,500 square foot fixed landing will be supported by six bents with three piles each for a total of 18 piles. Two 6-inch by 12-inch dimensional lumber beams will be provided at each bentline and will be bolted to both sides of the pilessupporting the landing. The beams will also extend to tie in to the first pile of the adjacent East Promenade for stability. Four by twelve inch stringers at 18 inches on center would be utilized to span between the beams. The deck surface of the landing will be made ofthe same plastic deck planksthat are used on the platform level ofthe smallboat landing. This materialhas excellent resistance to decay and the gaps between themembers allow wave energy to pass through the decking and thus reduce uplift pressure of waves during winterstorms.

The piles along the waterside face of the landing will be extended above the platform to act as fender piles, cushioning vessels on approach.

Additional freestanding piles will be added on either side and in line with the face of the landing to facilitate guiding vessels to the landing.

Mooring cleatslocated on the platform will provide anchorage fortie 20 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050) lines from the vessels at the berth. Vessels will approach the landing from the north into the prevailing wind, and will tie up from the starboard (right)side of the vessel.

The elevation of the landing would be at +9 MLLW, in order to be above the high tide yet low enough to minimize the difference in heights between the landing and boat deck. In order to allow fortidal variation and some variation in the freeboard ofthe vessels, a 5-foot wide and 35-foot long aluminum gangway would be installed on the outboard edge of the landing. The gangway would be hinged on one end to the platform and on the other end to a landing which can be lifted or lowered by cables from a gantry. This will allow for a connection to the deck of vesselswith differentfreeboards and at differenttidal elevations. Itis assumed thatthe range ofthe deck elevationsthat can be accommodated will be limited to 3 feet below or 3 feet above the platform elevation.

The platform of the landing will be located between Bents 148 and 153 and will be connected to the 12-foot wide approximately 200-foot long accessramp froman extension ofthenewEast Promenade between Bents 167 and 169. The accessramp will be designed to ADA standards and therefore will be comprised of seven ramp segments with a Example of fixed platform landing with moveable ramp.

27.109
26 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 maximum1:12 slope andmaximum30-foot length andwithsix 5-foot wide level landings in between. Four piles bolted together with 6 by 12 inch beams will support each of the landings and be braced and tied back to the adjacent promenade piles for lateralsupport. Six by twelve inch stringers at 18 inches on center would be utilized to form the sloped ramp between each of the landings as well as the landings themselves.

The same reinforced plastic decking as on the platform will be utilized for the walking surfaces of the ramps and landings.

On the accessramps and landings, both guardrails and handrailswill be required. On the platform, guardrails and other approved sea lion deterrent devices will also be provided. The guardrails will use a minimalistic stainlesssteel structure withmeshasisusedon theEastPromenade and on the Small Boat Landing. A gate will be provided at the top of the accessramps so that the accessramp can be closed off to the public when required. Lighting will be provided on the ramps and platform so that access after dark can be accommodated if desired.

The South Landing, in addition to creating new opportunities for experiencing the bay, introduces a significant activity and destination for visitors atthe bayward end ofthe Wharf. Fromthe adjacent East Promenade, it will create visual interest with boats arriving and departing and visitors ascending and descending the landing. The wide accessible ramp to the boat landing will also allow forfishing and viewing opportunities to the bay, and to the beach and Boardwalk beyond.

27.110
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T O N E : E N G A G I N G T H E B A Y A N D E X P A N D I N G P U B L I C A C C E S S , R E C R E A T I O N A N D B O A T I N G 27 Bayward End of the East Promenade – Creating an Exhilarating Destination The bayward end of the East Promenade is a place with profound meaning and historical significance, where ships landed and where the transition was made from water to land. This is a place with extraordinary, expansive views out to the bay and a unique perspective back to the Main Beach and the Boardwalk. It is where one can feel the movement of the Wharf and the forces of tides, wind and waves.

Despite these intrinsic qualities and potentials, the bayward end of the Promenade can do more to build interest, create opportunities for viewing, sitting and observing the dynamic qualities of the bay and the marine life within it. This area also offers the opportunity to reveal the structure of the Wharf and create a more engaging relationship with the open bay. Beyond the activities that will be created at the South Landing,the Promenade in this area can be configured in a more dramatic way to heighten the sensory experience of being out over water and exposed to the dynamic qualities of the bay. To do so, the Master Plan proposes the creation of a more pronounced stepped edge for an approximate 165-foot length of the Promenade. The stepped edge will consist of two 1-1/2 foot high, 3-foot wide amphitheater-like steps leading to a 5-foot access area below where the guardrail will be located.

Below the stepped edge, ten outriggers will extend 25 feet to the east atthe elevation of the existing ledgers and in the same plane to provide horizontal bracing which will increase the stiffness and reduce the sway of the Wharf. This type of structure is particularly important to be located at the end of the Wharf due to the significant depth of water and it will create a more resilient form that enables waves during extreme storms to more readily pass through. Aesthetically, the outriggers also create an interesting intertwining of the bay and the structure of the Wharf. They bring the skeletal structure of the Wharf into view in a sunny location, contribute to the public experience of place and further an understanding of the forces of nature.

A Terraced Overlook is proposed at the southernmost tip of the Wharf to create a dramatic destination to the pedestrian experience. The Overlook will descend even further than the edge of the Promenade and would include three amphitheater steps leading to a 7-foot wide area where the guardrail would be located. The Terraced Overlook will provide dramatic views out to the bay and an exhilarating experience, the sensation of being out on the prow of a ship at sea, surrounded by water and exposed to untempered natural elements.

Examplesfrom Malmo on the North Sea designed to heighten the thrill of being out over water and exposed to untempered natural elements

27.111
28 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 View of planned improvements and potential activities atthe Bayward end of the Wharf

27.112
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 29 PART TWO – ENHANCING EXISTING PUBLIC SPACE AND ACTIVITIES, CIRCULATION AND PARKING The public realmof the Wharf is critical to the quality of the environment thatis created, the activitiesthat are desired and themarket successthat can be achieved. In the previous chapter, a majorimprovement to the perimeter of the Wharf was discussed, created to a great degree by the extension ofthe structure for public access, recreation and open space purposes. The proposed improvements will add 2.5 acres to the existing public access, recreation and open space areas changing the balance of the Wharf so that approximately 50% of itsfuture area will be devoted to these purposes whilemaintaining the existing footprint for vehicular circulation,parking and commercialdevelopment. Itisinteresting to also compare the proposed expansion of 2.5 acres for recreation and open space to the 3.3 acre expansion ofthe Wharf in the 1950’s through the 1980’s for parking and commercialuses.

This part of the Master Plan report addresses recommendations for the improvement of three critical locations on the Wharf that are nonvehicular in nature and havemuch greater potential to play a significant role in the public realm of the Wharf. They include an approximately 5,000 square foot area where the Wharf widens to accommodate the commercialuses andwhere theMarcella is currently located;the 10,500 square foot events area atthe change in direction of the Wharf; and the approximately 13,000 square foot area atthe bayward end of the Wharf.

In addition to these spaces,this chapter oftheMaster Plan recommendations also addresses the approximately 4 acres devoted to vehicular circulation,parking, and service uses. This significant area needs to be considered not only for how it meetsfunctional and service requirements,but also as essentialpart ofthe public realm.

Public spaces need to be conceived in a purposeful fashion that heightens the awareness of the site and setting, that structures the spatial organization of place, and that contributes to the mix of activities and functions and the synergy that they create with the commercial uses.

They cannot be considered as good pedestrian spaces just because they are non-vehicular, nor can they be considered good open spaces if they only fulfill a public purpose when they are programmed for an event. At the same time, vehicular spaces and parking areas cannot be conceived as only having to meet the strict definition of the movement function. They need to be configured and scaled so while meeting functional requirements they also contribute to the structure and orientation of the public realm, the arrival experience, and how they may, on occasion, accommodate special events. In addition, the built form cannot be thought of as only derived from the functional requirements of the specific use that it accommodates but also how it contributes to the visual and spatial experience and the creation of an interesting and engaging place.

For an extremely long structure like the Santa Cruz Wharf, itis particularly importantthatthe spatial experience of place be organized so that itsustains visitorinterest and orchestratedwith a diversity of activities and destinations along the way that activate and energize the public realm. The beginning ofthe line of commercial uses;the place where the change in direction occurs; and the bayward end of the Wharf comprise threepivotalpointsthat can galvanizemotion, direct movement along a linear path and help the visitor understand where they are and where they are going. They are also special places within the built form of the Wharf and respond to the environmental setting. They are worthy of being the places where an intensity of publicly-oriented activities occur and designed so thatthey work for activities on a relatively regular basis throughout the year aswell as for special events.

These three spaces can counterpoint the commercial uses and provide for publicly oriented places that are distinct from the promenades and walkways along the perimeter of the Wharf. In these three places, it is not the absence of buildings that makes them important as part of the public realm, but how they can be designed to provide a protected setting for public activities that fulfill the purpose and intrinsic meaning of their respective locations. Each of these must be designed in consideration of climatic and environmental considerations, how indoor and outdoor activities can flow and how they can contribute to a synergy with adjacent commercial uses.

Buildings can play an especially important rolewithin the predominantly horizontalplatform oftheWharfin shaping space, in ameliorating the environment and inmarking points of arrival. Forthis reason, newcivicspirited buildings are proposed that are punctuationsin the built form ofthe Wharf as well asin the activity pattern to enrich and expand the visitor experience.

The Master Plan also envisions expanding the role that the Wharf can play in education, science and research. Currently, there are some fifteen different entities on the Wharf today, including NOAA, the University of California, Save our Shores, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium amongst others, investigating such topics as ways of generating renewable energy, reducing marine pollution, monitoring water quality and better understanding the intelligence of marine mammals. A narrative plan and programming of interpretative experiences should be developed that builds upon these activities and makes the Wharf’s culture, history and environment more visible, immediate and engaging for visitors. The interpretative experience should be seamlessly integrated in a variety of venues, events and activities. It should be featured in new publiclyoriented buildings, revealed as part of the “maker culture”, through, for example, boat building, and integrated into the public realm in an unobtrusive and“light-handed” fashion,with exhibitsthatbuild “noticing skills”, such as a collectionof historic vessels, off-shore exhibits demonstrating the power of wave energy orthe meaning of the color of water.

Mobile carts, mobile apps, and organized tours should also become a part of the interpretative experience of the Wharf. All of these activities, however, need to be planned, coordinated and kept current through the dedicated efforts of an exhibits and events curator, with talents and skills in the interpretative arts and tasked with the responsibility ofmaking the scientific, cultural and educational experience ofthe Wharfmore vivid to its visitors.

27.113
30 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T . O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.114
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 31 The Landmark Building – Restoring an Icon and Creating a Visual Focus and Destination The Master Plan emphasizes the creation of a more appropriate terminus to the Wharf experience with activities that will draw people to this strategic location. The improvements proposed at the bayward end of the East Promenade – the Stepped Edge, the Terraced Overlook, the Outriggers and the South Landing, described in the previous chapter, are all important in building the activity pattern but more is needed to make this the end of the Wharf the special place that it once was in the past and can be in the future.

The Master Plan proposes to re-create the Landmark Building that once occupied the space at the bayward end of the Wharf. This building had a scale and simplicity of form that was well fitted to its location.

When the building was demolished the area lost an important organizing element that provided a visual terminus, historic continuity and appropriate symbolic meaning to the end of the Wharf. It is useful to remember that the reason the Wharf was extended bayward to this location was in order to meet the depth of water capable of accommodating the maritime functions that the Wharf evolved to serve. Today, even although the trans-shipment function no longer exists, it is important from a historical and cultural perspective to re-create a legible form that has authenticity, is part of the vernacular of the working Wharf and provides a flexible platform that is adaptable to new uses and activities.

The traditional form of the proposed Landmark Building would juxtapose the architectural language ofthe past withmodern-day activities and programming, creating an interesting duality of purpose. The structure hasbeen conceived in theMaster Plan as a relatively small building, of approximately 6,000 square feet in size – or 50 feet in width and 120 feet in length – to fitwithin a space that acknowledges existing lease commitments to theDolphin. However,the size ofthe building could be revisited at a later point oftime if circumstances were to change and expanded further. Regardless ofsize, certain characteristics need to be incorporated into the design. The building should be somewhattaller than commercialbuildings, to gain in stature and prominence within the visual setting. It should be up to 40 feet in height with a high-bay internal volume, an exposed wood truss roof and clerestory windows recommended to create a dramatic lighting effect that conveys an airy open feel both inside and outside of the space.
21 The narrow ends of
the building, which face towards the land and to the bay, should be punctuated by a large-scaled portal opening reminiscent of when the building served forthe transshipment of goods fromwater to rail.

Within the portal, a pedestrian-scaled building entrance should be provided. At the same time, the long sides of the building should open up as well and create a positive relationship to the adjacent open spaces and, in particular, to the East Promenade. A canopy should extend from the east wall along its entire length and the wall should be glazed and operable, allowing for an uninterrupted flow of indoor and outdoor activities. Ifthe building is constrained in size and configuration, certain back-of-the-house or other functionsmay locate in a separate smaller appendage on the westside of the building, extending beyond the basic footprint. In addition to restaurant and support uses,this could also potentially include uses thatsupport the “maker culture” ofthe Wharf, such as boat building.

The Landmark Building in its prominentlocation on the Wharf demands publicly-spirited activitiesthat allow forthe integration of indoor and outdoor experiences to be a major attraction and draw to visitors. Such uses could include a combinationof cultural,educational and commercial uses as well asthe possibility of a small conference and lecture facility capableofheightening the destinationattractionoftheWharf’s southern most point. The SantaCruz SurfingMuseumhas expressed itsinterestin locatingwithin this part oftheWharf and is undertaking a feasibility study to explore the potentials of a facility that could include exhibit space and classrooms,as well as a café and shopthat would significantly expand whatitoffers visitors atthe currentfacility at Lighthouse Point. However, the importance of this building demands a great deal of thought before settling on the appropriate use and final disposition. The Master Plan 21 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050). proposes a tenanting approach that allows for a competitive evaluation of alternative proposals from a broad segment of non-profit and for-profit entities with the right to reject all of them, if none were appropriate.

There are outdoor areas adjacent to the Landmark Building that will be significantly energized by its location and configuration. From the proposed Landmark Building location to the end of the Wharf, there is a 50-foot deep, 4,000 square foot area that will remain at deck level and will add to the open space experience. It is anticipated that this area would primarily be used for fishing but it would also provide another way of viewing the broad expanse of the bay beyond the end of the Wharf. This area would make an excellent place for the potential relocation of the historic fishing vessel Marcella or a replica22 because it would juxtapose the small scale of the vessel in relationship to the vastness of the bay, stimulate the imagination of what it might be like to be a lone fisherman out in the open sea, and provide another point of interest to bring people to the end of the Wharf. If other vessels become available for display, such as the feluccas that were also used in an earlier era by the Ligurian fishermen or others, they could also be added within this area. Boat building activities which bring the “maker culture” within the public realm and complement the collection of historic vessels might also be a part of the activities in this area. They could be located in a separate facility to the west of the Landmark Building or possibly as an extension of it. Inter- pretative exhibits, guided tours or accessible digital information could further be made available to make visitors aware of elements of interest related to the history and environment of the Wharf, what is currently taking place within the dynamic setting of the bay and to provide further information about Sanctuary marine life that can be seen from the bayward end of the Wharf.

On the westside of the bayward end of the Wharf, the public access areas along the perimeter are significantly constrained. There is only a 10-foot area adjacent to theDolphin Restaurant and an approximately 22 Recommended revision, April 2023.

27.115
Major event day
Sunny regular day
4-foot area adjacent to the parking atthe turnaround. The Master Plan proposes a widening of this perimeter by approximately 10 to 12 feet and by 4,500 square feet, to create a more appropriate public access edge, opportunities forintegrated science exhibits, preservation or relocation of sea lion viewing and fishing holes, and a better connection to the Westside Walkway. The Dolphin occupies a very significantsite and isthe only commercial use thatis separated fromthe 1,300 foot line of commercial buildings on the Wharf. It was originally located there as a bait and tackle shop because of its relationship to nearby recreational fishing. Today, it is a café with a fairly sizeable windprotected seating area. Proposals for the future renovation and adaptive reuse of the Dolphin leasehold need to be made in consideration of its strategic location and evaluated in terms of the synergy and complementary relationship that they may have to the public activity program in the Landmark Building. In addition, the proposed physical improvements need to be made in deference to their scale and fit with the Landmark Building and its iconic role in punctuating the end of the Wharf. The Dolphin site will play a key role in how the end of the Wharf is developed.

The Events Pavilion will improve visitation throughoutthe year 3 2 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 27.116 M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 3 3 Several potential layouts for redevelopment at the end of the Wharf can be envisioned to preserve or relocate the sea lion/fishing hole experience. Some could even expand that experience to other parts of the Wharf.

27.117
The Events Pavilion – A Gathering Place that Connects not Divides An additional opportunity to re-envision under-utilized public spaces isin theareawhere the Wharf changes direction to the southwest,sometimes called the South Commons. In thislocation,pedestrian continuity isinterrupted by a 140-foot gap in the 1,300 linear feet of commercial frontage.

As it is today, arriving at this important hinge point in the direction of the Wharf, the pedestrian is more likely to lose interest and turn around, rather than continue forward to see what else is out on the Wharf.

The use and activity within the South Commons is significantly hindered by the fact that it is windblown and uncomfortable most of the time.

Except during special events, which only occur a few times each year, the space is generally unused. While it features a stage and was originally planned for outdoor performances, the chilly west winds and ambient noise levels are contravening influences. Its configuration and lack of connection with adjacent commercial uses does not encourage ordinary everyday use.

To create more opportunities for continuous use and for bridging the gap in pedestrian continuity, the Master Plan proposes to canopymuch of the South Commons to create a weather protected space that can be used to a much greater degree and on a regular basis. This space would also expand the kinds of activitiesthat can be accommodated to include a much wider range of uses that could be both non-profit and for-profit in nature. These could include educational and environmentalprograms, lectures,performances and festivalsaswell asbirthdays, weddings and other celebrations. A structure of approximately 6,000 square feet in size is envisioned with a pavilion-like form that resolvesthe geometry of the space and appropriately punctuates the change in the direction of the Wharf. The Events Pavilion building would be a high bay space thatincorporates the existing stairways and elevatorthatprovide access to the upperfloor uses. It would be a highly transparent building, with 12-foot high fully operable glass doors that completely opens up to create a strong indoor/outdoor relationship when weatherpermits.

The roof would be sloped and tiered with a clerestory bringing light into the large volume space. On the waterside, the building would adjoin an outdoor waterfront space that ranges in width from 15 to 35 feet and which connects directly to the sidewalk. The existing restroom facilities will be improved and expanded. To the north of the Events Pavilion, an outdoor seating area proposed would add to the diversity of activities in the area.

In the gap area between the adjacent buildings on the sidewalk, infilling the underside of the overhead bridge connection with small commercial uses will provide continuity and activity. Four small retailing spaces totaling approximately 1,100 square feet are proposed. An entry access from the sidewalk to the Events Pavilion would also be provided. The existing stairway that provides most direct access to the upperfloor uses will be glazed and signed with a street front address and a clear connection to the flow of pedestrianson the sidewalk. In a similar manner, a new stair is also proposed for the upper floor space on the south side and the ground floor entry lobby will also be glazed and signed so that the upper floor tenant has a readily identifiable address and face to the street.

Furthermore, the existing elevator and stairwill be enclosed and signed as the location forthe accessible access to allthe upperfloor uses.

The plan forthe Events Pavilion includesthe addition ofsmall commercialtenantspaces and the extension of the existing commercial buildings. 3 4

27.118
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 3 5 3 5 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T . O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4

27.119
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 36 The Gateway Building – Welcoming Visitors to the Wharf
After traversing nearly a quarter of a mile from the entrance on Beach Street, visitors reach the area where the Wharf expands westward and the line of commercial buildings begin. This is a strategically important location that could play a much more positive role than it does today in welcoming visitors to the Wharf and introducing them to activities and experiences which are possible on pier extending a half-mile into the bay. Currently, a small shed-like building occupies this prominent position, but unfortunately misses the opportunity to orient to two valuable frontages. As a result, the adjacent outdoor areas appear unconnected The Gateway Building and the public activities within it will be designed and programmed to greet visitors and welcome them to the Wharf. with their surroundings, despite the presence of the historic fishing vessel Marcella, which is one of the attractions of the Wharf. On the west side, the public space seems isolated, hidden from view and dead ends unceremoniously behind the backs of the commercial buildings.

The Master Plan proposes thatthis area of the Wharf be reconceived to better realize its potential role as a gateway. It proposes thatthe existing building be removed when the currentlease expires and when the boat rental office and bait and tackle shop are relocated to the new boat rental kiosk at the Small Boat Landing on the east side and when the tourist retail portion is relocated elsewhere on the Wharf. At that point in time, a new building will be developed that communicates a civic stature in physical form, orientation and character. The new building can be designed to take advantage of the opportunity of an orientation to the north, east and west, in a similar manner as the Stagnaros Bros. restaurant at the south end of the Wharf. The proposed building would face forward and open up to the direction of the path of travel for visitors. But, it will also be designed to open up to the public spaces to the east and to the west. The open space on the waterside of the building will become a part of the new Westside Walkway and take on added meaning as the threshold into this perimeter public access way.

TheWharfMaster Plan envisions a simple and straightforward pierhead building that anchors the line of commercial buildings on the north. The building will be approximately 3,000 square feet in size and designed with a high bay interior volume that willframe the adjacent public space, create positive relationships to it and which will be an attractive focus and destination for visitors. The building would be publicly-oriented in nature and support a mix of cultural, educational, scientific and recreational activities. The larger portion of the building (approximately 2,000 square feet) is envisioned to function as a visitor center, providing information for visitors related to commercialuses and public activities of the Wharf and become the appointed place to rendezvous and assemble for guided tours. Large photographs, models and art could be hung within the tall interior space thatreinforce the gateway function of the building and introduce visitors to the area. A small shop featuringbooks, information, and giftsthat celebrate the unique environment, history and culture of Santa Cruz or a small coffee shop, as found in cultural institutions, could be included within the building as well. In addition, an area of approximately 1,000 square feet can be devoted to an open water swimming club which would include restrooms and changing rooms as well as a sauna and meeting space.

The Open Water Swim Club would have a presence on the sidewalk but would primarily be accessed from the westside of the building with direct access to the Westside Walkway and connected via a 85-foot long gangway and float to the bay. As in the Small Boat Landing, accessibility would be provided on a seasonal basis. During the winter months, the float would be removed and secured in an elevated position to a pair of piles specifically designed for that purpose. In addition, a permanent ladder will also be provided from the +23 level of the Wharf for emergency purposes.

Open waterswimming is an importantrecreational activity in the bay which can be enhanced with facilities on the Wharf.

27.120
37 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 The historic entrance to the Wharf framed by buildings on eitherside.

The roundabout at the intersection of Beach and Pacific Avenue is a separate City project. In this diagram, the design of the roundabout has been adapted to the Master Plan recommendationsto relocate the pay stationsto the south and to build a more appropriate gateway structure.

Today,the area is visually cluttered, circulation in the intersection is confusing and the entrance has an uninviting, institutional feel.

27.121
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 38 Vehicular Circulation, Parking and the Arrival Experience Aboutfifty percent of the Wharf is currently used for vehicular circulation and parking, providing access for a wide range of visitors, including tourists, casualsightseers,restaurant and shoppatrons, anglers, employees, and boaters – in essence, everyone who hassome reason to be there.

But, getting on and offthe Wharf is often difficult. Itis a long way out to the end ofthe Wharf and if a visitorismobility-impaired, simply doesn’t want to investthe time or energy to get out there on by foot, doesn’t have a bicycle handy oris concerned about where to park it,then there is reallyno realisticalternative available otherthanaccessby car.

The existing parking extends south from the narrow portion of the Wharf to just north of the turnaround at the bayward end, providing today about 440 spaces in total. Diagonal spaces are located along the vehicular way on the western side and in the East Parking Lot, favoring inbound parking. Perpendicular spaces adjoin the east side of the main vehicular way. In addition to accommodating cars, parking areas include large enclosures for trash collection, Wharf equipment, rental boats and a variety of other appurtenances. The use of the parking areas is subject to extremely high seasonal demand that peaks on weekends in the summer months. Although parking demand drops off significantly in winter months, on weekends, it is still only slightly lower than in summer months. With a long and linear configuration that offers only one way in and out, the visitor experience by car is often extremely frustrating and many residents simply stay away during the peak summer months all together.

Although no expansion of the area on the Wharf devoted for parking purposes is recommended, considerable care has been taken to maintain the existing parking supply and to allow for a modestincrease in number of spaces within the same footprint. Parking is considered by most ofthe tenants to be themost essential element to their business success. It also is a major source of revenue that offsets operating and maintenance costs and helps to ensure the longevity ofthe Wharf over time. However,the Plan does includemanagement approachesthat will help make the existing parking supply more effective and efficient, that will increase transactional speed and that will result in a more attractive and inviting entrance to the Wharf. Master Plan recommendations also include significant improvements for pedestrian and bicycle access, increasing the supply of bicycle parking, encouraging a shuttle system and introducing innovative systems of garbage collection that will reduce truck access and the need for on-going maintenance related to heavy truck movement.

The Arrival Experience
A critical aspect related to the quality of the visitor experience on the Wharf isthe sense of arrival. Today, the Wharf entrance where the entry gates are located is neither welcomingnor attractive. Forfunctional as well as aesthetic reasons, the Plan proposes to relocate the gates to the point where the Wharf widens and the parking begins in order to create a new and more attractive gateway. This location would be more visible, would create a more positive transition from the land to the bay, and would create a better sense of arrival. In addition, its deeper water location would also contribute to the creation of a more secure facility in the late night hours after closure. The relocated gates will be designed to better meet movement requirements and accessibility considerations in a flexible manner that would allow for efficient operations and parking payment. The relocated entrance has also been coordinated with the City’s project to build a roundabout at the intersection of Beach Street, West Cliff Drive and Pacific Avenue.

The new location is designed to accommodate two entrances and two exit gates, as is provided at the Wharf today. However, one of the entrance lanes will be configured so that it can be converted to an exit lane during summer evenings or other peak periods when exiting volumes far exceed arrivals. In addition, although all of the exit and entrance lanes will be wide enough for automobiles and most trucks, the center lane, which most directly aligns with the roadway on either side of the gate, will be wider to more readily accommodate emergency and construction vehicle access when that is needed. Islands in between the lanes (each 6 feet 4 inches wide) are proposed so that ADA accessible staff booths can be provided as well as ticket readers and/or dispensers.

In addition, on each of the islands, a centrally located column will be provided to accommodate the tracks and the opening and closing mechanism for roll down gates. The columns are also designed to support an overhead beam for the storage of the gate roll and for overhead lighting and signage. A minimum 14 feet of vertical clearance is required under the beam to allow for the movement of taller vehicles. The framework structure will extend across the entire length of the Wharf so that when the roll-down gates are closed access will be limited not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians, thus providing staff the ability to fully close down the Wharf after hours. An emergency exit door is required by code and necessary in case someone were to be locked in accidentally.

In addition, the Fire and Police Departments would have the ability to open the gates and enter the Wharf in case of an emergency after hours.

The relocated gates and the need for an overhead beam to store the roll down doors and other functional requirements also provides an excellent location for a large gateway sign that can be viewed from the Beach and Boardwalk as well as from the Pacific Avenue approach to the Wharf.

An attractive entrance sign will be centrally located atop the parking gates and will be designed to be visible from a distance, while keeping with the character of the Wharf, as determined through additional community engagement. The letters could be supported by a light framework structure that would allow them to float above the beam.

These letters could also be outlined to create a more vivid and arresting visual quality in the daytime as well as in the evening. Below it, the words “Gateway to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary” might be inscribed in relief letters of up to 2-foot tall on the 4 to 4-1/2 foot face of the beam.
23 Full-scalemock-ups ofthe proposed gateway
signage, addressing size, shape, color and potential illumination, should 23 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050)

27.122
39 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 be constructed forreview before the graphic design of the sign is finalized.

27.123
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 40 The new pay station location creates the opportunity for a gateway sign that will be visible from the Beach, Boardwalk and West Cliffs Drive as well as Pacific Avenue.24 24 Revised to include with City Council approval Nov. 24, 2020 (rescinded N.S. 30,050)

27.124
41 S A N T A C R U Z W H A R F M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 Reconfiguration of the Parking Area
The Master Plan proposes some changes to the configuration of the existing parking areas that result in an increase in supply in some areas and a decrease in others. More specifically, some parking will, by necessity, be removed in order to provide for the transition necessary to serve the entry and exit lanes at the Wharf gateway. At the same time, all of the parking will be converted into perpendicular parking stalls which will create greater efficiency and allow cars to approach west-side parking stalls adjacent to the sidewalk and commercial uses from either direction, thus facilitating traffic flow and minimizing the propensity of drivers to stop to wait for a spot in the in-bound direction, as currently is often the case. The parking stalls would be restriped consistent with current City standards which call for an 8.5-foot width and a 19-foot depth. Handicapped parking spaces will also be provided, as required by code, and evenly distributed along the length of the Wharf, generally in line with the pedestrian crossings from the East Promenade to the existing sidewalk adjacent to the commercial uses on the west.

With the relocation of boating facilities and services to the Small Boat Landing, additional parking spaces will be made available to replace those that are lost elsewhere. With the proposed removal of garbage collection centers and interpretative kiosks, other areas for parking will also open up. In addition, the Master Plan proposes an extension of the East Parking Lot to accommodate the promenade without a loss of parking. The result of all of these adjustments is intended to, at minimum,maintainthe existingparkingsupply currentlyaccommodated on the Wharf. However, if all of the proposed reconfigurations and with more efficient use of space currently devoted to parking functions, a modest increase of up to 10 to 15% may be possible. Some of the additional space thatisfreed up from other uses within the parking area may also be needed for bicycle parking in addition to what is being provided along the edge ofthe East Promenade.

When the East Promenade is built, the Master Plan also proposes the modest adjustment of the parking area to the east so that the existing sidewalk adjacent to the commercial uses, which is generally limited to 13 feet, be increased to 15 feet to better accommodate the pedestrian movement requirements.

Pay on Foot Parking System
The pay stations provide fourlanesin and out of the Wharf – two in/out on most days and one in and three out when needed.

The Master Plan also proposes that a pay-on-foot automated system be implemented to increase the efficiency and speed of transaction. This system would be similar to what is used in the Downtown garages which is increasingly used throughout the United States as well as abroad.

The pay-on-footsystem provides an opportunity for a patron to pay in advance of exiting. At leasttwelve pay stations or kiosks,sheltered from the elements and each comprised of two units for redundancy and back up, would be provided and evenly distributed in areas determined by the City’s Public Works Parking Division staff along the length of the parking spine. The pay stations can also be programmed for various forms of validation, and for demand pricing, based on the length of stay or the time of visitation or season of the year. To allow for the convenience of a visitor who forgot to pay the automated ticket, readers can also include mechanisms for credit card payment. In addition, a parking office is proposed which would be located in the leasehold areas south of the Gateway Building where visitors can go for information or to purchase a resident pass. Furthermore, some or all of the booths on each of the islands at the parking gates can be staffed, if demand warrants or if required for other reasons. In addition an electronic display will be incorporated, indicating the availability of parking at a visible location

27.125
M A S T E R P L A N R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - P A R T T W O : E N H A N C I N G E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S P A C E A N D A C T I V I T I E S , C I R C U L A T I O N A N D P A R K I N G 42 near the future roundabout and entry. The display would indicate that there is readily available parking and invite visitors in or – when demand exceeds supply - encourage them to park elsewhere and approach via shuttle, or other means. Signage indicating alternative parking locations when the Wharf is full should be a part of the information provided to the visitor.

Parking Management
The Master Plan also includes some proposed modifications to the City existing parking management policies. Currently, the City encourages its tenants to limit employee parking on the Wharf and to use alternative modes of transportation, including off-site parking, and bicycle and transit access, particularly during the peak summer months. This policy should be expanded to include car sharing and should be more strictly enforced. In addition, the parking area directly adjacent to the relocated entry gates and in close proximity to the Lifeguard Station should be signed as reserved parking and set aside for the Lifeguards, Wharf staff and other City employees who need to arrive by vehicle and park at the Wharf for longer periods of time. In this manner, potential conflicts between ingress and egress vehicles at the new entrance to the Wharf would be reduced and the parking directly in front of the businesses would be more available to patrons. In addition, the parking area directly adjacent to the bay in the East Parking Lot should remain and is ideally suited for tailgate fishing. Tailgate fishing in this area would not interrupt the continuity of pedestrian movement since the East Promenade will extend through the center bay of the East Parking Lot.

The pay on foot parking system will provide the City with a great deal of additional management control over the parking supply. A demand pricing strategy isrecommended to help flatten demand in peak periods and make the parkingmore attractive for general public use in non-peak periods. Generally, pricing should be set at ratesthat create about a 15% vacancy, which would help to make the Wharf feel more accessible and convenient. The pricing of parking should also recognize the value of the Wharf as a unique coastal resource and therefore alternativemeansof access,such asshuttlesfrom remote parking, should also be pursued that alleviate parking demand during peak periods.

Improved Accessibility byOtherModes
The proposed East Promenade and its direct connection to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail network as well as local bicycle routes will help to establish the Wharf as a pedestrian and bicycle oriented place and thus will expand its accessibility. An important consideration to encouraging bicycle access to the Wharf is the provision of convenient and secure bicycle parking. Most bicyclists prefer parking their bike as close as possible to their destination. The sidewalk adjacent to the commercial areas, however, is limited and not appropriate for bicycle parking. The Master Plan proposes that bicycle parking be provided along the western edge of the East Promenade in the transition area between the vehicular parking and the promenade. Preliminarily, 64 bicycle parking spaces are recommended for location along this edge.

Ultimately, it is anticipated that bicycle parking along that edge will be increased, as demand warrants, and could easily provide for a total of 150 bicycle parking spaces. The type of bike rack recommended for this area is the MultiPlicity bike rack currently being manufactured by Landscape Forms because it also serves as a leaning rail when it is not used as a bike rack, however other similar bike racks could be considered as well.

The advantage of this bike rack design is that when it is not in use, it still has a functional benefit and does not look like it is only a storage device for a single purpose. In addition to the bicycle parking along the East Promenade, additional bicycle parking should be provided in a variety of more centralized locations where space permits, does not impinge on pedestrian movement and does not create a cluttered visual effect. It is assumed that 50 additional parking spaces could readily be provided in centralized bicycle parking areas, including the wide shoulders near the pay-on-foot stations and selected portions at the bayward end of the Wharf. Additional bicycle parking spaces can also be provided in other portions ofthe Wharf,particularly as efficienciesin the existing vehicular are realized. Not counting the below-deck events parking at the South Landing, a total of approximately 150 bicycle parking spaces would be provided, which is approximately 35% of the vehicular parking as required for public or commercial recreation in the Santa Cruz Zoning Code (Section 24.12.250).

In addition to enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access to the Wharf, a transit shuttle similar to the one that is utilized to connect the downtown to the Beach Area should be provided along the entire length of the Wharf. The potential of providing a transit shuttle – an open air vehicle that is fun to ride – should be pursued not only from Downtown but also from other parking resources such as the large and underutilized County government parking facility on Ocean Street. A small-scale electric shuttle dedicated specifically for trips out and back on the Wharf could also be considered. In addition to providing transit shuttle connections, consideration should also be given to the implementation of a bike sharing program or encouraging the provision of bike rental facilities in the Downtown. In this manner, visitors who wish to connect from Downtown to the Wharf would also have the opportunity to access the Wharf by bicycle. Furthermore, bike sharing locations should be encouraged in the Beach Area associated with hotels and lodging facilities to give guests the opportunity for recreational biking on the Sanctuary Trail and therefore also to the Wharf and other destinations within the city.