Santa Cruz City Council
May 28, 2024

4. Participate in a pre-construction meeting to answer questions about design intent or about interpretation of the documents prior to work at the site.

5. Attend 80 one-hour weekly teleconference meetings during active construction to maintain active lines of communication between the engineers and the contractors. Review minutes prepared by the CM.

6. Prepare and issue bulletins in response to RFI’s during construction for clarification of our drawings or specifications.

7. Review 10 civil and structural submittals and shop drawings, submitted through and checked by the General Contractor, for general compliance with the intent and requirements of our Construction Documents. Re-review of more than two submittals would be considered Additional Services. Submittals include:
i. Construction Schedule
ii. Temporary Erosion Control
iii. Maintenance tank foundation rebar
iv. Maintenance tank drainage piping
v. Surge tank rebar
vi. Primary tank grading
vii. Primary tank foundation rebar
viii. Primary tank drainage piping
ix. Curbs, drainage, fencing, gates
x. Paving

8. Visit the construction site at 17 milestone points to observe the progress of construction and its general conformance to our Construction Documents and prepare and deliver Site Observation Logs. Visits include:
i. BMPs, fencing,
ii. Existing utility potholing
iii. Maintenance tank site grading and erosion control
iv. Maintenance tank rebar observation
v. Maintenance tank installation
vi. Maintenance tank piping before backfill
vii. Surge tank rebar observation
viii. Primary tank demolition
ix. Primary tank grading and erosion control
x. Primary tank foundation rebar observation
xi. Primary tank piping before backfill
xii. Primary tank installation
xiii. Erosion control and site winterization
xiv. Curbs and drainage
xv. Site Paving
xvi. Fencing Gates
xvii. Paving

20.16 Engineering Services During Construction for U4 Tank Replacement MME Project No: 22109-1
April 15, 2024

9. Review contractor’s special inspection test reports and notify the City and the Contractor regarding reports indicating non-conforming items. Coordinate with the Contractor and the inspector to resolve variations in the work from that specified in the construction documents.

10. Prepare a final punch list of our items not yet satisfactorily completed and make visits to the project site to verify completion of those items.

11. Prepare "Record" drawings based on "As-Built" drawings provided by the Contractor supplemented with information gathered during our site visits and information contained in our project file.

12. Assist in coordinating the MME team and attend the 11-month warranty inspection to observe conditions and prepare a list of items for repair.

13. Assist in coordinating the MME team and attend the 17-month warranty inspection to observe conditions and prepare a list of items for repair.

14. Provide the administrative support necessary for us to perform these services.

Compensation for Services
Compensation for all services rendered in connection with this project will be based on time and expenses charged in accordance with our Schedule of Standard Billing Rates. Please see the attached Engineering Fee Estimate for more information.

Additional Services
We understand that the City will be retaining a full-time Construction Manager to provide day to day management, daily site observations, payment application review, change order negotiation and so forth.

Additional Services are those items which are not specifically mentioned under the scope of services outlined above and/or those items which arise as a result of unforeseen circumstances. The following is a partial list of work excluded from this scope of services: Underground Utility Location, Environmental Assessments or Permits, Hazardous Materials Services, Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Controls, or Traffic Engineering, FEMA studies, Arborists Reports, Construction Staging Plans, SWPPP, Bid Alternates, Value Engineering, Front End Specifications, Expedited Schedule, Prevailing Wage Monitoring, Construction Management, Payment Application Review, Change Order Negotiation.

Respectfully yours,
Rodney Cahill, P.E.

Principal

20.17 Engineering Services During Construction for U4 Tank Replacement MME Project No: 22109-1
April 15, 2024

Billing Rates 2024
Effective through December 31, 2024
Professional Services
Engineer I $ 140 / hour
Engineer II $ 160 / hour
Engineer III $ 180 / hour
Engineer IV $ 200 / hour
Engineer V $ 220 / hour
Engineer VI $ 240 / hour
Principal Engineer $ 260 / hour
Expert Witness Services $ 400 / hour
Technician I $ 80 / hour
Technician II $ 100 / hour
Technician III $ 120 / hour
Technician IV $ 140 / hour
Administrative Assistant $ 100 / hour
Administrative Manager $ 140 / hour
Field Survey (Prevailing Wage)
Chief of Party $235 / hour
Instrumentman $225 / hour
Chainman / Rodman $215 / hour
Flagperson / Pedestrian Monitor $170 / hour
Reimbursable Expenses
Sub-Consultants Direct Billing x 1.10
Outside Services Direct Cost x 1.15
Printing, delivery, equipment rental and other direct project expenses In-House Services
Photocopies $ 0.10 sheet
Plotting -internal check plots / plots on bond $ 2.00 sheet -final plots on mylar $ 10.00 sheet
Travel
Automobile mileage $ 0.67 mile
Airfare, Car Rental, etc. Direct Cost x 1.15
Per Diem Allowance (varies by location) $ 200/day
i:\22109 city of santa cruz - ce se university tank 4 replacement\proposal\construction\22109-1_ca for construction support 2024 04 15.docx Exhibit B. Fee Schedule

20.18 Engineering Services During Construction Fee Estimate Uiversity Tank 4 Replacement
prepared for City of Santa Cruz Water Department by Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc.

MME Project Number: 22109-1
4/15/2024
Item Task Description
Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer Admin Admin Total Engineer VI V IV III II I Mgr Assist Fee
$260 $240 $220 $200 $180 $160 $140 $140 $100
Construction Services based on an estimated 22 month Construction Contract from April 1 2024 - Feb 1 2026 1 Correspondence 32 40 $16,320
2 Respond to Bidders RFIs 4 8 8 $4,080
3 Coordinate subconsultants 16 24 16 $11,840
4 Pre-con Meeting 4 4 $1,840
5 80 Wks Con Mtgs @1h 40 80 $26,400
6 Respond to RFIs 16 80 $18,560
7 Review 10 CE/SE Submitta 5 30 $6,700
8 Site Visits (17 @ 3h) 6 3 39 3 $10,620
9 Review Reports 1 8 $1,860
10 Punchlist 4 16 $4,240
11 Record Drawings 4 8 32 $8,400
12 11-month inspection coord 8 16 $5,280
13 17-month inspection coord 8 16 $5,280
14 Administration 4 16 30 16 $10,040
Subtotals: 152 3 0 275 169 0 0 30 16 $131,460
MME Services Subtotal: $131,460
Months of construction (estimated) 22
Average monthly cost of MME services during construction $5,975 Reimbursable Expenses
1 Plotting and Delivery $30
2 Mileage 50 0.67 $40
S1 RWM - Engineering Services During Construction for Tanks, Pumphouse and Coatings 191,000 1.1 $210,100 S2 Pacific Crest - Plan Review 2,520 1.1 $2,772
S2 Pacific Crest - Materials Testing Services 33,094 1.1 $36,403 S3 GV Survey - Construction Control 1,400 1.1 $1,540
S4 Ifland Survey - Defensible Space Easements 2,000 1.1 $2,200 S5 Nielson Studios - Architect Construction Administration 7,500 1.1 $8,250 Subtotals: $261,335
Services and Expenses Subtotal: $392,795
Contingency (10%): $39,280
Total: $432,075
Average monthly cost of MME and Team Services during construction: $19,640 Personnel and Hourly Billing Rates
This is our estimate based on currently available information. We may redistribute compensation between phases to be consistent with the hours of services provided, but shall not exceed the total unless approved by the Client. This estimate is based on hourly rates effective through December 2024.

Exhibit C. Work Schedule

20.19

April 12, 2024
TASK 7 – ASSIST IN CONSTRUCTION BIDDING AND CONTRACTOR

SELECTION
A. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING SERVICES DURING BIDDING AND AWARD

1. City will arrange for the reproduction and issuance of the bidding documents. City will pay for the reproduction and distribution costs for the documents.

2. Based upon pre-bid meeting notes provided by City, identify potential items for addenda.

3. Prepare responses and addenda items in response to contractor questions.

4. City will prepare addenda for distribution.

5. Review bids.

6. Check the bid schedules of the bidders. Prepare a recommendation for resolution of any errors or omissions in the bid schedule.

7. City will provide review of the contractor's performance bond and insurance submittals.

City will provide legal and specialty insurance review of these documents.

8. Prepare and submit an "Issued for Construction" set of contract documents that includes addenda changes.

B. DELIVERABLE ITEMS

1. The "Issued for Construction" documents shall be submitted as electronic PDF files.

TASK 8 – CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION SERVICES
A. ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
During construction the following engineering services will be provided. The assumed duration of the construction phase is twenty-two months. During bidding, award, and construction, it is assumed that the overall direction and critical decisions will be by City construction manager.

City construction manager will coordinate activities with City management and operations staff.

1. Attend the pre-construction meeting.

2. Review submittals for general conformance to the contract documents.

3. As an additional scope item, provide review of contractor-initiated requests for changes, "value engineering" changes, and "or-equal" submittals.

4. Attend the pre-final and final project reviews prior to acceptance of the work.

20.20

April 12, 2024

5. Review monthly progress estimates prepared by the contractor and make a recommendation on final payment and acceptance of the work.

6. Provide clarifications to the contract documents.

7. Provide documentation for submittals processing, potential changes, change orders, clarifications, progress estimates, and field visits.

8. Review conflicts caused by varying site conditions or discrepancies in the contract documents and provide clarifications or potential changes to assist in resolution of the issues.

9. Attend up to a total of six monthly-construction-meetings and project reviews.

10. Evaluate potential changes to the work and provide clarifications to the project management and construction staff.

11. Assist with review and negotiation of changes and prepare the change order descriptions.

12. Upon receipt of field record documents from the contractor, prepare record drawings depicting "as-built conditions" using the record documents, addenda, and change orders as sources for changes.

13. Assist in preparation of the final punch list and attend the pre-final and final inspections.

14. Warranty inspections (deleted)

15. City agrees to place provisions in its contract documents that will require contractor to pay City for costs associated with review of submittals that exceed the second submittal for any item.

B. FIELD OBSERVATIONS

1. Provide onsite field observations during construction to monitor the progress of construction and observe the work for compliance with the contract documents. It is difficult to anticipate the effort required for the field observations since the various contractors manage their work differently and have differing capabilities and degrees of compliance with the contract documents.

2. For estimating the cost of field observations for the bolted and welded reservoirs, we have assumed that the effort will be as follows:
a. For the bolted reservoir, the assumed duration of assembly is three weeks, with a total of 16 hours of onsite observation time.
b. For the welded reservoir, the assumed duration of construction is six weeks, with a total of twelve full-day visits, an average of two per week. For coating observations, the effort would be six weeks of full-time effort in the field and two weeks of full-time effort in the fabrication plant.

3. For estimating the cost of field observations for the pumping station modification work, a total of 19 hours of onsite observation has been assumed.

20.21

April 12, 2024

4. For estimating the cost of field observations of the yard piping and surge tank work, a total of 19 hours of onsite observation has been assumed.

5. Provide technical coordination with specialty inspection services, to include welding and geotechnical engineering and testing. Provide protective coatings observation services, which will be provided on a full-time basis by NACE certified inspectors except when the contractor is performing non-critical work.

6. Provide field documentation including construction progress reports; construction inspection field diary entries; extra work identification and monitoring; status of nonconforming work; identification of construction issues and status; materials testing reports; field orders; and periodic construction photographs during the course of the field work.

The daily construction progress reports will be submitted on a bi-weekly basis.

7. When RWM provides on-site monitoring personnel as part of services during construction under this scope, the on-site monitoring personnel will make reasonable efforts to guard City against defects and deficiencies in the work of the contractor and to help determine if the provisions of the contract documents are being fulfilled. Day-to-day monitoring will not, however, cause RWM to be responsible for those duties and responsibilities which belong to the construction contractor and which include, but are not limited to, full responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and progress of construction and the safety precautions incidental thereto and for performing the construction work in accordance with the contract documents.

8. City agrees to place provisions in its contract documents that will require contractor to pay City for costs associated with observations and monitoring of overtime and shift work on the project. Overtime work is defined as contractor working hours that exceed eight hours in any day or 40 hours per week.

C. DELIVERABLE ITEMS

1. Provide files for the record drawings in AutoCAD and PDF format.

2. Provide one copy of the office documentation in PDF format.

3. Provide one copy of the field documentation in PDF format.

4. Provide each field photograph in PDF format.

TASK 9 – ADDITIONAL SERVICES
A. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In general, services not included in the scope above are considered to be additional services.

Additional services that may be discussed during scope discussions or the project include items such as the following:

2. Review of contractor-initiated requests for substitutions, alternative methods or materials, changes, "or-equal" items, and for "value engineering" changes

3. Review of third and greater submittals for any item submitted by contractor

20.22

April 12, 2024

4. Review and preparation of responses for contractor requests for information where the answers are in the contract documents, correspondence, change orders, or other documents already transmitted to contractor

5. Providing shop inspection services at fabrication facilities located outside of the northern California area

6. Providing onsite field observations for a total effort greater than assumed in this scope

7. Additional work resulting from changes to the design, suspensions, or delays to the project schedule as a result of environmental, regulatory, financial, or permit considerations, and failure of the contractor to complete the work in compliance with the contract documents

20.23

April 12, 2024
APPENDIX: FEE SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED FEES
Robert W. Miles, Consulting Engineers
Hourly Rates
Classification Rate, $/hour
Principal project engineer 240
CADD services 150
Principal coatings engineer 138
Coatings inspector-8 hrs/day 173
Coatings inspector-overtime/Saturday 219
Coatings inspector-Sunday/holiday 253
Summary of Estimated Fees
Task Element Estimated Fee, $
7 Assist in construction bidding and contractor selection 5,300 8 Construction and inspection services
Engineering services during construction 52,000
Field observations 134,000
Total 191,000
The estimated fee for the field observation services includes assumptions for the costs of overtime, holiday, and weekend work, due to higher hourly rates at those times. Therefore, the estimated fees for the coatings inspection services are a guide and cannot be guaranteed because contractors vary in their work schedules and overall approach to the work.

20.24 4113 Scotts Valley Drive, #102 Scotts Valley, CA 95066 V:\proposals\2024\MME_U4-Tank_022224.docx Page 1
February 22, 2024
MME
Attn: Rodney Cahill
224 Walnut Avenue, Suite B
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE:   Surveying & Mapping Services
U4 Water Tank – Construction Control, Santa Cruz, CA

Dear Rodney,
As requested, we hereby submit our proposal for the following surveying and mapping services for a portion of Branciforte Drive.  We understand this effort is needed survey control for the construction of the U4 Water Tank.  This is a prevailing wage project.  Our proposal is as follows:

SCOPE OF WORK

1. SURVEY CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
Based on previous work done by Ifland Survey, we will verify existing survey control and set 3‐4 survey control monuments for the construction of the U4 Tank.  Deliverable will be a .csv data file of the existing and new control for the project, and a survey control plan showing the project site along with the control locations and coordinate value table.

Our fees for the above services would be $1,400, and would be subject to the attached general provisions, Exhibit A.  Additional items, services and/or reimbursables would be subject to the attached hourly rates, Exhibit B.

If this proposal meets your approval, please return a signed copy to our office, or .pdf via e‐mail.   We anticipate being able to start within 1‐2 weeks of receiving such authorization and the work would be completed approximately 1 weeks thereafter, depending upon weather.

Sincerely,
Vernon Little, PLS
Principal
GV Land Surveying
Authorization to Proceed
I/we agree to the scope, terms and provisions in
the above proposal and hereby request GV Land
Surveying to proceed accordingly.
______________________________________
Signature       Date

20.25 March 25, 2024
Construction Administration
Client Name: Mesiti-Miller Engineering, Inc.

Client Address: 224 Walnut Ave. Ste. B, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: [email protected]
Phone: 831.426.3186
Project Address: 1991 Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 I. Construction Administration Services | Hourly (Not to Exceed) $7,500 ● Review roof materials submittal
● Respond to contractor RFI on roofing
● Attend 1 site meeting
● Conduct a site observation and punchlist
1 of 2 Initials ________
[email protected] | (831) 621-3926 | 1509 Seabright, Suite 2B | Santa Cruz, CA 95062

20.26 SIGNATURES BELOW SIGNIFY AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS OFFERED BY: ACCEPTED BY:
________________________________ _________________________________

NIELSEN STUDIOS
TITLE:____________________________ TITLE:____________________________ NAME:____________________________ NAME:____________________________ DATE: ____________________________ DATE: ____________________________ 2 of 2 Initials ________
[email protected] | (831) 621-3926 | 1509 Seabright, Suite 2B | Santa Cruz, CA 95062

20.27 G E O T E C H N I C A L | E N V I R O NM E N T A L | C H EM I C A L | M A T E R I A L T E S T I N G | S P E C I A L I N S P E C T I O N S 4 44 A I RPO RT B LV D., S UI T E 106 | WA T S O NV I L LE, CA 9 507 6 | PHO NE 83 1- 722- 94 46 | WWW.4PA CI FI C- CRES T. COM November 20, 2023 Job No. 2250-SZ59-A41
Rodney Cahill, PE
MME Engineering
224 Walnut Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA
Subject: Proposal for a Geotechnical Investigation – Plan Review University Tank 4 Replacement Project
Santa Cruz, California
Dear Mr. Cahill,
Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. (PCE) is pleased to present our proposed scope of work and fee to perform a geotechnical plan review and post report services for the University Tank Site 4 project, for the City of Santa Cruz, California.

This proposal is based upon the geotechnical investigation that prepared for the project as well as our 25+ years of knowledge of the local geotechnical conditions in the area.

SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work for our geotechnical services will be limited to the following:

1. Project coordination and design discussion meetings.

2. Geotechnical plan review of “University Tank 4 Replacement, Santa Cruz, CA - 100% Plans” prepared by MME Civil and Structural Engineering, dated 10/13/2023.

3. Preparation of a plan review letter signed and stamped by an engineer registered with the State of California.

FEE FOR SERVICES
Our services will be performed on a time and materials basis in accordance with our 2023 Standard Fee Schedule.

Based on our understanding of the project, we estimate the following hours and associated fees to perform the services outlined in Tasks 1 through 3 above. Subject to variation among items, the following spreadsheet summarizes our estimated hours and associated rates:

20.28 University Tank 4 Replacement Project Project No. 2250-SZ59-A41 November 20, 2023

Task Description Personnel/Item Hours $/Hour Cost/ Item 1 Project Meetings and
Correspondence
Associate Engineer 6 210 1260
2 Plan Review Associate Engineer 4 210 840
3 Letter Prep Associate Engineer 2 210 420
Total Cost of Professional Services $2,520.00
Therefore, we estimate the budget to perform the geotechnical services described in Tasks 1 through 3, will be performed on a T&M basis, not to exceed Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Dollars ($2,520). We will not exceed this amount without written authorization from the client.

AUTHORIZATION
To authorize our firm to provide these services, please issue a professional service agreement referencing this proposal along with a notice to proceed.

Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide our services and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about our proposed scope of work and fee. We can be reached at (831) 722-9446.

Sincerely,
PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING INC.

Matt Maciel, GE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 3189, Expires 9/30/2022

20.29 G E O T E C H N I C A L | E N V I R O NM E N T A L | C H EM I C A L | M A T E R I A L T E S T I N G | S P E C I A L I N S P E C T I O N S 4 44 A I RPO RT B LV D., S UI T E 106 | WA T S O NV I L LE, CA 9 507 6 | PHO NE 83 1- 722- 94 46 | WWW.4PA CI FI C- CRES T. COM March 27, 2024 Job No. 2250
Rodney Cahill
MME Engineers
224 Walnut Ave, Suite B
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Opinion of Probable Cost – Material Testing Services University Tank 4 Replacement Project
Santa Cruz, CA
Dear Mr. Cahill,
Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. (PCE) is pleased to provide you with an Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for material testing services in conjunction with the subject referenced projectin Santa Cruz. The scope of work outlined below is based upon our email correspondence with you dated March 25, 2024 as well as the University Tank 4 Replacement Bid Set Plans by MME Engineers dated March 25th , 2024 and U4 Tank
Construction Schedule dated October, 16th, 2023. Ultimately, our services will be performed on a time and materials basis as requested by your company’s project representative.

INTRODUCTION
It is our understanding that material testing services are being requested in conjunction with the subject referenced project.

We have developed this OPC for material testing services based upon assumed time frames and activities.

The exact services shown, and the scope of each task may vary in reaction to changes in the design, construction issues, or other issues outside of our control which may occur. This includes weather issues, means and methods for completion of the work chosen by the Contractor, unforeseen conditions, etc. In conjunction with a varying scope and extent of our services, the fees for our services may be less than or greater than those estimated in this OPC. You will only be charged for the actual services performed and we will not exceed the OPC amount provided below without written authorization from your office.

SCOPE OF WORK
The following is a general list of anticipated tasks to be performed as part of our materials observation and testing services:

Project administration and management
Earthwork Observation and Testing of Subgrade and Finished Grade Preparation. o Compaction Testing per ASTM D6938
o Compaction Curves per ASTM D1557
Laboratory Testing

20.30 University Tank 4 Replacement Project
March 27, 2024 Job No. 2250

o Flowable Fill compressive strength testing per ASTM D-4832 o Concrete compressive strength testing per ASTM C-39
o Grout cube compressive strength ASTM C-109
Report and letter preparation documenting our services and test results.

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Our services will be performed on a time and materials basis in accordance with our 2024 Fee Schedule for prevailing wage projects. This fee schedule will continue through December 31, 2024. Starting in 2025, our fees may be subject to increase. Subject to variation among items, the following table presents our OPC to provide the services outlined above:

PERSONNEL/CATEGORY DURATION/ QUANTITY RATE TOTAL
Earthwork Observation and Testing
Foundation Excavation Observation 2 days @ 4 hours/day @ 145 $/hour $1,160 Compaction Testing, ASTM D6938 15 days @ 6 hours/day @ 145 $/hour $13,050 Compaction Curves, ASTM D1557 3 Tests @ 325 $/Test $975 Cement Products Observation and Testing
Field Sampling of Concrete and FF 3 days @ 8 hours/day @ 145 $/hour $3,480 Compressive Strength Testing, ASTM C-39 2 Sets @ 350 $/set $700 Compressive Strength Testing (FF), ASTM D 4832 1 Sets @ 450 $/set $450 Grout Field Observation and Sampling 1 days @ 4 hours/day @ 145 $/hour $580 Compressive Strength Testing, ASTM C-109 1 Sets @ 350 $/Test $350 Storage and Disposal 4 Sets @ 25 $/Test $100
HMA Observation and Testing
Compaction Testing 5 days @ 8 hours/day @ 145 $/hour $5,800 Quality Assurance Testing (TBD) $1,000
Reports/Project Administration
Principal Engineer 4 hours @ 220 $/hour $880
Supervising/Senior Field Engineer 8 hours @ 145 $/hour $1,160 Clerical 4 hours @ 100 $/hour $400
10% Contingency $3,009
Total Estimated Fees……………………………………………………… $33,094
Including a 10% contingency, we therefore estimate our total OPC to provide the services described herein to be Thirty-Three-Thousand and Ninety-Four Dollars ($33,094.00). It should be noted that this is a preliminary opinion only and is provided without the benefit of the project schedule. This preliminary opinion may vary due to a variety of factors beyond our control as discussed above. Therefore, our fees may be more or less than the amounts shown above. We will not exceed this OPC amount without written authorization from your office.

We have also assumed the work is to be performed as a prevailing wage project. This requires payment of prevailing wages and maintenance of certified payrolls.

20.31 University Tank 4 Replacement Project
March 27, 2024 Job No. 2250

AUTHORIZATION
To authorize our firm to provide the services outlined in the proposal, please send a Purchase Order or other written authorization as soon as possible.

Pacific Crest Engineering Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide our services and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about our proposed scope of work and fee. We can be reached at (831) 722-9446.

Sincerely,
PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING INC.

Chris Johnson, PE
Principal Civil Engineer
C 82630, Expires 9/30/24

20.32 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for U4 Tank Replacement Project May 2024 (Form Rev.01/23 ) Page 13
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property and otherwise which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Agreement and the results of that work by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

A. CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS
The City will be issued a Certificate of Insurance (a Memorandum of Understanding will not be accepted) with the following minimum requirements:
• Certificate(s) will show current policy number(s) and effective dates, • Coverage and policy limits will meet, or exceed, requirements below, • The Certificate Holder will be City of Santa Cruz, Risk Management, 1200 Pacific Ave., Suite 290, Santa Cruz, CA 95060,
• Certificate will be signed by an authorized representative, • An endorsement, if required below, will be provided to show the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds, and
• Coverages must be maintained during the term of the Agreement with the City, unless a longer duration is required as specified below.

B. MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. If Consultant maintains broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below, the City of Santa Cruz requires and shall be entitled to the broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Cruz.

Coverage will be at least as broad as:
• COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (CGL): $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE; $2,000,000 AGGREGATE Proof of coverage for $1 Million per occurrence and $2 Million in the aggregate including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury will be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL. • PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (ERRORS AND OMISSIONS): $2,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE OR CLAIM, $2,000,000 AGGREGATE.

Consultant will maintain insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession; with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after date of completion of the services under this Agreement. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date or start of work date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.
• AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY:

Proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
• WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH STATUTORY LIMITS, AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

20.33 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for U4 Tank Replacement Project May 2024 (Form Rev.01/23 ) Page 14
The Worker’s Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant and its employees. (Not required if Consultant provides written verification it has no employees) - If Consultant has no employees, Consultant shall complete and sign a Workers’ Compensation Exemption Declaration and Release of Liability.

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to comply with the following provisions:
• ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS
The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy [OPTIONAL: ,CPL, and automobile insurance (if transporting hazardous materials] policy[(ies)] with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations, products and completed operations. General liability coverage will be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 (if a later edition is used).
o PRIMARY COVERAGE
For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s and all subcontractor’s insurance coverage will be primary and non-contributory as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers will be excess of Consultant’s and all subcontractor’s insurance and will not contribute with it.
• NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Each insurance policy required above shall state that the coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
• WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Consultant hereby grants to the City a waiver of any right to subrogation, except as otherwise not applicable, which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss, including attorney’s fees under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effectuate this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. • EXCESS LIABILITY/UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICIES
Consultant may use excess liability/umbrella policies to meet the required liability limits on the condition that they provide all of the insurance coverages required herein, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The excess liability/umbrella insurance policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying CGL insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the additional insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted. • DURATION OF COVERAGE
CGL & Excess Liability/Umbrella policies for any construction related work, including, but not limited to, maintenance, service, or repair work, shall continue coverage for a minimum of 5 years for Completed

20.34 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for U4 Tank Replacement Project May 2024 (Form Rev.01/23 ) Page 15
Operations liability coverage. Such Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. • SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS (SIR)
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related expenses.

The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
• ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
• CLAIMS MADE POLICIES
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work. • VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Consultant will furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy (and CPL, automobile and any Excess Liability/Umbrella policies, as applicable) listing all policy endorsements to be approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning will not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

C. SUBCONTRACTORS
Consultant shall include their subcontractor(s) as additional insured(s) under the policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each contractor and subcontractor. Consultant shall require and verify that all contractors and subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are named as additional insureds on insurance required from its contractor(s) and subcontractor(s).

D. SPECIAL RISKS/CIRCUMSTANCES
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances and provide notice to Consultant.

20.35 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/09/2024
AGENDA OF: 05/28/2024
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Purchase of Real Property Necessary for Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project: Assessor’s Parcel Number 072-144-30, Owned by Karlheinz Schaaf Trust (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Purchase Sale Agreement between the City of Santa Cruz and Karlheinz Schaaf Trust for the easements located in Ben Lomond, CA near Highway 9 between Glen Arbor Road and Brackney Road for a permanent easement and a temporary easement on APN 072-144-30 for the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (Water Department) developed the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project (Project) to improve the reliability of water supply infrastructure for the City of Santa Cruz (City). The Newell Creek Pipeline (NCP) is a critical component of the City’s water supply infrastructure that transports water from the Loch Lomond Reservoir to the City’s Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. With the Project, the City plans to replace a section of the NCP. Specifically, the Project will construct approximately 2,700-linear feet of new, re-aligned pipe between Brackney Road and Glen Arbor Road. This re-alignment will replace the existing pipeline, which is at the end of its useful life, and relocate the pipeline so it is protected from future landslide and geological movements.

DISCUSSION: To complete the Project, the City must purchase easements on this property (APN 072-174-30) from its Owner (Property). The property is an occupied lot in Ben Lomond, CA.

The City requires the Property outright so that it can construct and maintain the pipeline component of the Project, which will run the length of the Property. The title report indicates that the Property is owned by Karlheinz Schaaf Trust (Owner).

The City contracted with Integra Realty Resources (Integra), a full-service independent appraisal firm, to determine the fair market value of the Property. Based on Integra’s appraisal, the City prepared and sent out a formal offer letter to the Owner shown on the table below.

21.1 Owner Formal Offer
Letter Presented
Date
Appraised
(Just Compensation)
Value ($)
Signed Agreement
Date
Karlheinz Schaaf
Trust
(APN 072-144-30)
1/3/24 $80,000 4/5/24
On 4/5/24, the parties reached an agreement on the sale and purchase of the Property for the value shown in the table above and outlined in the attachment (Purchase Agreement for APN 072-144-30).

FISCAL IMPACT: The total for this Purchase Sale Agreement is $80,000. Funds are available in the Water Department Capital Investment Program, project c702002 for the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project.

Prepared By:

Lewis Kay
Engineering Associate
Submitted By:

Heidi Luckenbach
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION FOR APN 072-144-30.DOC

2. PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR APN 072-144-30.PDF

21.2 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AUTHORIZING

AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A

PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND

KARLHEINZ SCHAAF TRUST FOR THE EASEMENTS LOCATED IN BEN LOMOND, CA NEAR HIGHWAY 9 BETWEEN GLEN ARBOR ROAD AND BRACKNEY ROAD FOR A PERMANENT EASEMENT AND A TEMPORARY EASEMENT ON APN 072-144-30 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz operates the Newell Creek Pipeline, a raw water transmission main; and
WHEREAS, the Newell Creek Pipeline crosses multiple public and private properties from the Loch Lomond Reservoir in Ben Lomond to the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant in Santa Cruz; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has completed negotiations from property owner included in this purchase sale agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has offered Karlheinz Schaaf Trust to purchase a permanent easement and a temporary easement for construction of the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction to replace a section of the Newell Creek Pipeline; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute certain Grant of Easements, pertaining to certain property located on APN 072-144-30, from Karlheinz Schaaf Trust, upon the terms and conditions as set forth in said Easement Deeds as presented to this Council this date.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________

21.3 Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

21.4 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
1 PURCHASE AGREEMENT
The Purchase Agreement (”Agreement”) is dated and entered into on the date by which it has been duly executed by all parties hereto (the “Effective Date”), by and between Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994 herein referred to as “GRANTOR”, and the City of Santa Cruz, a public agency herein after referred to as “GRANTEE” or “CITY”. GRANTEE and GRANTOR are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”, and the Agreement constitutes both an agreement to purchase and sell a Permanent Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement between the Parties.

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts:

1. GRANTOR is the sole owner in fee simple of real property located at 8045 Schaaf Road, Ben Lomond, California, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 072-144-30 in the Records of the Santa Cruz County Assessor, and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”).

2. GRANTEE is proposing to complete the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project (“NCP Project”) to improve the reliability of the CITY’s water supply infrastructure. The Newell Creek Pipeline (“NCP”) is a critical component of the CITY’s water supply infrastructure, carrying water from Loch Lomond Reservoir to the CITY’s Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. The CITY plans to replace a section of the NCP through the NCP Project. The NCP Project proposes to construct approximately 2,600-LF new, re-aligned NCP between Brackney Road and Glen Arbor Road. This re-alignment is required to replace the existing pipeline which is at its end of useful life and relocate the pipeline, so it is protected from future landslide and geological movement. The Pipeline crosses the Property as described herein.

3. GRANTEE desires to purchase and GRANTOR agrees to sell the following:
a. A permanent and perpetual pipeline easement and right-of-way, including the right to ingress and egress for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining the NCP and related appurtenances in, on, and over a 12,439 square foot portion of the Property (the “Permanent Easement”. The Permanent Easement and NCP location, construction, operation, and maintenance shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference.
b. A Temporary Construction Easement (the “TCE”) in, on, and over a 25,538 square foot portion of the Property for construction of the NCP Project and NCP, associated with providing a ground surface workspace during construction, along with the rights of vehicular ingress and egress thereto, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

21.5 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
2 c. The Permanent Easement and Temporary Construction Easement will be collectively referred to herein as “Easements”.

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Complete Agreement. The Parties herein set forth the whole of their AGREEMENT. The performance of this AGREEMENT constitutes the entire consideration and shall relieve GRANTEE of all further obligation or claims on this account, or on account of the location, grade, or construction of the NCP Project.

2. Purchase and Sale. On the Close of Escrow (as herein defined), GRANTOR agrees to sell the Easements to GRANTEE, and GRANTEE agrees to buy the Easements from GRANTOR, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

3. Purchase Price.
(A) The total purchase price of the Easements to be paid by GRANTEE is the sum of EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($80,000.00) (“Purchase Price”). (B) The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total compensation to be paid by GRANTEE for the Easements are the Purchase Price, which amount is the full and complete acquisition cost based upon the fair market value of the Easements as determined by an independent appraiser.

GRANTEE shall have no obligation to GRANTOR under the California Relocation Assistance Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 7260 et seq.), and any and all other federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, whether such claims arise from statute, contract, tort, or otherwise.

4. Escrow. The Parties hereby shall establish an escrow (“Escrow”) to accommodate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, “Opening of Escrow” shall mean the date on which Escrow Holder, as defined below, shall have received a fully executed original of this Agreement from GRANTEE and GRANTOR. “Close of Escrow” shall mean the date upon which the Easement Deeds are recorded in the Official Records of the County of Santa Cruz. The Close of Escrow shall be on the date, which is not later than the first business day occurring sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement, unless the Parties agree in writing to a later date. a. This Escrow will be handled through Chicago Title Insurance Company (the “Escrow Holder”), located at 50 Winham Street, Salinas, CA 93901. b. The Escrow Holder is authorized and shall record the documents and disburse the funds and documents called for hereunder upon the Close of Escrow, wherein title to said property

21.6 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
3 interest vests in GRANTEE free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, and leases (recorded and/or unrecorded) and taxes, except as follows:
i.Taxes for the tax year in which this escrow closes shall be cleared and paid in the manner required by section 5086 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if unpaid at the Close of Escrow.
ii.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reservations of record, or contained in the abovereferenced documents. iii.Easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi-public utility or public street purposes, if any.
c. GRANTEE shall deposit the Purchase Price in Escrow within ten (10) days of the Opening of Escrow.
d. GRANTEE shall pay all Escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction, and if title insurance is desired by GRANTEE, the premium charged, therefore. GRANTEE shall pay for recording the Deeds and any required Escrow costs.
e. GRANTEE shall have the authority to deduct and pay from the Purchase Price any amount necessary to satisfy any bond demands and delinquent taxes due in any year except the year in which this Escrow closes, together with any penalties and interest thereon, and/or delinquent and unpaid non-delinquent assessments which have become a lien at the Close of Escrow.
f. GRANTOR covenants and agrees to deposit into Escrow prior to the Close of Escrow the Permanent Easement Deed in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Permanent Easement Deed”), and the Temporary Construction Easement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Temporary Construction Easement Deed”) (collectively, the Deeds”) duly executed and acknowledged by GRANTORS, granting and conveying the Permanent Easement and Temporary Construction Easement to GRANTEE. g. Each Party agrees to execute such other and further Escrow instructions and documents as may be necessary or proper in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.

5. Mortgage. Any monies payable under this AGREEMENT up to and including the total amount of unpaid principal and interest on note(s) secured by mortgage(s) or deed(s) of trust, if any, and all other amounts due and payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of said trust deed(s) or mortgage(s), shall upon demand(s) be made payable to the mortgagee(s) or beneficiary(ies) entitled thereunder; said mortgagee(s) or beneficiary(ies) to furnish GRANTOR with good and sufficient receipt showing said monies credited against the indebtedness secured by said mortgage(s) or deed(s) of trust.

21.7 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
4 6. Financing. Any or all monies payable under this Agreement up to and including the total amount due on financing statements, if any, shall, upon demand, be made payable to the holder thereof. Said holder to furnish GRANTEE with good and sufficient receipt showing said monies credited against the indebtedness secured by said financing statements.

7. Release of All Claims. Except for any claim of breach of this Agreement, it is understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Purchase Price includes, but is not limited to, payment for any and all past, present, and/or future claims, complaints, demands, causes of action, obligations damages, including access, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, rights, and liabilities of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, which have accrued or may accrue to GRANTOR’S Property as a result of this Agreement and the construction and use of the proposed NCP Project, including, but not limited to, any expense which GRANTOR may incur relating to the remaining Property. This release is not intended to extend to unanticipated physical damage caused by construction.

8. Leasehold Interests. GRANTOR agrees to hold GRANTEE harmless and reimburse GRANTEE for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said Property held by any tenant of GRANTOR for a period exceeding one month. GRANTOR acknowledges that a general release or quitclaim deed will be required from any lessee regarding the disclaimer of the tenants’ interest in the Purchase Price. Said general releases or quitclaim deeds are to be provided by GRANTOR, prior to the Close of Escrow. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to current leases on the Property as well as future leases, if any, that are entered into after the execution of this Agreement. GRANTOR warrants that there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the property exceeding a period of one month, and the GRANTOR agrees to hold GRANTEE harmless and reimburse GRANTEE for any and all of its losses and expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by any tenant of GRANTOR for a period exceeding one month. GRANTOR acknowledges that a quitclaim deed will be required from any lessee that has a lease term exceeding one month. Said quitclaim deed(s) is to be provided to Title prior to the Close of Escrow.

9. License to Enter. GRANTOR hereby grants to GRANTEE and GRANTEE’s authorized agents, contractors, and consultants, a license to enter upon the Easements solely for the purpose of making inspections and other pre-construction examinations of the Easements area during the Escrow period subject to the following:
a. GRANTEE shall give GRANTOR(s) at least 72-hour telephone notice before entering the Property, which notice requires GRANTEE to include the name of the company, the person, and their purpose for access to the Property.
b. GRANTEE does hereby indemnify and forever save GRANTOR(s), GRANTOR’s heirs, successors and assigns, and the Property, free and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damages and costs and expenses, demands, causes of action, claims or judgments, whether or not arising from or occurring out of any damage to the Property as a result of any accident or other occurrence at Property which is in any way connected with GRANTEE’s inspections or non-permanent improvements involving entrance onto the Property pursuant to this Section. If GRANTEE fails to acquire the Easements solely due to GRANTEE’s default, this license shall terminate upon the termination of Grantee’s right to

21.8 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
5 purchase the Easements and satisfaction of removal obligation described in the next sentence.

In such event, GRANTEE shall promptly remove or cause to be removed all GRANTEE’s personal property, facilities, tools and equipment from the Property.

10. Warranties of GRANTOR(s).
a. The GRANTOR(s) warrants that they are the owner in fee simple of the Property affected by the Easements and that they have the exclusive right to grant these rights. b. Neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder including the transfer of the Easements to GRANTEE, violates or shall violate any contract, agreement, or instrument to which GRANTOR is a party, or which affects the Property, and this Agreement, including the sale of the Easements herein contemplated, does not require the consent of any party not a signatory hereto.
c. GRANTOR has no knowledge of any pending, threatened, or potential litigation, action, or proceeding against GRANTOR or any other Party before any court or administrative tribunal, which is in any way related to the Property.

11. Warranties of GRANTEE.
a. GRANTEE acknowledges that GRANTEE is purchasing the Easements solely in reliance on Grantee’s own investigation and that no representations of warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, have been made by GRANTOR, except as provided above. b. GRANTEE acknowledges that GRANTOR shall have no obligation to improve the Property, before or after the Close of Escrow, and GRANTEE further agrees to purchase the Easements in an “AS IS” condition at the Close of Escrow. GRANTEE agrees that the existing dirt roadway and existing gate will be restored to the condition it was in at the Close of Escrow.

12. Compliance with Laws. All work done under this Agreement shall conform to all applicable building, fire and sanitary laws, ordinances, and regulations relating to such work, and shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner.

13. Indemnification Obligations.
a. In consideration of the GRANTEE’s waiving any defects and imperfections in all matters of record title, the undersigned GRANTOR(s) covenant and agree to indemnify and hold the GRANTEE harmless from any and all claims that other parties may make or assert on the title to the Property. The GRANTOR(s)’ obligation herein to indemnify the GRANTEE shall not exceed the amount paid to the GRANTOR(s) under this Agreement. b. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify and hold harmless GRANTOR, Grantor’s heirs, successors, and assigns, and the Property free and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses, demands, causes of action, claims, or judgments (“Claims”) arising from or

21.9 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
6 occurring out of GRANTEE’s use of the Easements and the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project, except to the extent such Claims result from, arise out of, or are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of GRANTOR, GRANTOR’s agents, successors, assigns, invitees, or tenants.

14. Access to Property. GRANTEE agrees that GRANTOR(s) will have access to the remainder Property during construction with said access maintained in such a way so that it does not impact or interfere with normal home residency. GRANTEE will notify GRANTOR(s) at least 30-days prior to start of construction of the NCP Project in the Permanent Easement and TCE area. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, GRANTEE and GRANTEE’S Agents shall not impair GRANTOR(s) use or access to the remainder Property and will not park or store vehicles, debris or equipment on GRANTOR(s) remainder Property unless GRANTOR(s) written permission is obtained in advance.

15. Resolution of Condemnation Action. Both GRANTOR(s) and GRANTEE recognize the expense, time, effort, and risk to both Parties in resolving a dispute over compensation for the Easements by eminent domain litigation. The Purchase Price for the Easements and the other considerations set forth herein constitute a complete settlement of any and all rights of GRANTOR to compensation for the Easements, or any other eminent domain damages including but not limited to relocation and economic damages, arising from or related to the acquisition of the Easements by GRANTEE.

16. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by overnight Federal Express or priority U.S. Mail, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, or (b) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice:

GRANTOR: Karlheinz Schaaf
8045 Schaaf Road
Ben Lomond, CA 95005
GRANTEE: City of Santa Cruz
Attn: Isidro Rivera P.E.
212 Locust Street, Suite C
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
ESCROW HOLDER: Chicago Title
50 Winham Street
Salinas, CA 93901

17. Miscellaneous.
a. It is understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that this Agreement inures to the benefit of, and is binding on, the Parties, their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and or assigns.

21.10 GRANTOR: KARLHEINZ SCHAAF, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KARLHEINZ SCHAAF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 24, 1994
PROJECT: Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project PARCEL: 072-144-30
7 b. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement, oral or written, and together with the exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and may not be modified except by an instrument in writing signed by the party to be bound thereby.
c. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid of unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. d. GRANTEE reserves the right to cancel Escrow and terminate this Agreement if at any time GRANTEE determines that the Easement is no longer needed for the NCP Project. e. The signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that each is and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors, and assigns to perform and comply with the terms of this Agreement. f. The Purchase Price reflects the fair market value of the Easements without the presence of contamination. If the property being acquired is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous waste which requires mitigation under federal or state law, GRANTEE may elect to recover its cleanup costs from those who caused or contributed to the contamination. g. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California.
h. The Parties agree that each has reviewed this Agreement and have had the opportunity to have counsel review and revise this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto.
i. The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors, and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.
j. The Parties may execute this Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile, or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

Signature Page to Follow

21.11 21.12
9 EXHIBIT A
Property Legal Description
PARCEL I:

Being Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Block 9 as the same are shown and designated on that certain map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County.

PARCEL II:

Beginning on the southerly line of the former Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 13, in Block 9, as shown and designated upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 125 feet to the produced southeasterly line of Lot 9 in said Block 9 of said Subdivision; thence southwesterly along the produced southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 40 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 9; thence North 20 ° 06' West, along the northeasterly line of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 125 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL III:

Being a portion of that strip of land designated as "S.P.R.R. Right of Way 100', on the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W.

Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16,

Beginning at the northeasterly corner of Lot 10, Block 16, as shown on said map; thence from said point of beginning, northwesterly along the southwesterly line of above mentioned Southern Pacific Railroad, right of way to a point on the northerly line of Oak Avenue, as shown on said map; thence along the easterly prolongation of said northerly line of Oak Avenue, South 89 ° 59' East, 42.66 feet to the southeasterly corner of the lands conveyed to Chris Lawson, by Deed recorded in Volume 588, Page 316, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northeasterly line of said lands of Lawson and the production thereof, North 20 ° 04' West 413 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly production of the southerly line of Glen Arbor Road (formerly Riverton Ave.); thence along said produced line, South 89 °45' East, 42 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Charles Braunfelo et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 666, Page 147, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Braunfeld and the southerly prolongation of said line South 20 ° 06' East, 222 feet, more of less, to the northwesterly corner o the lands conveyed to Dorothy O'Gara, by deed recorded in Volume 1155, Page 371, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of O'Gara, southeasterly 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Spear, South 21 °06' East, 26.70 feet to the northwesterly corner of land conveyed to Susan G. Schmidt by Deed recorded in Volume 797, Page 360, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Schmidt, South 21 °06' East, 91.10 feet to the northwesterly corner of the land conveyed to C.M.

Bryce, et ux., by Deed recorded in Volume 1145, Page 61, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence

21.13 10
South 31 ° 06' East, 85 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said lands of Bryce; thence leaving said lands southwesterly in a direct line 75 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

PARCEL IV:

Being Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, in Block 4, as the same are shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records.

PARCEL V:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May 17, 1949 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along said last named line, North 0 ° 15' East, 105 feet, more or less, to a point from which the northeast corner of said land of de Haas bears North 20 ° 06' West, 49.65 feet distant; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

Excepting therefrom:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Quitclaim Deed recorded in Volume 1072,

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Schaaf with the weterly prolongation of the northerly line of lLot 28 as said lot is shown upon the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Lot 28, North 89 ° 45' West, 20.67 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Schaaf; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands North 0 ° 15' East, 53.45 feet to the most northerly corner thereof and southerly 57.31 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VI:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of that parcel of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May17, 1940 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence South 0 ° 15' West, along the easterly line of said last named land, 12 feet, more or less, to the southern corner of said land of de Haas; thence parallel with the westerly line of said Block 4, South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to a point from which the southwest corner of Lot 34, Block 4 of said Subdivision bears South 89 ° 45' East; thence South 89 ° 45'

21.14 11
Wat, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 34; thence along the westerly line of said Block 4, North 20 ° 06' West, 128.00 feet and North 0 ° 15' East, 4.50 feet to the place of beginning.

PARCEL VII:

Beginning on the southerly lline of Riverton Street at the northwest corner of Lot 27, Block 4, as the same is designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the westerly line of said Lot 27, southerly, 100 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 27, being also the northwesterly corner of Lot 28 in Block 4; thence from said point, Southerly, 50 feet, more or less, along the westerly line of Lots 28 and 29, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 30, Block 4; thence from said northwesterly corner of Lot 30, North 20 ° 6' West, 110 feet, more or less, along the easterly boundary of that certain parcel of land conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf, by Deed recorded May 3, 1956, in Volume 1072, at Page 523, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, to the most southerly corner of that certain parcel designated "Park", on the hereinto referred map; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Park, being also the westerly line of Fremont Avenue as shown on said map, to its intersection with the southelry line of Riverton Street; thence along the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Riverton Street, 40 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VIII:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 35, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, said point being also the southeast corner of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Deed dated November 13, 1953, recorded November 16, 1953, in Volume 940, Page 547, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence from said point of beginning along the southerly line of the last named lands, North 89 ° 45' West, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence southeasterly in a direct line, 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux., by Deed dated November 21, 1952, recorded January 27, 1953 in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northerly line of said last named lands South 89 ° 45' East, 42.66 feet to the norheast corner thereof, said point being the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 4 of the above mentioned Ordway Tract; thence along the westerly line of Lots 7,36, and 35 of said subdivision, North 20 ° 06' West, 159.05 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL IX:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed recorded in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County and more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Haas with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 28 as said lot is shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of said northerly line of North 89 ° 45'

21.15 12
West, 22.84 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Max de Haas; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands, South 20 ° 06' East, 65.67 feet to the most southerly corner thereof and North 0 ° 15' East, 61.57 feet to the point of beginning.

APN: 072-144-30

21.16 13

EXHIBIT B
Permanent Pipeline Easement Legal Description & Plat Map (See attached)

21.17 EXHIBIT “A”

PERMANENT EASEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITUATE in County of Santa Cruz, State of California
BEING an easement over a portion of the lands conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust by deed recorded on October 3, 1994, in Volume 5578 at Page 708, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, said portion being a strip of land twenty (20.00) feet in width, lying ten (10.00) feet on each side of the following described centerline:

BEGINNING at a point on the southwestern boundary of Parcel Six as described in said deed conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, from which a ¾” iron pipe, tagged 6163 at the northwestern corner the lands conveyed to C. M. Bryce, et ux, by deed recorded in Volume 1145,

also from which a ½” iron pipe as shown on the Record of Survey map recorded on January 23, 2019 in Volume 128 of Maps at Page 33, Santa Cruz County Records at the most northerly corner of Lot 9 in Block 17 as said Lot and Block are shown upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", filed for record May 5, 1909 in Map book 16 at Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, bears South 1°15’05” East, 181.26 feet distant, said point of beginning having coordinates of N 1,852,809.25, E 6,100,501.86; thence North 28°41'13" West, a distance of 135.59 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,928.19, E 6,100,436.77; thence North 06°03'32" West, a distance of 28.00 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,956.04, E 6,100,433.82; thence North 16°25'57" West, a distance of 56.38 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,010.12, E 6,100,417.87; thence North 27°39'33" West, a distance of 60.19 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,063.43, E 6,100,389.93; thence North 16°24'30" West, a distance of 197.36 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,052.75, E 6,100,334.18; thence North 65°37'13" West, a distance of 14.78 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,258.85, E 6,100,320.72; thence North 20°38'07" West, a distance of 113.76 feet, to a point having coordinates N 1,853,365.31, E 6,100,280.63; thence North 01°52'34" East, a distance of

16.7 feet, more or less to the southerly line of Glen Arbor Road.

The sidelines of said strip shall be lengthened or shorted to terminate on the boundary lines of the grantor and any portion of said strip lying outside the boundary lines of the grantor is excepted therefrom
And CONTAINING 12,439 square feet, more or less.

Exhibit "A", page 3 of 3, is attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.

21.18 The courses (bearings and distances) and the coordinates shown hereon are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1983, CCS83, Zone 3, (2010.00) also known as NAD83 (2011) in accordance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 8801-8819.

END OF DESCRIPTION
APN 072-144-30
Prepared by: Gary Ifland, LS 7367
November 2, 2023
Job No. G20050

21.19 21.20
14 EXHIBIT C
Temporary Construction Easement Legal Description & Plat Map (See attached)

21.21 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITUATE in County of Santa Cruz, State of California
BEING an easement over a portion of the lands conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust by deed recorded on October 3, 1994, in Volume 5578 at Page 708, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, said portion being described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most northeasterly corner of Lot 10 in Block 16 as said Lot and Block are shown upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", filed for record May 5, 1909 in Map book 16 at Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, as said corner is shown on the Record of Survey map recorded on January 23, 2019 in Volume 128 of Maps at Page 33, Santa Cruz County Records, and having coordinates of N 1,852,718.29, E 6,100,461.23, and from which a ½” iron pipe at the northern corner of Lot 9 in Block 17 as shown on said Record of survey Map bears South 21°48'16" East, 16.27 feet, South 0°59'44" West, 85.00 feet (at 20.83 an iron pipe and at 35.00 feet an iron pipe) and North 76°11'39" East, 41.22 feet; thence along the southerly and southwesterly boundary of Parcel Six of said lands as conveyed in said deed, North 89°00'16" West, a distance of 8.76 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,718.44, E 6,100,452.46, North 21°48'16" West, a distance of 103.05 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,814.12, E 6,100,414.19, and North 18°48'16" West, a distance of 146.76 feet, to a point on the southern line of Oak Avenue, having coordinates of N 1,852,953.08, E 6,100,366.87; thence continue northerly along said southwesterly line, North 18°48'16" West, a distance of 30.39 feet; thence leaving said southwesterly line and along the following courses (and coordinates):
1) North 89°44'00" East, a distance of 42.33 feet (N 1,852,982.01, E 6,100,399.41); 2) North 18°47'21" West, a distance of 174.14 feet (N 1,853,146.87, E 6,100,343.32); 3) North 84°13'46" East, a distance of 32.56 feet (N 1,853,150.15, E 6,100,375.72); 4) South 18°34'21" East, a distance of 18.90 feet (N 1,853,132.23, E 6,100,381.74); 5) South 75°42'43" West, a distance of 3.61 feet (N 1,853,131.34, E 6,100,378.24); 6) South 17°26'12" East, a distance of 67.46 feet (N 1,853,066.98, E 6,100,398.46); 7) North 77°33'47" East, a distance of 19.08 feet (N 1,853,071.09, E 6,100,417.09); 8) South 20°05'34" East, a distance of 127.93 feet (N 1,852,950.95, E 6,100,461.04), to a point on the southern boundary of Parcel 3 of said lands as conveyed in said deed; thence westerly along the southern boundary of said Parcel Three, North 88°42'21" West, a distance of 8.97 feet (N 1,852,951.15, E 6,100,452.07) to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux by deed recorded in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence continuing southerly along the easterly boundary of said Parcel Six, the following courses:
9) South 19°20'00" East, a distance of 134.77 feet (N 1,852,823.98, E 6,100,496.69) (at 116.69 feet a ¾” iron pipe, tagged PLS 6163)
10) South 70°36'14" West, a distance of 51.49 feet (N 1,852,806.88, E 6,100,448.12);

21.22 11) South 19°01'26" East, a distance of 20.00 feet (N 1,852,787.97, E 6,100,454.64); 12) North 72°53'55" East, a distance of 11.14 feet (N 1,852,791.25, E 6,100,465.29); 13) South 19°03'41" East, a distance of 40.03 feet (N 1,852,753.41, E 6,100,478.36); 14) North 71°13'04" East, a distance of 25.17 feet (N 1,852,761.52, E 6,100,502.19); 15) North 18°54'50" West, a distance of 41.99 feet (N 1,852,801.24, E 6,100,488.58); 16) North 70°43'58" East, a distance of 15.18 feet (N 1,852,806.25, E 6,100,502.91), to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel Six; thence along said easterly line, South 19°20'00" East, a distance of 45.62 feet, to the southeast corner of said Parcel Six, having coordinates of N 1,852,763.20, E 6,100,518.01 and from which a ½” iron pipe at the southeast corner of Lot 2 in Block 4, as said Lot and Block are shown upon said map entitled, “Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", bears North 51°39’26” East, 42.20 feet distant; thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel Six, South 51°39’26” West, a distance of 72.40 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 25,538 square feet, more or less.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within the existing permanent easement as conveyed to the City of Santa Cruz.

Exhibit "A", page 3 of 3, is attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.

The courses (bearings and distances) and the coordinates shown hereon are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1983, CCS83, Zone 3, (2010.00) also known as NAD83 (2011) in accordance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 8801-8819.

END OF DESCRIPTION
APN 072-144-30
(C-01D)
Prepared by: Gary Ifland, LS 7367
March 1, 2023
Job No. G20050

21.23 21.24
15 EXHIBIT D
Permanent Pipeline Easement Deed
(See attached)

21.25 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Santa Cruz
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of Santa Cruz
212 Locust Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attn.: Water Department
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE §27383

GRANT OF EASEMENT DEED
(PIPELINE)
Title Order No. FWMN-TO23000180
Escrow No.

Parcel No. 072-144-30
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $0 CITY TAX is $0
☐ computed on the full value of the property conveyed, or ☐ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale, or ☒ There is no Documentary transfer tax due, government agency acquiring title (R & T 11922). ☒ Unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County ☐ City/Town of FOR CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I (we) Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994 (“Grantor”)
Hereby GRANT(S) to:

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a public agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“Grantee”), all of the following:

A permanent, perpetual and non-exclusive pipeline easement (the “Permanent Easement”), including the right to ingress and egress for the purpose of constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, and replacing the water pipe and related appurtenances in connection with the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project (the “Project”), across, over, under, and upon a portion of the real property located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, California, identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 072-144-30 in the Records of the Santa Cruz County Assessor and more particularly described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”). The Permanent Easement is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit 2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference, to facilitate the Project, as defined herein.

21.26 A. Grantee’s Rights. To accomplish the purpose of this Permanent Easement, Grantor hereby grants and conveys the following rights to Grantee:

1. To implement the Project, including but not limited to, apply for and obtain all licenses, permits, and approvals required for Grantee’s use of the Permanent Easement from all applicable governmental or regulatory entities, and to do those things on the Permanent Easement that, in the sole opinion of Grantee, are necessary to permit, construct, implement, manage, operate, maintain, or reconstruct the Project and any other lawful use of the Permanent Easement, all at Grantee’s expense. Grantor will, at no cost to Grantor, sign documents required for Grantee to obtain any and all Project approvals;

2. To access the Permanent Easement at reasonable times in order for Grantee and its employees, agents, contractors, engineers, and surveyors to inspect, conduct, perform and examine soil borings, drainage testing, environmental sampling, surveys and other geological or engineering tests or studies necessary to apply for and obtain all licenses, permits, and approvals required for Grantee’s use of the Permanent Easement;

3. To prevent any activity on or use of the Permanent Easement that is not reserved herein and is inconsistent with the purpose of this Permanent Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Permanent Easement that may be damaged by Grantor as a result of any act, failure to act when specifically required herein to act, or any use of the Permanent Easement by Grantor not reserved herein that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Permanent Easement;

4. The right to enforce by judicial enforcement, including without limitation, injunctive relief the terms and conditions of this Permanent Easement.

B. Prohibited Uses. Except as provided herein, any activity on or use of the Permanent Easement that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement Deed is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following uses by Grantor, its respective guests, agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors, and third parties are expressly prohibited within the Permanent Easement:

1. Residential, commercial, retail, institutional, or industrial uses;

2. Any legal or de facto division, subdivision, or partitioning of Permanent Easement;

3. Construction or placement of any building, wireless communication cell tower, or any other structure or improvement;

4. No new street, road or other paved area shall be constructed over the Permanent Easement to a grade less than five feet above the top of the Project’s pipeline located within the Permanent Easement. Fill shall not be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground as it shall exist within the Permanent Easement upon completion of construction greater than 3 feet in depth. The existing dirt road within the Permanent Easement shall remain in place;

5. Dumping soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio solids, garbage, or any other material;

6. Creation of any encumbrance superior to this Permanent Easement, or the recording of any involuntary lien (which is not released within thirty calendar days), or the granting of any lease, license, or similar possessory interest in the Permanent Easement that Grantee determines, in its

21.27 reasonable discretion, will affect Grantee’s uses of the Permanent Easement for the purposes of operating or maintaining the Project; and

7. Any and all other activities and uses of the Permanent Easement that would adversely affect the realization of the purpose of this Permanent Easement.

C. Reserved Rights. Grantor and Grantee expressly acknowledge that this Permanent Easement creates no restrictions on activities undertaken on property adjacent to the Permanent Easement, Grantor reserves all rights accruing from their ownership of the Permanent Easement, including the right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in those uses of the Permanent Easement that are authorized by and consistent with this Permanent Easement.

D. Fee Ownership and Responsibilities.

1. Grantor, their successors, and assigns retain all responsibilities and bear all costs related to the fee ownership of the Property, including the area of the Permanent Easement. Grantor agrees Grantee shall not have any duty or responsibility for monitoring of hazardous conditions thereon, or the protection of Grantor, the public, or any third parties from risks relating to conditions on the Permanent Easement area provided, however, that Grantee shall indemnify Grantor against liability arising from the use of the Permanent Easement by Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, or invitees.

2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Grantor, its employees, agents, successors and assigns, from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, damages, or judgments, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs, arising from the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Grantee, its employees, agents, and consultants for actions related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project, except to the extent such Claims result from, arise out of, or are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Grantor, Grantor’s employees, agents, successors, assigns, or invitees.

No building or structure of any kind shall be constructed upon the Permanent Easement, and should a building or structure be erected in violation of this provision, Grantee and its successors and assigns may still exercise all rights herein granted and shall have the right to remove, or cause Grantor to remove, at Grantor’s expense, any such building or structure. Subject to the foregoing, Grantor hereby reserves, for themselves, their successors and assigns, the right to use the surface of the Permanent Easement for all uses not in conflict with Grantee’s use of the Permanent Easement for the Project.

3. Grantee shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair, restore, and reconstruct in all material respects any damage to any and all affected facilities, improvements, equipment and appurtenances on the Permanent Easement area, which is proximately caused by any act or omission of Grantee, its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors related to this Grant of Easement Deed.

4. At the completion of construction, Grantee shall remove any construction equipment and materials from the Permanent Easement area and restore the Permanent Easement area to the condition it was in on the date and time of the beginning of construction except normal wear and tear.

This grant of easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

21.28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Grant of Easement Deed, effective as of , 20__.

GRANTOR: Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994
Date:___________________ By:______________________________ Karlheinz Schaaf, Trustee
GRANTEE: CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a public agency
Date:________________________ By:___________________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager

APPROVAL AS TO FORM
Office of the City Attorney
Date:________________________

21.29 21.30

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by that certain Easement Deed dated as of ____________________, 20__, from Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994 (the “Grantor”) to the City of Santa Cruz, a public agency (the “Grantee”), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. NS 7013 of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, adopted on the 8th day of January, 1963, and recorded with the County Recorder of Santa Cruz County on the 14th day of January, 1963, in Volume 1516, Page 392 of the Official Records; and that Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer, the City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz.

Dated: _____________, 20___
By: _____________________________
Matt Huffaker, City Manager
Relates to portion of APN: 072-144-30

21.31 Exhibit 1
Property Legal Description
PARCEL I:

Being Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Block 9 as the same are shown and designated on that certain map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County.

PARCEL II:

Beginning on the southerly line of the former Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 13, in Block 9, as shown and designated upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 125 feet to the produced southeasterly line of Lot 9 in said Block 9 of said Subdivision; thence southwesterly along the produced southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 40 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 9; thence North 20 ° 06' West, along the northeasterly line of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 125 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL III:

Being a portion of that strip of land designated as "S.P.R.R. Right of Way 100', on the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W.

Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16,

Beginning at the northeasterly corner of Lot 10, Block 16, as shown on said map; thence from said point of beginning, northwesterly along the southwesterly line of above mentioned Southern Pacific Railroad, right of way to a point on the northerly line of Oak Avenue, as shown on said map; thence along the easterly prolongation of said northerly line of Oak Avenue, South 89 ° 59' East, 42.66 feet to the southeasterly corner of the lands conveyed to Chris Lawson, by Deed recorded in Volume 588, Page 316, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northeasterly line of said lands of Lawson and the production thereof, North 20 ° 04' West 413 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly production of the southerly line of Glen Arbor Road (formerly Riverton Ave.); thence along said produced line, South 89 °45' East, 42 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Charles Braunfelo et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 666, Page 147, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Braunfeld and the southerly prolongation of said line South 20 ° 06' East, 222 feet, more of less, to the northwesterly corner o the lands conveyed to Dorothy O'Gara, by deed recorded in Volume 1155, Page 371, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of O'Gara, southeasterly 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Spear, South 21 °06' East, 26.70 feet to the northwesterly corner of land conveyed to Susan G. Schmidt by Deed recorded in Volume 797, Page 360, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Schmidt, South 21 °06' East, 91.10 feet to the northwesterly corner of the land conveyed to C.M.

Bryce, et ux., by Deed recorded in Volume 1145, Page 61, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence South 31 ° 06' East, 85 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said lands of Bryce; thence leaving said lands southwesterly in a direct line 75 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

21.32 PARCEL IV:

Being Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, in Block 4, as the same are shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records.

PARCEL V:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May 17, 1949 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along said last named line, North 0 ° 15' East, 105 feet, more or less, to a point from which the northeast corner of said land of de Haas bears North 20 ° 06' West, 49.65 feet distant; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

Excepting therefrom:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Quitclaim Deed recorded in Volume 1072,

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Schaaf with the weterly prolongation of the northerly line of lLot 28 as said lot is shown upon the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Lot 28, North 89 ° 45' West, 20.67 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Schaaf; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands North 0 ° 15' East, 53.45 feet to the most northerly corner thereof and southerly 57.31 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VI:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of that parcel of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May17, 1940 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence South 0 ° 15' West, along the easterly line of said last named land, 12 feet, more or less, to the southern corner of said land of de Haas; thence parallel with the westerly line of said Block 4, South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to a point from which the southwest corner of Lot 34, Block 4 of said Subdivision bears South 89 ° 45' East; thence South 89 ° 45' Wat, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 34; thence along the westerly line of said Block 4, North 20 ° 06' West, 128.00 feet and North 0 ° 15' East, 4.50 feet to the place of beginning.

21.33 PARCEL VII:

Beginning on the southerly lline of Riverton Street at the northwest corner of Lot 27, Block 4, as the same is designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the westerly line of said Lot 27, southerly, 100 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 27, being also the northwesterly corner of Lot 28 in Block 4; thence from said point, Southerly, 50 feet, more or less, along the westerly line of Lots 28 and 29, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 30, Block 4; thence from said northwesterly corner of Lot 30, North 20 ° 6' West, 110 feet, more or less, along the easterly boundary of that certain parcel of land conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf, by Deed recorded May 3, 1956, in Volume 1072, at Page 523, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, to the most southerly corner of that certain parcel designated "Park", on the hereinto referred map; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Park, being also the westerly line of Fremont Avenue as shown on said map, to its intersection with the southelry line of Riverton Street; thence along the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Riverton Street, 40 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VIII:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 35, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, said point being also the southeast corner of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Deed dated November 13, 1953, recorded November 16, 1953, in Volume 940, Page 547, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence from said point of beginning along the southerly line of the last named lands, North 89 ° 45' West, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence southeasterly in a direct line, 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux., by Deed dated November 21, 1952, recorded January 27, 1953 in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northerly line of said last named lands South 89 ° 45' East, 42.66 feet to the norheast corner thereof, said point being the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 4 of the above mentioned Ordway Tract; thence along the westerly line of Lots 7,36, and 35 of said subdivision, North 20 ° 06' West, 159.05 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL IX:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed recorded in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County and more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Haas with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 28 as said lot is shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of said northerly line of North 89 ° 45' West, 22.84 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Max de Haas; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands, South 20 ° 06' East, 65.67 feet to the most southerly corner thereof and North 0 ° 15' East, 61.57 feet to the point of beginning.

APN: 072-144-30

21.34 Exhibit 2
Permanent Easement Legal Description and Plat Map
(See attached)

21.35 EXHIBIT “A”

PERMANENT EASEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITUATE in County of Santa Cruz, State of California
BEING an easement over a portion of the lands conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust by deed recorded on October 3, 1994, in Volume 5578 at Page 708, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, said portion being a strip of land twenty (20.00) feet in width, lying ten (10.00) feet on each side of the following described centerline:

BEGINNING at a point on the southwestern boundary of Parcel Six as described in said deed conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, from which a ¾” iron pipe, tagged 6163 at the northwestern corner the lands conveyed to C. M. Bryce, et ux, by deed recorded in Volume 1145,

also from which a ½” iron pipe as shown on the Record of Survey map recorded on January 23, 2019 in Volume 128 of Maps at Page 33, Santa Cruz County Records at the most northerly corner of Lot 9 in Block 17 as said Lot and Block are shown upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", filed for record May 5, 1909 in Map book 16 at Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, bears South 1°15’05” East, 181.26 feet distant, said point of beginning having coordinates of N 1,852,809.25, E 6,100,501.86; thence North 28°41'13" West, a distance of 135.59 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,928.19, E 6,100,436.77; thence North 06°03'32" West, a distance of 28.00 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,956.04, E 6,100,433.82; thence North 16°25'57" West, a distance of 56.38 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,010.12, E 6,100,417.87; thence North 27°39'33" West, a distance of 60.19 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,063.43, E 6,100,389.93; thence North 16°24'30" West, a distance of 197.36 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,052.75, E 6,100,334.18; thence North 65°37'13" West, a distance of 14.78 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,853,258.85, E 6,100,320.72; thence North 20°38'07" West, a distance of 113.76 feet, to a point having coordinates N 1,853,365.31, E 6,100,280.63; thence North 01°52'34" East, a distance of

16.7 feet, more or less to the southerly line of Glen Arbor Road.

The sidelines of said strip shall be lengthened or shorted to terminate on the boundary lines of the grantor and any portion of said strip lying outside the boundary lines of the grantor is excepted therefrom
And CONTAINING 12,439 square feet, more or less.

Exhibit "A", page 3 of 3, is attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.

21.36 The courses (bearings and distances) and the coordinates shown hereon are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1983, CCS83, Zone 3, (2010.00) also known as NAD83 (2011) in accordance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 8801-8819.

END OF DESCRIPTION
APN 072-144-30
Prepared by: Gary Ifland, LS 7367
November 2, 2023
Job No. G20050

21.37 21.38
16 EXHIBIT E
Temporary Construction Easement
(See attached)

21.39 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Santa Cruz
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of Santa Cruz
212 Locust Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attn.: Water Department
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE §27383

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DEED
Parcel No. 072-144-30
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $0 CITY TAX is $0
☐ computed on the full value of the property conveyed, or ☐ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale, or ☒ There is no Documentary transfer tax due, government agency acquiring title (R & T 11922). ☒ Unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County ☐ City/Town of FOR CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I (we) Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994 (“Grantor”)
Hereby GRANT(S) to:

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a public agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“Grantee”), all of the following:

A temporary easement and right-of-way (the “TCE”) for the purposes of access, facilitating construction, and installation of the Project, including but not limited to, the right to ingress to and egress upon, over, under and across Grantor’s Property and the right to otherwise use the Grantor’s Property comprising the easement area (“TCE Area”) of an approximately 25,538 square foot portion of Grantor’s Property located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, California, identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 072-144-30 in the Records of the Santa Cruz County Assessor and more particularly described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”) to facilitate the construction of the Brackney Landslide Area Pipeline Risk Reduction Project (the “Project”). The TCE Area is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit 2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference.

A. Term. The term of the TCE will commence on the date of the Close of Escrow and expire twentyfour (24) months thereafter. Upon written mutual agreement of the Grantor and Grantee, the Term

21.40 may be extended. Following termination of the TCE, Grantee shall confirm in writing to Grantor that the TCE has terminated and record any instrument necessary to clear title to the Grantor’s Property.

1. Grantee shall limit its use of the TCE Area to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The days and hours of TCE use are subject to extension with mutual agreement of Grantee and Grantor. The HDD installation method for the pipe in the Brackney North section would require approximately one day of continuous 24-hour installation.

B. Grantee’s Rights. To accomplish the purpose of the TCE, Grantor hereby grants and conveys the following rights to Grantee:

1. Grantee’s rights granted herein shall be deemed to include such incidental rights as are reasonably necessary to use the TCE for the purposes provided herein, including but not limited to the transportation of construction equipment, materials, supplies, and personnel to and from the Easement area. During the TCE Term, Grantee shall secure the TCE Area to prevent unauthorized access to the construction site, construction materials, and equipment.

2. To access the TCE area within the times specified in order for Grantee and its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, workers, successors and assigns for undertaking and facilitating the work on the Project stated herein.

3. To prevent any activity on or use of the TCE Area that is not reserved herein and is inconsistent with the purpose of this TCE and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the TCE Area that may be damaged by Grantor as a result of any act, failure to act when specifically required herein to act, or any use of the TCE Area by Grantor not reserved herein that is inconsistent with the purpose of this TCE; and

4. The right to enforce by judicial enforcement, including without limitation, injunctive relief the terms and conditions of this TCE.

C. Grantor’s Obligations.

1. Without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may withhold in its reasonable discretion, Grantor may not transfer, encumber, sell, lease, or otherwise separate any mineral rights or water rights for the TCE area.

2. Grantor shall not create any encumbrance superior to this TCE, or the recording of any involuntary lien (which is not released within thirty calendar days), or the granting of any lease, license or similar possessory interest in the TCE area that Grantee determines, in its reasonable discretion, will affect Grantee’s use of the TCE for the purposes stated herein.

3. Grantor may not engage in any activities at, on, upon, or adjacent to the TCE area that would adversely affect the Grantee’s use of the TCE. Grantor will have continuous pedestrian and vehicular access to the Hobby Shop during the TCE Term.

D. Grantee’s Obligations.

1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Grantor, its employees, agents, successors and assigns, from and against any and all claims, demands,

21.41 actions, damages, or judgments, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs (collectively, “Claims”) arising from the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Grantee’s employees, agents, and consultants for actions related to the TCE, except to the extent such Claims result from, arise out of, or are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Grantor, Grantor’s employees, agents, successors, assigns, or invitees.

2. Grantee shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair, restore, and reconstruct in all material respects any damage to any and all affected facilities, improvements, equipment and appurtenances on the TCE Area, which is proximately caused by any act or omission of Grantee, its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors related to this Grant Deed of Temporary Easement.

3. Grantee shall at all times replace and maintain exterior fencing during times construction is not occurring to insure security of the TCE Area.

4. At the termination of the TCE, Grantee shall remove any construction equipment and materials from the TCE Area and restore the TCE Area, including the existing dirt roadway and existing gate, to the condition it was in on the date and time of the beginning of the TCE except normal wear and tear.

5. Upon termination of the TCE, Grantee shall provide such evidence as necessary to clear the TCE from title, including delivery of a quitclaim deed with respect to the TCE.

This grant of temporary construction easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. [Signature page to follow]

21.42 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Grant of Temporary Construction Easement Deed, effective as of , 20__.

GRANTOR: Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994
Date:___________________ By:______________________________ Karlheinz Schaaf, Trustee
GRANTEE: CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a public agency
Date:________________________ By:___________________________ Matt Huffaker
City Manager

APPROVAL AS TO FORM
Office of the City Attorney
Date:________________________

21.43 21.44

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by that certain Temporary Construction Easement Deed dated as of ____________________, 20__, from Karlheinz Schaaf, as Trustee of the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust, dated May 24, 1994 (the “Grantor”) to the City of Santa Cruz, a public agency (the “Grantee”), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. NS 7013 of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, adopted on the 8th day of January, 1963, and recorded with the County Recorder of Santa Cruz County on the 14th day of January, 1963, in Volume 1516, Page 392 of the Official Records; and that Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer, the City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz.

Dated: _____________, 20___
By: _____________________________
Matt Huffaker, City Manager
Relates to portion of APN: 072-144-30

21.45 Exhibit 1
Property Legal Description
PARCEL I:

Being Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Block 9 as the same are shown and designated on that certain map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County.

PARCEL II:

Beginning on the southerly line of the former Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 13, in Block 9, as shown and designated upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 125 feet to the produced southeasterly line of Lot 9 in said Block 9 of said Subdivision; thence southwesterly along the produced southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 40 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 9; thence North 20 ° 06' West, along the northeasterly line of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 125 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL III:

Being a portion of that strip of land designated as "S.P.R.R. Right of Way 100', on the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W.

Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16,

Beginning at the northeasterly corner of Lot 10, Block 16, as shown on said map; thence from said point of beginning, northwesterly along the southwesterly line of above mentioned Southern Pacific Railroad, right of way to a point on the northerly line of Oak Avenue, as shown on said map; thence along the easterly prolongation of said northerly line of Oak Avenue, South 89 ° 59' East, 42.66 feet to the southeasterly corner of the lands conveyed to Chris Lawson, by Deed recorded in Volume 588, Page 316, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northeasterly line of said lands of Lawson and the production thereof, North 20 ° 04' West 413 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly production of the southerly line of Glen Arbor Road (formerly Riverton Ave.); thence along said produced line, South 89 °45' East, 42 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Charles Braunfelo et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 666, Page 147, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Braunfeld and the southerly prolongation of said line South 20 ° 06' East, 222 feet, more of less, to the northwesterly corner o the lands conveyed to Dorothy O'Gara, by deed recorded in Volume 1155, Page 371, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of O'Gara, southeasterly 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux, by Deed recorded in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Spear, South 21 °06' East, 26.70 feet to the northwesterly corner of land conveyed to Susan G. Schmidt by Deed recorded in Volume 797, Page 360, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands of Schmidt, South 21 °06' East, 91.10 feet to the northwesterly corner of the land conveyed to C.M.

Bryce, et ux., by Deed recorded in Volume 1145, Page 61, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence South 31 ° 06' East, 85 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said lands of Bryce; thence leaving said lands southwesterly in a direct line 75 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

21.46 PARCEL IV:

Being Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, in Block 4, as the same are shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records.

PARCEL V:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May 17, 1949 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along said last named line, North 0 ° 15' East, 105 feet, more or less, to a point from which the northeast corner of said land of de Haas bears North 20 ° 06' West, 49.65 feet distant; thence South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

Excepting therefrom:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Quitclaim Deed recorded in Volume 1072,

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Schaaf with the weterly prolongation of the northerly line of lLot 28 as said lot is shown upon the map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Lot 28, North 89 ° 45' West, 20.67 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Schaaf; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands North 0 ° 15' East, 53.45 feet to the most northerly corner thereof and southerly 57.31 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VI:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 30, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the produced northerly line of said Lot 30, Block 4, North 89 ° 45' West, 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly line of that parcel of land conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed dated May17, 1940 and recorded June 22, 1949 in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence South 0 ° 15' West, along the easterly line of said last named land, 12 feet, more or less, to the southern corner of said land of de Haas; thence parallel with the westerly line of said Block 4, South 20 ° 06' East, 110 feet, more or less, to a point from which the southwest corner of Lot 34, Block 4 of said Subdivision bears South 89 ° 45' East; thence South 89 ° 45' Wat, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 34; thence along the westerly line of said Block 4, North 20 ° 06' West, 128.00 feet and North 0 ° 15' East, 4.50 feet to the place of beginning.

21.47 PARCEL VII:

Beginning on the southerly lline of Riverton Street at the northwest corner of Lot 27, Block 4, as the same is designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence along the westerly line of said Lot 27, southerly, 100 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 27, being also the northwesterly corner of Lot 28 in Block 4; thence from said point, Southerly, 50 feet, more or less, along the westerly line of Lots 28 and 29, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 30, Block 4; thence from said northwesterly corner of Lot 30, North 20 ° 6' West, 110 feet, more or less, along the easterly boundary of that certain parcel of land conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf, by Deed recorded May 3, 1956, in Volume 1072, at Page 523, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, to the most southerly corner of that certain parcel designated "Park", on the hereinto referred map; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Park, being also the westerly line of Fremont Avenue as shown on said map, to its intersection with the southelry line of Riverton Street; thence along the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Riverton Street, 40 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.

PARCEL VIII:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 35, Block 4, as the same is shown and designated on that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, said point being also the southeast corner of the lands conveyed to Karl Heinze Schaaf by Deed dated November 13, 1953, recorded November 16, 1953, in Volume 940, Page 547, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence from said point of beginning along the southerly line of the last named lands, North 89 ° 45' West, 42.66 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence southeasterly in a direct line, 159.05 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux., by Deed dated November 21, 1952, recorded January 27, 1953 in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence along the northerly line of said last named lands South 89 ° 45' East, 42.66 feet to the norheast corner thereof, said point being the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 4 of the above mentioned Ordway Tract; thence along the westerly line of Lots 7,36, and 35 of said subdivision, North 20 ° 06' West, 159.05 feet to the point of beginning.

PARCEL IX:

Being a part of the lands conveyed to Max de Haas by Deed recorded in Volume 726, Page 251, Official Records of Santa Cruz County and more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of said lands of Haas with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 28 as said lot is shown upon that certain map entitled "Subdivision of Ordway Tract, being a portion of Sec. 9 T. 10S., R. 2 W., M.D.M., surveyed for L.W. Coffee, Apr. 1909, by Freiermuth & Price, Civil Eng'rs.," filed for record May 5th, 1909 in Map Book 16, Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records; thence from said point of beginning along the westerly prolongation of said northerly line of North 89 ° 45' West, 22.84 feet to a point on the westerly line of said lands of Max de Haas; thence along the westerly and easterly line of said lands, South 20 ° 06' East, 65.67 feet to the most southerly corner thereof and North 0 ° 15' East, 61.57 feet to the point of beginning.

APN: 072-144-30

21.48 Exhibit 2
Temporary Construction Easement Legal Description and Plat Map (See attached)

21.49 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITUATE in County of Santa Cruz, State of California
BEING an easement over a portion of the lands conveyed to the Karlheinz Schaaf Revocable Trust by deed recorded on October 3, 1994, in Volume 5578 at Page 708, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, said portion being described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most northeasterly corner of Lot 10 in Block 16 as said Lot and Block are shown upon the map entitled, "Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", filed for record May 5, 1909 in Map book 16 at Page 11, Santa Cruz County Records, as said corner is shown on the Record of Survey map recorded on January 23, 2019 in Volume 128 of Maps at Page 33, Santa Cruz County Records, and having coordinates of N 1,852,718.29, E 6,100,461.23, and from which a ½” iron pipe at the northern corner of Lot 9 in Block 17 as shown on said Record of survey Map bears South 21°48'16" East, 16.27 feet, South 0°59'44" West, 85.00 feet (at 20.83 an iron pipe and at 35.00 feet an iron pipe) and North 76°11'39" East, 41.22 feet; thence along the southerly and southwesterly boundary of Parcel Six of said lands as conveyed in said deed, North 89°00'16" West, a distance of 8.76 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,718.44, E 6,100,452.46, North 21°48'16" West, a distance of 103.05 feet, to a point having coordinates of N 1,852,814.12, E 6,100,414.19, and North 18°48'16" West, a distance of 146.76 feet, to a point on the southern line of Oak Avenue, having coordinates of N 1,852,953.08, E 6,100,366.87; thence continue northerly along said southwesterly line, North 18°48'16" West, a distance of 30.39 feet; thence leaving said southwesterly line and along the following courses (and coordinates):
1) North 89°44'00" East, a distance of 42.33 feet (N 1,852,982.01, E 6,100,399.41); 2) North 18°47'21" West, a distance of 174.14 feet (N 1,853,146.87, E 6,100,343.32); 3) North 84°13'46" East, a distance of 32.56 feet (N 1,853,150.15, E 6,100,375.72); 4) South 18°34'21" East, a distance of 18.90 feet (N 1,853,132.23, E 6,100,381.74); 5) South 75°42'43" West, a distance of 3.61 feet (N 1,853,131.34, E 6,100,378.24); 6) South 17°26'12" East, a distance of 67.46 feet (N 1,853,066.98, E 6,100,398.46); 7) North 77°33'47" East, a distance of 19.08 feet (N 1,853,071.09, E 6,100,417.09); 8) South 20°05'34" East, a distance of 127.93 feet (N 1,852,950.95, E 6,100,461.04), to a point on the southern boundary of Parcel 3 of said lands as conveyed in said deed; thence westerly along the southern boundary of said Parcel Three, North 88°42'21" West, a distance of 8.97 feet (N 1,852,951.15, E 6,100,452.07) to the northwesterly corner of the lands conveyed to Earl Spear, et ux by deed recorded in Volume 900, Page 395, Official Records of Santa Cruz County; thence continuing southerly along the easterly boundary of said Parcel Six, the following courses:
9) South 19°20'00" East, a distance of 134.77 feet (N 1,852,823.98, E 6,100,496.69) (at 116.69 feet a ¾” iron pipe, tagged PLS 6163)
10) South 70°36'14" West, a distance of 51.49 feet (N 1,852,806.88, E 6,100,448.12);

21.50 11) South 19°01'26" East, a distance of 20.00 feet (N 1,852,787.97, E 6,100,454.64); 12) North 72°53'55" East, a distance of 11.14 feet (N 1,852,791.25, E 6,100,465.29); 13) South 19°03'41" East, a distance of 40.03 feet (N 1,852,753.41, E 6,100,478.36); 14) North 71°13'04" East, a distance of 25.17 feet (N 1,852,761.52, E 6,100,502.19); 15) North 18°54'50" West, a distance of 41.99 feet (N 1,852,801.24, E 6,100,488.58); 16) North 70°43'58" East, a distance of 15.18 feet (N 1,852,806.25, E 6,100,502.91), to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel Six; thence along said easterly line, South 19°20'00" East, a distance of 45.62 feet, to the southeast corner of said Parcel Six, having coordinates of N 1,852,763.20, E 6,100,518.01 and from which a ½” iron pipe at the southeast corner of Lot 2 in Block 4, as said Lot and Block are shown upon said map entitled, “Subdivision of the Ordway Tract", bears North 51°39’26” East, 42.20 feet distant; thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel Six, South 51°39’26” West, a distance of 72.40 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 25,538 square feet, more or less.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within the existing permanent easement as conveyed to the City of Santa Cruz.

Exhibit "A", page 3 of 3, is attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof.

The courses (bearings and distances) and the coordinates shown hereon are based upon the California Coordinate System of 1983, CCS83, Zone 3, (2010.00) also known as NAD83 (2011) in accordance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 8801-8819.

END OF DESCRIPTION
APN 072-144-30
(C-01D)
Prepared by: Gary Ifland, LS 7367
March 1, 2023
Job No. G20050

21.51 21.52
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/03/2024
AGENDA OF: 05/28/2024
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Purchase of Real Property Necessary for the Regional Drought Resiliency Project – Intertie 1 (c702205): Multiple Properties, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 067-202-66 owned by the Yates Family Trust and 021-141-20 owned by the Scotts Valley Fire District and Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids and Award Contract (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Purchase Sale Agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Santa Cruz and Nichole and Craig Yates for Permanent and Temporary Easements on APN 067-202-66 located in Santa Cruz, CA near Sims Road and Firehouse Lane for the Regional Drought Resiliency – Intertie Project; 2) Adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Purchase Sale Agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley Fire District (SVFD) for a Permanent Easement on APN 021-141-20 located in Scotts Valley, CA near La Madrona Drive and Altenitas Road for the Regional Drought Resiliency – Intertie Project; and 3) Approve the plans and specifications for the Regional Drought Resiliency Project– Intertie 1(c702205) and authorize staff to advertise for bids. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract as authorized by Resolution No. NS-27,563; and authorize the Water Director to execute change orders for the Regional Drought Resiliency Project – Intertie 1 (c702205) for amounts that are within the approved project budget.

BACKGROUND: The Regional Drought Resiliency Project – Intertie 1(Project) pipeline includes the construction of a 1.5-mile, 12-inch diameter pipeline from the City of Santa Cruz (City)’s Pasatiempo (Kite Hill) Tanks along Firehouse Lane, Sims Road, and La Madrona Drive, concrete masonry structure, will be operated by the Scotts Valley Water District and feature an outdoor paved area.

The pipeline is an opportunity to improve drought resilience by facilitating the transfer and exchange of water between the City and Scotts Valley Water District. The Project is included in the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In

22.1 2021, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) awarded $9.5 million to the City and Scotts Valley to develop the intertie pipeline and a new well.

DISCUSSION: To complete the Project, the City must purchase easements on multiple properties (Properties), APN 067-202-66 and 021-141-20, from their owners. The properties consist of unbuildable land, buildable land, and occupied lots near Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley, CA.

The City requires a portion of the Yates Property for the construction and maintenance of the Project's pipeline, which will span the length of the Yates Property. In addition, a portion of the Yates Property is required to establish a temporary alternate access route for residents along Firehouse Lane during pipeline construction. This involves installing temporary fencing and resealing the driveway within the temporary construction easement (TCE) area.

The City also requires a portion of the SVFD Property for the construction and maintenance of the Project's pump station and pipeline.

The title report indicates that the Properties are owned by the Yates Family Trust and Scotts Valley Fire District (Owners).

The City contracted with Bender Rosenthall Incorporated (BRI), a full-service independent appraisal firm, to determine the fair market value of the Properties. Based on BRI’s appraisal, the City prepared and sent formal offer letters to the Owners as shown in the table below.

Owner Formal Offer
Letter
Presented Date
Appraised (Just
Compensation)
Value
Administrative
Settlement
Value
Signed
Agreement
Date
Yates Family Trust
(APN 067-202-66)
03/3/2023 $28,000 $50,000* 04/14/2024
SVFD (APN 021-141-
20)
03/16/2023 $73,400** $100,700*** 05/20/2024
* City Council Approved Settlement Authority of $50,000 on 1/23/2024 ** City Approval to Commence Negotiations 1/27/2023 (includes Permanent & Temporary Easements) *** City Council Approved Settlement Authority of $100,700 on 1/23/2024 (includes Permanent & Temporary Easements)
On 04/15/2024, the Yates reached an agreement on the sale and purchase of the Easements for values shown in the table above and outlined in the attachments.

On 05/20/2024, the SVFD reached an agreement on the sale and purchase of the Easements for values shown in the table above and outlined in the attachments.

The Project plans and specifications are available using the link provided in the list of attachments.

The Project received a Department of Water Resources Urban and Multibenefit Drought Relief Grant of $9,449,783 on June 16, 2022, for Component 1-Intertie Pipeline/ Pump Station and Component 2-Production Well in the Scotts Valley Water District.

22.2 Since certification of the Final Santa Cruz Water Rights EIR, City staff determined that an Addendum to the certified Final EIR was the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed Project, consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On August 8, 2023, Council approved the Scotts Valley Water District - City of Santa Cruz Water Intertie-1 Project (c702205) considering the certified Santa Cruz Water Rights Project Final Environmental Impact Report and the Intertie- Project Addendum to the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project Final Environmental Impact Report.

Bids will be advertised here: https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/santacruzca The Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum for this project can be found here:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/126/ 2089?fsiteid=1
Health in All Policies (HiAP)
This Project aligns with the public health pillar of the City’s HiAP initiative by supporting the Water Department’s work in ensuring the reliability of the public drinking water supply.

FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of construction cost is $6,656,000. Funds needed for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 construction costs are available in the City of Santa Cruz Water Department’s Capital Investment Program, project c702205 for the Regional Drought Resiliency Project.

Prepared By:

Taylor Kihoi
Senior Professional Engineer
Submitted By:

Heidi Luckenbach
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution for APN 067-202-66

2. Resolution for APN 021-141-20

3. Purchase Sale Agreement for APN 067-202-66

4. Purchase Sale Agreement for APN 021-141-20
Project Plans and Specifications: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/water/projects-in-your-neighborhood/scotts-valley-intertie

22.3 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE A PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA

CRUZ AND YATES FAMILY TRUST FOR PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS LOCATED IN SANTA CRUZ, CA ON APN 067-202-66
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz proposes to construct an Intertie Pipeline between the City Water System and the Scotts Valley Water District; and WHEREAS, the proposed Intertie Pipeline crosses multiple public and private properties from the Kite Hill Tanks to the proposed Pump Station site; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has completed negotiations with the property owner included in this purchase sale agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has offered Yates Family Trust to purchase permanent and temporary easements for construction, operation, and maintenance of Intertie Pipeline; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute certain Grant of Easement, pertaining to certain property located on APN 067-202-66, from the Yates Family Trust upon the terms and conditions as set forth in said Easement Deed as presented to this Council this date.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
City Clerk

22.4 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE A PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA

CRUZ AND SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT FOR THE PERMANENT
EASEMENT LOCATED IN SCOTTS VALLEY, CA ON APN 021-141-20 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz proposes to construct an Intertie Pipeline and Pump Station between the City Water System and the Scotts Valley Water District; and WHEREAS, the proposed Intertie Pipeline crosses multiple public and private properties from the Kite Hill Tanks to the proposed Pump Station site; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has completed negotiations with the property owner included in this purchase sale agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz has offered Scotts Valley Fire District to purchase a permanent easement for construction, operation, and maintenance of Intertie Pipeline and Pump Station; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute certain Grant of Easement, pertaining to certain property located on APN 021-141-20, from the Scotts Valley Fire District upon the terms and conditions as set forth in said Easement Deed as presented to this Council this date.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
City Clerk

22.5 22.6

22.7 22.8

22.9 22.10

22.11 22.12

22.13 22.14

22.15 22.16

22.17 22.18

22.19 22.20

22.21 22.22

22.23 22.24

22.25 22.26

22.27 22.28

22.29 22.30

22.31 12366127.5 SC020-500

EASEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Pursuant to this Easement Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”), SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (Grantor) grants to the SCOTTS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, (“SVWD”) a county water district, and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ (“City”), a municipal corporation (collectively “Grantees”) a permanent and non-exclusive pump station and pipeline easement in, upon, over, under, and across the lands hereinafter described to construct, operate, inspect, maintain, improve, reconstruct, relocate, repair, maintain, replace, and use facilities consisting of:

1. A pump station and water pipe and related appurtenances in connection with the Intertie 1: Santa Cruz – Scotts Valley Project (the “Project”), across, over, under, and upon a portion of the real property located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, California, identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 021-141-20 in the Records of the Santa Cruz County Assessor and more particularly described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”).”
Grantees and Grantors are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”, and the Agreement constitutes both an agreement to purchase and sell an easement between the Parties.

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts:

1. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the Property.

2. Grantees are proposing to complete the “Intertie 1: Santa Cruz – Scotts Valley Project” (“Project”), comprised of a water pipeline that will interconnect the potable water systems of City and SVWD and an associated pump station to facilitate the conjunctive use of the treated surface water source from City and the treated groundwater source from SVWD to support collaborative water management strategies and enhance water supply resiliency. The Project entails constructing approximately 9,600 lineal feet of the pipeline from the Pasatiempo Tanks northward along Firehouse Lane, Sims Road, and La Madrona Drive and construction of a pump station at the Property. The Easement crosses the Property as described herein.

3. Grantor intends to convey to Grantees a non-exclusive water pipeline and utility easement and an exclusive water pump station easement in, upon, over, under, and across a 6,809 square foot portion of the Property (collectively, the “Permanent Easement”). The Permanent Easement is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to facilitate the Project. The area subject to the Permanent DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.32 12366127.5 SC020-500
Easement is hereafter described and referred to as the “Easement Area.” Grantor acknowledges and agrees to allow the installation of related appurtenances to effect the purpose of the Project, including, but not limited to, electrical utility facilities associated with the Pump Station within the Easement Area.

4. Grantees desire to purchase and Grantor agrees to sell the express Permanent Easement.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Entire Agreement. The Parties herein set forth the whole of their Agreement.

The performance of this Agreement constitutes the entire consideration.

2. Grant of Permanent Easement. Subject to the terms of this Deed, on the Close of Escrow (as herein defined) the Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the Grantees the Permanent Easement for the Property as described in Exhibit 2, and in the Permanent Easement Deed in substantially the form attached as Exhibit 3, which are all attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference, as required of the Project, including the right to ingress and egress for the purpose of constructing, installing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing and/or replacing the pump station and water pipe and all related and incidental appurtenances, including but not limited to required electrical utilities for the Project. Grantor further grants to Grantees the right to assign an easement for electric utility/service purposes to Pacific Gas & Electric for the purpose of providing electric utilities/services for the Pump Station and appurtenances.

3. Term of the Permanent Easement. The term of the Permanent Easement Deed shall commence when the Grantees accept the Permanent Easement and shall continue thereafter in perpetuity, unless this Agreement is amended or modified by an agreement executed, acknowledged and recorded by the Grantor and Grantees.

4. Prohibited Uses by Grantees. Grantees may use the Easement Area for no purposes other than those which allow for the construction, improvement, operation, inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the Project’s pump station and water pipe and related appurtenances and shall not perform, or knowingly allow others to perform, any act or use on the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Deed. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses by Grantees, its respective guests, agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors, and third parties, are inconsistent with the purposes of this Deed and are expressly prohibited:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.33 12366127.5 SC020-500

1. Using, depositing or permitting the use or deposit of any hazardous material or toxic waste or other harmful substances on the Easement Area or on any other real property of Grantor adjacent to the Easement Area;

2. Materially interfering with the use by and operation and activities of Grantor on its property (Grantees shall use such routes and follow such procedures on Grantor’s property as result in the least damage and inconvenience to Grantor);

3. Dumping soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio solids, garbage, or other like material in the Easement Area.

5. Prohibited Uses by Grantor. The following activities and uses by Grantor, its respective guests, agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors, and third parties, of the Easement Area are inconsistent with the purposes of this Deed and are expressly prohibited:

1. Any legal or de facto division, subdivision, or partitioning of the Permanent Easement (but Grantor expressly retains right to sell, divide, subdivide, or partition the underlying Property subject to the Permanent Easement);

2. No street, road or other paved area, excluding the planned parking area adjacent to the structure, to be constructed over the Easement Area to a grade less than five feet above the top of the Project’s pipeline located within the Easement Area. Fill shall not be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground as it shall exist within the Easement Area upon completion of construction greater than 3 feet in depth;

3. Dumping soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio solids, garbage, or other like material in the Easement Area; and

4. Any and all other activities and use of the Permanent Easement that would adversely affect the realization of the purpose of the Permanent Easement for Grantees.

6. Permitted Uses, Rights and Privileges. Grantor and Grantees expressly acknowledge that the Permanent Easement creates no restrictions on activities undertaken on property adjacent to the Easement Area. In addition, the Grantor reserves the right to engage in the following activities and uses on the Easement Area:

1. Except as set forth in Paragraph 5 above, Grantor expressly reserves for itself, its successors and its assigns, all other rights to use the Easement Area or to grant other easements or licenses at the same location so long as such uses do not unreasonably interfere with the rights herein granted; DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.34 12366127.5 SC020-500

2. Right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in those uses of the Easement Area that are authorized by and consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

3. Grantor reserves the right to access, construct, maintain, and install stormwater utilities in, above, under, across and upon, the Easement Area to facilitate the construction of a stormwater detention pond and related stormwater utilities, so long as such activities do not interfere or obstruct Grantees’ rights under this Agreement, and as reflected in the Parties’ agreed upon Pump Station Site Plan attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 4.

4. Grantor reserves the right to access, construct, maintain, and operate a new fire station and a planned parking area adjacent to the structure in, above, under, across and upon, the Property and the Easement Area as contemplated by Grantor’s plans and specifications and any amendments thereto, so long as such activities do not interfere or obstruct Grantees’ rights under this Agreement. As presently designed and contemplated, the Parties do not anticipate any interference or obstruction with Grantees’ rights based on the new fire station and planned parking area project, and as reflected in the Parties’ agreed upon Pump Station Site Plan attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 4.

7. Taxes, Charges and Fees. Grantees alone shall pay any and all taxes, charges or use fee(s) levied by any governmental agency against Grantees’ interest in the Easement Area, or against any of Grantor’s real property as a result of the Permanent Easement herein granted.

8. Term of Construction. Time is of the essence in completing construction of the Project. The right to construct the Project within the Easement Area shall commence on July 1, 2024, and shall terminate by March 31, 2026. Upon completion of construction, Grantees shall remove any construction equipment and related materials from the Easement Areaand restore the area as it was in on the date and at the time of the beginning of the term, normal wear and tear and pump station and water pipeline improvements excepted. In the event Grantees fail to complete construction by March 31, 2026, the Parties shall meet and confer about additional terms and compensation due to Grantor and any agreement to extend the Project completion date.

9. Purchase Price.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.35 12366127.5 SC020-500

1. The total purchase price of the Permanent Easement to be paid by Grantees is the sum of sixty three thousand dollars ($63,000) (“Purchase Price”).

2. Grantees shall deposit the Purchase Price into Escrow as defined below within five (5) days after execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto.

3. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the total compensation to be paid by Grantees for the Permanent Easement is the Purchase Price, which amount is the full and complete acquisition cost based upon the fair market value of the Permanent Easement as determined by an independent appraiser. Grantees shall have no obligations to Grantor under the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition statutes and guidelines due to the acquisition of the Permanent Easement under this Agreement.

10. Escrow. The Parties hereby shall establish an escrow (“Escrow”) to accommodate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.

1. For purposes of this Agreement, “Opening of Escrow” shall mean the date on which Escrow Holder shall have received a fully executed original of this Agreement from Grantees and Grantor.

2. “Close of Escrow” shall mean the date upon which the Permanent Easement Deed is recorded by Grantees or their agents or designees in the Official Records of the County of Santa Cruz, which shall not be later than the first business day occurring forty-give (45) days after the date of this Agreement, unless the Parties agree in writing to another date.

3. Payment. Grantees agree to pay, or cause to be paid, the Purchase Price to Grantor through the Escrow by depositing the Purchase Price into Escrow consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

11. Escrow Holder Responsibilities. The Escrow Holder shall record the documents and disburse the funds and documents called for hereunder upon the Close of Escrow.

12. Recording Fees. In addition to the Purchase Price, Grantees shall pay all Escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction, and if title insurance is desired by Grantees, the premium charged therefore. This Escrow will be handled through First American Title Company, 2425 Porter Street, Suite 12, Soquel, CA 95073 (the “Escrow Holder”). The Parties agree to execute any contracts required by the Escrow Holder to act consistent with this Agreement.

13. Delivery of Documents. Grantor covenants and agrees to execute and convey to Grantees, prior to the Close of Escrow, this Agreement, including Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.36 12366127.5 SC020-500
(Permanent Easement), the executed Permanent Easement Deed (Exhibit 3), and the agreed Pump Station Site Plan at Exhibit 4, in substantially the same forms attached and incorporated herein by this reference, duly executed and acknowledged by Grantor.

14. Right of Possession and Use. The right of possession and use of the Permanent Easement by Grantees, including the right to remove and dispose of improvements and to commence construction of the Project are as referenced herein, and shall commence upon the date funds are deposited into Escrow Holder.

15. Repair and Maintenance. Grantees are solely responsible for and shall maintain the Easement Area together with any improvements constructed or installed thereon by Grantees or associated with Grantees’ use of the Easement Area. Grantees shall be responsible for any property loss or damage to the Property and Easement Area or to property owned by third parties resulting from any exercise of the rights herein granted, including but not limited to soil erosion, subsidence, or damage resulting therefrom. The operation of and maintenance of such improvements and repairs to the Easement Area shall be at Grantees’ sole cost and expense.

Grantees shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not limited to all applicable regulatory, environmental, and safety requirements at Grantees’ sole cost and expense.

16. Indemnification. Each Party (“Indemnitor”) agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Party, its respective officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, legal defense costs, causes of action, or liability of any kind or nature (collectively, “Claims”), which any Indemnitees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon it, but only in proportion to and to the extent such Claims result from, arise out of, or in any manner are caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Indemnitor, Indemnitor’s officials, officers, employees and/or agents relating to this Agreement, the use of the Easement Area, construction, operation or maintenance of the Project, or of the improvements thereon.

Indemnitor further agrees to waive any rights of subrogation against Indemnitee.

17. Grantor’s Warranty of Ownership in Fee. Grantor warrants that it is the owner in fee simple of the Property and that it has the exclusive right to grant these rights.

18. Grantees’ Warranty of Work to be Performed. All work under this Agreement shall conform to all applicable building, fire and sanitary laws, ordinances, and regulations relating to such work, and shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner.

19. Grantor’s Duty to Indemnify Re Title Claims. In consideration of the Grantees waiving any defects and imperfections in all matters of record title, Grantor covenants and agrees DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.37 12366127.5 SC020-500
to indemnify and hold the Grantees harmless from any and all claims that other parties may make or assert on the title to the Property. Grantor’s obligation herein to indemnify, including any defense associated therewith, the Grantees shall not exceed the amount paid to the Grantor under this Agreement.

20. Sublease and Assignment; Heirs, Successors and Assigns. Neither party may sublease or assign its rights under this Agreement without the express written permission of the other party, except as otherwise specified in Paragraph 2 herein. This Agreement shall bind the respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties to this Agreement.

21. Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by overnight Federal Express or priority U.S. Mail, or by personal delivery. Notices shall be considered given upon the earlier of (a) personal delivery, or (b) one (1) business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. A copy of all notices shall be sent to Escrow Holder. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice:

Grantor: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
7 Ebra Lane
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Grantees: Scotts Valley Water District
Attn: David McNair, General Manager
2 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
City of Santa Cruz Water Department
Attn: Heidi Luckenbach, P.E. Director
212 Locust St Ste A,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Escrow Holder: First American Title Company
2425 Porter Street, Suite 12
Soquel, CA 95073

22. Term. The provisions of this Agreement are intended to and will run with the land, and shall bind, be a charge upon, and inure to the benefit of Grantees and Grantor and their respective successors in interest. The Permanent Easement will exist in perpetuity for the benefit of Grantees, DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.38 12366127.5 SC020-500
their successors and assigns, unless this Agreement is amended or modified by an agreement executed, acknowledged and recorded by the Grantor and Grantees, or their successors or assigns.

23. Attorneys’ Fees/Attempts to Resolve. In any legal or equitable proceeding for the enforcement or interpretation of or to restrain the violation of this Agreement or any provisions hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, the reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the action by the prevailing party. An aggrieved party first shall take reasonable steps to resolve any dispute before commencing any legal or equitable proceeding, except in the event of an emergency or where good cause exists due to exigent circumstances.

24. Grantees Right to Terminate Prior to Close of Escrow. Grantees reserve the right to cancel Escrow and terminate this Agreement if at any time prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantees determine that the Permanent Easement is no longer needed for the Project.

25. No Modification. This Agreement, and the exhibits incorporated herein by reference, sets forth the entire conveyance between the Parties with respect to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. All prior or contemporaneous understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged herein. This Agreement shall not be amended without the written consent of the Parties.

26. Incorporation. The Recitals and exhibits attached hereto and referred to herein are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth in the body hereof.

27. Successors. This Agreement, including the covenants and reservations herein, shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors, and assigns of the Parties hereto.

28. Captions. The Section headings or captions used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit, define, or amplify the scope or intent of the terms and provisions hereof.

29. Severability. In any event any term, covenant, condition, provision, or agreement herein contained is held invalid, void, or otherwise unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining terms.

30. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

31. Authority to Execute. The signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that each is and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors, and assigns to perform and comply with the terms of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.39 12366127.5 SC020-500

32. Fair Market Value Purchase Price. The Purchase Price reflects the fair market value of the Property without the presence of contamination. If the property being acquired is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous waste which requires mitigation under federal or state law, Grantees may elect to recover their cleanup costs from third parties who caused or contributed to the contamination, but in no event may recover such cleanup costs or any alleged reduction in fair market value due to such contamination from Grantor.

33. Advice of Counsel Received. The Parties agree that each has reviewed this Agreement and have had the opportunity to have counsel review and revise this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto.

34. Further Assurance. Each Party agrees to and shall take and perform in good faith any and all further steps and actions, and execute and acknowledge any and all further documents, as may be reasonably necessary or expedient in order to effectuate the intents and purposes of this Easement.

35. No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor’s title in any respect.

36. Reversion. In the event that Grantees permanently abandon the Project, or fail to complete the Project within a period of three years unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing, they shall provide Grantor with written notice, then the following will occur: the Permanent Easement will revert back to Grantor. If the Permanent Easement terminates, the Parties shall execute such documents as may be reasonably required, including removing the Permanent Easement from title to the Property.

37. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, all of which together shall constitute a single agreement and each of which shall be an original for all purposes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereby agree to all of the terms and conditions set forth above and have executed this Agreement on the day and year written below. [Signature Page To Follow]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.40 12366127.5 SC020-500
GRANTOR: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
By: ______________________________________Date: _____________ Name: Mark Correira
Title: Fire Chief
GRANTEE: Scotts Valley Water District, a county water district By: ______________________________________Date:

Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
ATTEST:

David McNair
General Manager/Secretary
GRANTEE: City of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation
By: ______________________________________Date: _____________ Name: Matt Huffaker
Title: City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8 5/20/2024

22.41 12366127.5 SC020-500
EXHIBIT 1 – PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: Portion of 021-141-20-000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.42 12366127.5 SC020-500
EXHIBIT 2 – PERMANENT EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTON & PLAT MAP DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.43 12366127.5 SC020
-500
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.44 12366127.5 SC020-500
EXHIBIT 3 – PERMANENT EASEMENT GRANT DEED
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Scotts Valley Water District
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

Scotts Valley Water District
2 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE §27383

GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT
Title Order No.

Escrow No.

Parcel No. 021-141-20
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $0 CITY TAX is $0
☐ computed on the full value of the property conveyed, or ☐ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the time of sale, or ☒ There is no Documentary transfer tax due, government agency acquiring title (R & T 11922). ☐ Unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County ☒ City/Town of Scotts Valley FOR CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I (we) Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
(“Grantor”)
Hereby GRANT(S) to:

SCOTTS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a county water district (“Water District”), and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, a public entity (“City”), (collectively, “Grantees”) all of the following:

A permanent, perpetual and non-exclusive pump station and water pipeline utility easement (the “Permanent Easement”), including the right to ingress and egress for the purpose of constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, and replacing the water pipe and related appurtenances in connection with the Intertie 1: Santa Cruz – Scotts Valley Project (the “Project”), across, over, under, and upon a portion of the real property located in Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California, identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 021-141-20 in the Records of the Santa Cruz County Assessor and more particularly described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”). The Permanent Easement is more particularly described and DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.45 12366127.5 SC020-500
depicted in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to facilitate the Project, as defined herein.

A. Grantees’ Rights. To accomplish the purpose of this Permanent Easement, Grantor hereby grants and conveys the following rights to Grantees:

1. To implement the Project, including but not limited to, apply for and obtain all licenses, permits, and approvals required for Grantees’ use of the Permanent Easement from all applicable governmental or regulatory entities, and to do those things on the Permanent Easement that, in the sole opinion of Grantees, are necessary to permit, construct, implement, manage, operate, maintain, or reconstruct the Project and any other lawful use of the Permanent Easement, all at Grantees’ expense. Grantor will, at no cost to Grantor, sign documents required for Grantees to obtain any and all Project approvals;

2. To reasonably access from La Madrona Drive, the Permanent Easement at reasonable times in order for Grantees and its employees, agents, contractors, engineers, and surveyors to inspect, conduct, perform and examine soil borings, drainage testing, environmental sampling, surveys and other geological or engineering tests or studies necessary to apply for and obtain all licenses, permits, and approvals required for Grantees’ use of the Permanent Easement;

3. To prevent any activity on or use of the Permanent Easement that is not reserved herein and is inconsistent with the purpose of this Permanent Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Permanent Easement that may be damaged by Grantor as a result of any act, failure to act when specifically required herein to act, or any use of the Permanent Easement by Grantor not reserved herein that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Permanent Easement;

4. The right to enforce by judicial enforcement, including without limitation, injunctive relief the terms and conditions of this Permanent Easement.

B. Prohibited Uses by Grantees. Grantees may use the Permanent Easement for no purposes other than those which allow for the construction, improvement, operation, inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the pump station and water pipe and related appurtenances and shall not perform, or knowingly allow others to perform, any act or use on the Permanent Easement that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Deed. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses by Grantees, its respective guests, agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors, and third parties, are inconsistent with the purposes of this Deed and are expressly prohibited:

1. Grantees shall not use, deposit or permit the use or deposit of any hazardous material or toxic waste or other harmful substances on the Permanent Easement or on any other real property of Grantor adjacent to the Permanent Easement;

2. Grantees shall not materially interfere with the use by and operation and activities of Grantor on its property, and Grantees shall use such routes and follow such procedures on Grantor’s property as result in the least damage and inconvenience to Grantor;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.46 12366127.5 SC020-500

3. Dumping soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio solids, garbage, or other like material in the Permanent Easement.

C. Prohibited Uses by Grantor. Except as provided herein, any activity on or use of the Permanent Easement that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement Deed is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following uses by Grantor, its respective guests, agents, assigns, employees, representatives, successors, and third parties are expressly prohibited within the Permanent Easement:

1. Any legal or de facto division, subdivision, or partitioning of the Permanent Easement (but Grantor expressly retains right to sell, divide, subdivide, or partition the underlying Property subject to the Permanent Easement);

2. No street, road or other paved area shall be constructed over the Permanent Easement to a grade less than five feet above the top of the Project’s pipeline located within the Permanent Easement. Fill shall not be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground as it shall exist within the Permanent Easement upon completion of construction greater than 3 feet in depth;

3. Dumping soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio solids, garbage, or any other material;

4. Any and all other activities and uses of the Permanent Easement that would adversely affect the realization of the purpose of the Permanent Easement.

D. Reserved Rights. Grantor and Grantees expressly acknowledge that this Permanent Easement creates no restrictions on activities undertaken on property adjacent to the Permanent Easement, Grantor reserves all rights accruing from their ownership of the Permanent Easement, including the right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in those uses of the Permanent Easement that are authorized by and consistent with this Permanent Easement. In addition, the Grantor reserves the right to engage in the following activities and uses on the Permanent Easement:

1. Except as set forth in Subdivision C above, Grantor expressly reserves for itself, its successors and its assigns, all other rights to use the Permanent Easement or to grant other easements or licenses at the same location so long as such uses do not unreasonably interfere with the rights herein granted;

2. Right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in those uses of the Permanent Easement that are authorized by and consistent with the Easement Purchase Agreement;

3. Right to access, construct, maintain, and install stormwater utilities in, above, under, across and upon, the Permanent Easement to facilitate the construction of a stormwater detention pond and related stormwater utilities, so long as such activities do not interfere or obstruct Grantees’ rights under the Easement Purchase Agreement and as reflected in the Parties’ agreed upon Pump Station Site Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit 4;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.47 12366127.5 SC020-500

4. Right to access, construct, maintain, and operate a new fire station and parking in, above, under, across and upon, the Property and the Permanent Easement as contemplated by Grantor’s plans and specifications and any amendments thereto, so long as such activities do not interfere or obstruct Grantees’ rights under this Agreement. As presently designed and contemplated, the Parties do not anticipate any interference or obstruction with Grantees’ rights based on the new fire station project, and as reflected in the Parties’ agreed upon Pump Station Site Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit 4.

E. Taxes, Charges and Fees. Grantees alone shall pay any and all taxes, charges or use fee(s) levied by any governmental agency against Grantees’ interest in the Permanent Easement, or against any of Grantor’s real property as a result of the Permanent Easement herein granted.

F. Indemnification. Each Party (“Indemnitor”) agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Party, its respective officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, legal defense costs, liability of any kind or nature (collectively, “Claims”), which any Indemnitees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon it, but only in proportion to and to the extent such Claims result from, arise out of, or in any manner are caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Indemnitor, Indemnitor’s officials, officers, employees and/or agents relating to this Agreement, the use of the Permanent Easement, construction, operation or maintenance of the Project, or of the improvements thereon. Indemnitor further agrees to waive any rights of subrogation against Indemnitee.

G. Fee Ownership and Responsibilities.

1. Grantor, its successors and assigns retains all responsibilities and bears all costs related to the fee ownership of the Property, including the area of the Permanent Easement, except as otherwise modified herein. Subject to the foregoing, Grantor hereby reserves, for themselves, their successors and assigns, the right to use the surface of the Permanent Easement for all uses not in conflict with Grantees’ use of the Permanent Easement for the Project.

2. Grantees shall, at their sole cost and expense, repair, restore, and reconstruct in all material respects any damage to any and all affected facilities, improvements, equipment and appurtenances on the Property, which is proximately caused by any act or omission of Grantees, its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors related to the Project or this Grant Deed of Easement.

3. At the completion of construction, Grantees shall remove any construction equipment and materials from the Permanent Easement area and restore the Permanent Easement area to the condition it was in on the date and time of the beginning of construction except normal wear and tear.

This grant of easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed Grant of Easement Deed has been executed, effective as of ________, 2024.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.48 12366127.5 SC020-500
GRANTOR: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District
Date:___________________ By:______________________________ Name: Mark Correira, Fire Chief

GRANTEES: Scotts Valley Water District, a county water district By: _______________________________________Date:__________________________ ATTEST:

David McNair, General Manager/Secretary
GRANTEES: City of Santa Cruz, a municipal corporation
By: _______________________________________Date:__________________________ Matt Huffaker, City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.49 12366127.5 SC020
-500
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.50 12366127.5 SC020
-500
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.51 12366127.5 SC020-500

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by that certain Pipeline Utility Easement Deed dated as of ____________________, 20__, from Scotts Valley Fire Protection District (collectively, the “Grantor”) to the Scotts Valley Water District, a county water district, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the Board of Directors pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the Board of Directors adopted on February 9, 2017 and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

By: _______________________ Name: David McNair
Dated:_____________________ Title: General Manager
Relates to portion of APN: 021-141-20-000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.52 12366127.5 SC020-500

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by that certain Easement Deed dated as of ____________________, 2024, from SCOTTS VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (the “Grantor”), to the SCOTTS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, (“SVWD”) a county water district, and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ (“City”), a municipal corporation (collectively “Grantees”) accepted by order of the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution NS-7013 of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz adopted on January 8, 1963, in Volume 1516, Page 392 of Official Records; and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer, the City Clerk of the City of Santa Cruz.

Dated: _____________, 2024 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
By: _____________________________
Matt Huffaker, City Manager
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk
Relates to portions of APN: 021-141-20-000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.53 12366127.5 SC020-500
EXHIBIT 4 – PUMP STATION SITE PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: 45ABEAA4-31B4-48C8-8A11-1FD189303BB8

22.54 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/18/2024
AGENDA OF: 04/09/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Council Compensation and Staffing Study (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to receive and approve a report regarding Council compensation and staffing in comparable cities to Santa Cruz.

BACKGROUND: At the May 2023 Budget Hearings for FY 2024, Council directed staff to study market competitiveness for the salaries of Council. The direction also included looking into staffing support for the Mayor and Councilmembers.

To offer a complete perspective on the issues, the City Manager’s Office engaged Raftelis to conduct an independent study of compensation provided to members of city councils in comparable cities, as well as how staff support is provided in those cities. Begun in August 2023, the project included:
 Identification of appropriate comparable cities to provide benchmarking data.  An extensive survey with the comparable cities, including salary and staffing.  Further data research from the State Controller’s Office  Mayor and Council interviews.

DISCUSSION: The primary source of information used by Raftelis for the study was a benchmarking survey administered to other California communities. They were:
 Berkeley
 Davis
 Fremont
 Pleasanton
 San Luis Obispo
 San Rafael
 Santa Barbara
 Santa Monica
Factor considered when selecting these cities included: population size, whether the city provides a full range of services to the community, whether the Council is elected by districts, whether the city is a beach or leisure destination, whether there are one or more universities within the city boundaries, and the city’s homelessness response programming.

23.1 Salary data:

23.2 Staffing data:

Key areas of potential staff support of the Mayor and Council are:

1. Scheduling

2. Research assistance

3. Talking points and preparing for presentations

4. Emails
Possible staffing options include:

Option 1: Reassign existing staff. Determine whether capacity exists within the City structure to reassign staff to provide the needed additional support to the Mayor and Council. If so, those positions could be reassigned, with supervision provided through the City Manager’s Office. No cost estimate is available on this option, nor is its practicality known.

Option 2: Add positions to the City Manager’s Office The intent would be to provide additional capacity to meet the specific needs of the Mayor and members of Council that are currently unmet. Depending on the tasks, the appropriate level of position would be identified.

Option 3: Add positions aligned to the Mayor and Council. Some members of Council expressed an interest in having staff hired by and reporting directly to them for staff assistance.

As mentioned earlier, staff must ultimately report to the City Manager per the Charter, but could dotted-line report to the Mayor and Council.

Should Option 2 be chosen, the associated costs include:

23.3 A potential phased approach follows. The first step would be creating a full-time Administrative Assistant III position providing scheduling and other administrative support, with adding a Management Analyst after some time with the Administrative Assistant III in place to determine efficacy and coverage.

Conclusions (excerpted from report):
“Compensation provided to the Mayor and Council of the City of Santa Cruz is lower than the average of the eight survey cities by approximately $3,000 for the Mayor and approximately $11,000 for the Council Members , and higher than the average of the 30 cities compared utilizing State of California Controller’s Office data. The major issue raised by members of the Council in their interviews regarding compensation pertained to equity and access to the elected positions. The interest is in the potential of encouraging lower income people to run for office and increasing the candidate pool if the City offered a higher level of pay for elected office.

With regards to staff support provided to the Mayor and City Council, Santa Cruz is similar to the survey cities, except for the City of Berkeley. In all but Berkeley, support is provided through the City Manager’s Office and other City departments. Given the Council/Manager form of government, that is not surprising. However, this does not mitigate the concerns raised by members of the Council that there are unmet needs they would like to have addressed. That could be done through adding staff to the City Manager’s Office, consistent with the City Manager’s hiring authority and responsibility as chief executive of the organization.”
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Administrative Assistant III is in the queue for possible funding during the FY 2025 budget process.

Prepared and Submitted
By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY FINAL REPORT FROM REFTELIS.PDF

23.4 CITY OF
Santa Cruz
Council Compensation and Staffing Study
Final Report / May 2024

23.5 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY

23.6 445 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1925, Los Angeles, CA 90071 www.raftelis.com
May 22, 2024
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Council Compensation and Staffing Study
Dear Ms. Schmidt:

We are pleased to present the results of our study for the City of Santa Cruz (City) regarding City Council compensation and staffing. This report includes a detailed review of Council compensation and staffing among other California communities, as well as a summary of interviews with members of the City Council. We have also outlined some options for addressing the interests of the Council for increased staff support for key tasks which they noted in their interviews.

The information provided in this report is intended to provide a useful framework for the City to consider its future compensation and staffing strategy as pertains to the City Council.

Thank you for this opportunity to assist the City of Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Jan Perkins
Vice President

23.7 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY

23.8 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................3 OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ .................................................3 BENCHMARKING SUMMARY ............................................................. 5 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY CITIES ....................................................................5 COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMPENSATION ....................................................7 Mayor and Council Compensation Among Survey Cities ............................................. 7 Summary of Data from the California State Controller’s Office ................................... 9 STAFF SUPPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ......................................9 COUNCIL INTERVIEWS..................................................................... 10 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION..................................................... 11 MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION ..................................................11 STAFF SUPPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ....................................11 Staffing Needs ................................................................................................................... 11 Options for Staff Support................................................................................................. 12 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 14

23.9 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Survey Cities.............................................................................................. 5 Table 2: 2022 Homelessness Count in Survey Cities ............................................................... 6 Table 3: Survey Cities with Universities ..................................................................................... 6 Table 4: Mayor and Council Salary Comparison ....................................................................... 7 Table 5: Automatic Mayor and Council Salary Changes .......................................................... 8 Table 6: Staff Support to Mayor and Council ............................................................................. 9 Table 7: Summary of Estimated Staffing Costs for Mayor and Council Support Positions Under Option 2 ............................................................................................................................. 13 Table 8: Controller’s Office Salary Benchmarking .................................................................. 16 List of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of Santa Cruz Mayor and Council Salaries to Average and Median Survey Salaries .............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Comparison of 2022 Mayor and Council Wages, per City Controller Data.......... 18 List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: Controller’s Office Data...................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX B: Staffing and Compensation Survey Questions............................................... 19 APPENDIX C: Staffing and Compensation Survey Responses ............................................. 23

23.10 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 1
Executive Summary
In August 2023, the City of Santa Cruz engaged Raftelis to conduct a study of City Council compensation and staffing. As part of this study, the project team worked with the City Manager’s Office to identify appropriate communities against which the City’s current compensation and staffing could be benchmarked. The project team surveyed eight communities, and details on these benchmarking results are provided further in the report.

Additionally, data from the California State Controller’s Office was reviewed and relevant data was analyzed and included in this study.

As part of our information gathering, the project team also interviewed members of the Santa Cruz City Council to understand their perspectives and interests with regards to compensation and staffing for members of the Council.

Generally, there was an interest by members of the Council in increasing compensation and staff support provided to the City Council.

Our overall observations are that the level of staff support provided to the Mayor and Council and how that support is provided is consistent with most of the survey cities. The level and type of support could be increased by either adding new positions or reassigning positions (if available) from other departments to the City Manager’s Office.

Positions could be designated specifically for Council support, with hiring and supervision provided through the City Manager’s Office, consistent with the City Charter’s allocation of responsibilities and authority to the City Manager and the role and responsibilities of the City Council. As an alternative, part-time temporary positions could be added to be supervised by members of the Council. More details are offered in a later section of this report.

The compensation paid to the Mayor and Council is within the overall range as the survey cities, although lower than the average, as noted in the following pages. Some cities pay more and others less, based on local decisions. If desired, increases could be made by the Santa Cruz City Council consistent with City Charter provisions for such increases.

Data Analysis Highlights
Eight cities provided data through Raftelis’ survey on compensation and staffing. Details follow later in this report, including how they were selected. The eight cities are:
• Berkeley
• Davis
• Fremont
• Pleasanton
• San Luis Obispo
• San Rafael
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Monica
Compensation. Santa Cruz pays its Mayor a similar salary to the eight survey cities listed above, at $41,048 per year, compared to a survey average of $43,884. However, Santa Cruz Council Member compensation of $20,524 is lower than the survey average of $31,377. Benefits are comparable. Data from the State Controller’s Office for a larger group of 30 similarly sized California cities shows a lower average salary for both mayor and council members than is paid in Santa Cruz. Appendix A provides detailed information regarding the State Controller’s Office data.

23.11 2 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Staff Support. Staff support to the mayor and council varies among the eight survey cities. Five of the eight peers have some form of dedicated staffing support, although only three of those five have positions dedicated entirely to supporting elected officials. Only one survey city, the City of Berkeley, has staff reporting directly to the mayor and council members. Staff in all other communities are supervised by the City Manager’s Office. Berkeley is also an outlier in terms of the level of council staffing. Altogether, 19 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions support the City of Berkeley Mayor and City Council, compared to between one and two FTEs for other survey cities.

Council Interview Highlights
Members of the Santa Cruz Council expressed a range of interests and opinions regarding compensation and staffing.

Common themes were that higher compensation would better reflect the level of effort required, and that paying more aligns with the City’s focus on equity and access and may open opportunities to run for office to people who otherwise could not afford to do so. Members of Council noted that benefits currently provided are generous. Some comments were made that current compensation is adequate.

With regards to staff support to the Mayor and Council, common themes were that City staff are highly responsive and helpful, that there are some tasks that go unmet, and that added staffing would be helpful. Some comments were made that current staff support is adequate. The type of tasks that Council Members would like assistance with are scheduling meetings with constituents or other groups, reviewing and assisting with email, conducting preliminary research on items, preparing talking points for outside meetings, and following up with constituent issues. It was noted by some that the move to Districts is increasing the level of constituent expectations for Council Members.

Some members of Council expressed an interest in having more staff support than is currently provided.

23.12 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 3
Introduction
Background and Methodology
During the Spring 2023 budget discussions, the topic of compensation and staffing for the Mayor and Council was raised. The Council directed the City Manager to provide optionsfor the Council’s consideration. To offer a complete perspective on the issues, the City Manager’s Office engaged Raftelis to conduct an independent study of compensation provided to members of city councils in comparable cities, as well as how staff support is provided in those cities.

The primary source of information used by Raftelis for this study was a benchmarking survey administered to other California communities. Eight communities provided detailed input about Council staffing and compensation through a benchmarking survey. Several factors were considered when selecting these cities, including: population size, whether the city provides a full range of services to the community, whether the Council is elected by districts, whether the city is a beach or leisure destination, whether there are one or more universities within the city boundaries, and the city’s homelessness response programming.

Raftelis also reviewed California State Controller’s Office council compensation data for 30 mid-size cities ranging in size from approximately 50,000 residents to approximately 225,000 residents. This information is summarized briefly in the report, with more extensive analysis included as Appendix A.

Overview of the City of Santa Cruz
The City of Santa Cruz operates under a Council/Manager form of government and is a Charter City. The sevenmember Council serves as the legislative body and appoints a City Manager to oversee day-to-day operations. The Council also appoints a City Attorney and City Clerk, as provided in the City Charter.

The City Council consists of six Council Members and a Mayor. The City is transitioning to election by district, and by the November 2024 election all Council Members will be elected by district. The Mayor is elected at-large.

Together, the Council represents a community of approximately 61,800 residents and oversees a City government with a total budget of $467 million as of Fiscal Year 2024. Santa Cruz is home to the University of California/Santa Cruz and is the seat of Santa Cruz County government.

The City Manager is the administrative head of the City government. The City Charter provides the authority to the City Manager to hire, fire, and manage all City staff (other than the City Attorney). The Charter § 806 states: “The City Manager shall … have the power and be required to: … (a) Appoint and remove, subject to the Civil Service provisions of this Charter, and the ordinances, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, all department heads of the City except as otherwise provided by this Charter, and pass upon and approve all proposed appointments and removals of subordinate employees by department heads.” 1 The City of Santa Cruz is a full-service city, providing a range of services including police and fire protection; construction and maintenance of streets, parks, flood control, and other infrastructure; a wharf facility; and recreational and cultural activities including a performing arts center. It operates four municipal utilities, including water, wastewater, storm water, and refuse collection/landfill operations, as well as enterprise operations for parking 1 Santa Cruz City Charter § 806.

23.13 4 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
facilities. The water utility provides water service beyond the municipal boundaries and has a total service population of approximately 98,000.

Santa Cruz is addressing a number of challenges and has a Strategic Plan that focuses resources and attention on key goals. The Covid-19 pandemic was particularly difficult for the community given the tourism base and the City has been rebuilding its economy and services since that time. Homelessness has been acute in the community and significant resources are applied to addressing the impacts. Being a beach community adds a degree of uniqueness to Santa Cruz that is an important factor in policies and services.

23.14 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 5
Benchmarking Summary
In October 2023, the City of Santa Cruz distributed the survey designed by Raftelis to eight cities to solicit feedback on both council compensation and dedicated council staffing. This section summarizes the results of those survey responses, as well as comparison data on council compensation from the California State Controller’s office.

A copy of the survey is included as Appendix B to this report, and the full responses are included as Appendix C.

Overview of Survey Cities
A range of cities was selected for the survey. No two cities are alike so there are no exact matches. The cities in the survey include some that are full-service like Santa Cruz. They range in population from approximately 50,000 to approximately 225,000, with a similar range of City staff between approximately 380 and 2,100 FTEs. The project team sought to include cities that elect their councils by district and directly elect their mayor, cities with a significant tourism base, cities with a large university population, cities with homelessness response programming, and commonality with the list of cities used for Santa Cruz’s recurring classification and compensation studies. Not every city surveyed matches each of these criteria.

The following table lists the survey cities, along with key indicators about each city’s population and government.

Table 1: Overview of Survey Cities
City Population2
Median
Household
Income3
Total FY2024
Budget (000)
Total FY2024
Authorized
FTEs
Council
Size
Directly
Elected
Mayor?
Council
Elected by
District?
Santa Cruz 61,800 $105,491 $466,569 927.7 7 Yes Yes
Berkeley 118,950 $104,716 $725,973 1,793.8 9 Yes Yes
Davis 67,048 $83,592 $250,554 376.5 5 No Yes
Fremont 223,871 $169,023 $442,787 1,019.7 7 Yes Yes
Pleasanton 76,689 $181,639 $234,412 434.4 5 Yes Yes
San Luis
Obispo 48,341 $65,000 $239,791 474.5 5 Yes No
San Rafael 59,971 $113,839 $171,699 425.8 5 Yes Yes
Santa Barbara 87,533 $98,346 $635,067 1,085.2 7 Yes Yes Santa Monica 89,947 $106,797 $745,034 2,101.4 7 No No
Peer Average 96,544 115,369 430,665 964 6
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
It is important to note that, while benchmarking can be a useful tool for understanding how a city compares to others, each community faces specific circumstances that dictate structure, staffing, and resource decisions. For example, many California cities face challenges relating to homelessness, but the City of Santa Cruz in particular faces a greater challenge than many other cities.
2 All population counts are from the United States Census’s 2022 Population Estimates Program 3 All median incomes are from the United States Census’s 2021 Five Year American Community Survey

23.15 6 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
The following table compares 2022 point-in-time (PIT) homelessness counts for the City of Santa Cruz and the survey communities. Santa Cruz’s count and percent of total County PIT count were the highest of any survey community, as illustrated below.

Table 2: 2022 Homelessness Count in Survey Cities
City 2022 Homelessness
PIT Count
City PIT as a Percent
of Total County PIT
Santa Cruz 1,439 63%
Berkeley 803 8%
Davis 181 24%
Fremont 1,026 11%
Pleasanton 72 1%
San Luis Obispo 385 27%
San Rafael 348 31%
Santa Barbara 822 42%
Santa Monica 807 1%
Peer Average 556 18%
The City of Santa Cruz, as well as several of the survey cities, are also home to large university populations, as listed in the table below. These students are often not counted as city residents but require city services.

Table 3: Survey Cities with Universities
City University Approximate Student
Population
Santa Cruz University of California
(UC) Santa Cruz 19,0004
Berkeley UC Berkeley 43,0005
Davis UC Davis 41,0006
Fremont Not applicable Not applicable
Pleasanton Not applicable Not applicable
San Luis Obispo Cal Poly 22,0007
San Rafael Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara 25,0008
Santa Monica Not applicable Not applicable
4 “UC Santa Cruz by the Numbers.” UC Santa Cruz, https://admissions.ucsc.edu/posts/statistics. 5 “Berkeley by the Numbers.” UC Berkeley, www.berkeley.edu/about/by-the-numbers. 6 “AggieData.” UC Davis, https://aggiedata.ucdavis.edu. 7 “Facts and Figures.” CalPoly, www.calpoly.edu/about/facts-and-figures. 8 “Facts and Figures.” UC Santa Barbara, www.ucsb.edu/about/facts-and-figures.

23.16 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 7
Council and Mayor Compensation

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION AMONG SURVEY CITIES
The survey asked cities to provide details on mayor and council member compensation as of October 2023, including salary, per diems, stipends, and benefits. Benefits varied, but generally the mayor and council members have the same medical and retirement benefits as full-time city staff. Most of the cities surveyed also do not offer any other compensation beyond salary, benefits, and travel expense reimbursement, with the following exceptions:
• The City of Davis provides the Mayor and each Council Member a stipend of $2,500 per year to cover the cost of supplies, conferences, and other work-related materials • The City of Santa Monica provides Mayor and each Council Member with an auto allowance of $400 per month, as well as $50 per special meeting attended
The following table compares mayor and council annual salaries as of October 2023.

Table 4: Mayor and Council Salary Comparison
City Mayor Salary Council Salary Effective Date
Santa Cruz $41,048 $20,524 July 2017
Berkeley $128,500 $80,955 December 2022
Davis $16,392 $16,392 July 2023
Fremont $51,759 $29,133 November 2022
Pleasanton $17,063 $15,863 December 2022
San Luis Obispo $32,352 $25,068 Not provided
San Rafael $8,424 $5,616 January 1990
Santa Barbara $75,110 $60,088 April 2023
Santa Monica $21,468 $17,904 July 2023
Peer Average $43,884 $31,377 Not applicable
Peer Median $26,910 $21,486 Not applicable
Salaries range considerably, from more than $128,000 for the Mayor of the City of Berkeley to less than $6,000 for the City of San Rafael City Council Members. The City of Santa Cruz has lower salaries than the survey average, and higher than the survey median, as illustrated in the figure below.

23.17 8 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Figure 1: Comparison of Santa Cruz Mayor and Council Salaries to Average and Median Survey Salaries
Survey cities were also asked about any planned changes to mayor or council compensation. None are planning any specific changes to compensation, but four out of the eight peers have salaries that automatically change based on economic conditions, as shown in the table below.

Table 5: Automatic Mayor and Council Salary Changes
City Frequency Basis for Salary Change
Santa Cruz No automatic change Not applicable
Berkeley Annual County median income9
Fremont Annual Change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)10 Pleasanton No automatic change Not applicable
San Luis Obispo No automatic change Not applicable
San Rafael No automatic change Not applicable
Santa Barbara Annual County median income11
Santa Monica Annual Change in the CPI12
The Santa Cruz City Charter § 603 currently prohibits the City from enacting automatic salary increases but authorizes the City Council, by ordinance, to increase the Mayor’s or Councilmembers’ compensation by an amount not exceeding 5% per calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment. 9 The Berkeley Mayor’s salary is annually adjusted to equal the median income of a three-person household in Alameda County. Council’s salary is annually adjusted at 63% of the median income. 10 Fremont Council compensation increases annually in an amount equal to the percent change in the CPI over the previous year, although the annual increase may not exceed 4%.
11 The Santa Barbara Mayor’s salary is annually adjusted to equal the median household income in Santa Barbara County.

Council’s salary is annually adjusted at 80% of the median income. 12 Santa Monica Council compensation increases annually in an amount equal to the percent change in the CPI over the previous year.
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Mayor Salary Council Salary
Comparison of City of Santa Cruz Elected
Official Salaries to Survey Averages
Santa Cruz Peer Average Peer Median

23.18 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 9
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE The project team utilized publicly available data from the California State Controller’s website to obtain a broader view of compensation. Appendix A contains this information and Raftelis’ analysis. The most current data is from 2022. Wages vary significantly from city to city. The highest salaries were at the City of Berkeley, with a wage of $108,961 for the Mayor and a maximum wage of $79,608 for Council Members. The lowest salaries were at the City of San Clemente, with wages of $4,800 for both the Mayor and Council Members. On average, however, the Controller’s Office data comparisons show that Santa Cruz’s wages were generally higher than that of the other communities in 2022. An important caveat is that the Controller’s Office reports actual rather than authorized wages.

This means that if certain officials only serve part of the year, their reported wages will be artificially low, and not useful as a basis for comparison.

Staff Support to the Mayor and Council
Survey cities were also asked about staff support for the mayor and council. Five out of the eight cities have some dedicated staff support for the mayor and council, although only three have staff positions dedicated entirely to that purpose. Additionally, only one survey city, the City of Berkeley, has positions that report directly to the Mayor and Council; all others report to individuals within the City Manager’s Office. No survey city indicated any plans to change staffing levels.

The following table summarizes staff support in the survey communities.

Table 6: Staff Support to Mayor and Council
City
Dedicated FTEs
Supporting
Mayor/Council
Dedicated
Entirely to
Mayor/Council?
Staffing Details
Santa Cruz None Not applicable
• The City Manager’s Office provides general
administrative support to the Council through many
positions, but there are no dedicated positions
• The Mayor and Council Members may hire unpaid
interns
Berkeley 19.0 Yes
• Each Council Member supervises 1.5 FTE Legislative
Assistants
• The Mayor supervises 3.0 FTE Assistants to the Mayor
and 4.0 FTE Legislative Assistants (7.0 FTE total)
Davis None Not applicable
• Council Members may hire unpaid interns
• Employees in the City Manager’s Office generally assist with Council Member needs
Fremont 2.0 No
• 1.0 FTE Management Analyst reports to the Deputy City Manager
• 1.0 FTE Executive Assistant to the City Manager reports to the City Manager
Pleasanton 1.0 No • 1.0 FTE Executive Assistant reports to the City Manager San Luis Obispo None Not applicable • Council Members may hire unpaid interns San Rafael None Not applicable
• A Senior Administrative Assistant and other staff in the City Manager’s Office provide some assistance to the
Council
Santa Barbara 1.0 Yes
• 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and
Council reports to an Office Supervisor in the City
Administrator’s Office
Santa Monica 2.0 Yes
• 1.0 FTE Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison reports to the City Manager
• 1.0 FTE Administrative Staff Assistant reports to the Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison

23.19 10 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Council Interviews
In order to obtain some understanding of the perspectives about compensation and staff support for the Council, Raftelis conducted individual interviews with each member of the Council. Raftelis endeavored to learn how staff support is currently provided and any unmet needs that may exist. We also sought to understand Council Members’ interests regarding compensation levels.

FEEDBACK FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Question 1. What is your perspective on compensation provided to the Mayor and Council? Comments received included:
• Higher compensation is needed to recognize the importance of the positions, and to allow members of Council to devote more time to their Council duties.
• Current level of compensation is fair as it is.
• Benefit package is generous and offers health insurance and pension coverage. • Higher salary would allow lower income people to serve and increase the candidate pool. • Significant time is spent on Council work and higher compensation is needed to recognize that.

Question 2. What type of staff assistance do you receive now? Do you experience unmet needs in this assistance? If so, what are those needs?
Council comments on current staff assistance:
• City staff are always helpful and responsive when asked. • Good relationship with City staff.
• City Manager’s Office assists when asked.
• Department heads are always willing to help.
• Regular meetings and agenda reviews with the City Manager are helpful. • Department heads and other City staff have regular jobs, without much time to devote to special requests.

Council comments on unmet needs:
• Policy support for Council Members’ work on regional bodies. • Research assistance.
• Constituent follow up.
• Scheduling meetings with constituents and other groups. • No unmet needs.
• Reviewing and sorting through emails.
• Preparing talking points for outside meetings.
• With Districts, more expectations from constituents for attention from Council Members, requiring more staff assistance.
• Would be helpful to have staff support reporting directly to us.

23.20 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 11
Options for Consideration
The Council directed the City Manager to return with options with regards to compensation and staffing.

Mayor and Council Compensation
As pertains to compensation, the City of Santa Cruz Charter sets forth a process for increasing the Council’s compensation. For the purposes of this report, Raftelis has included the section of the City Charter that applies to Mayor and Council salaries. How this is applied is subject to advice from the City Attorney.

The last increase was effective July 1, 2017. Charter § 603 governs City Council salaries and indicates that Council salary may be adjusted through elections or ordinance. Section 603 states:13 At any municipal election, the question of whether City Council Members or the Mayor shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensation, may be submitted to the electors… Compensation of Council Members and the Mayor may be increased beyond the amount provided in this Section by an ordinance enacted by the City Council or by an amendment to an ordinance enacted by the City Council but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five (5%) percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended by the City Council which provides for automatic future increases in salary.

If the Council were to increase compensation for the Mayor and/or Council, it would determine the level of increase and follow the requirements set forth in the Charter. An increase beyond the level that may be adjusted by ordinance as specified by Section 603 would require voter approval.

Staff Support to the Mayor and Council

STAFFING NEEDS
A summary of the functions that appear to be of most importance to members of Council are the following:

1. Scheduling. This would be to provide meeting and constituent scheduling assistance to all members of Council who desire this service. Experience will provide the best understanding of what capacity is actually needed.

2. Research assistance. This would provide the desired research requested by the Mayor and individual Council Members on topics of interest to them. Depending on the frequency and complexity of the topics to be researched, this could require a full-time position, at a management analyst level.

3. Talking points and preparing for presentations. This would provide the Mayor and Council Members with support for when they attend meetings or make presentations and need talking points. Experience will show the level of support needed.
13 Santa Cruz City Charter § 603. www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/SantaCruzCH.html#603.

23.21 12 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

4. Emails. To aid the Mayor and Council Members in reviewing and assisting with emails, including discerning which are requesting meetings and which can be referred to City departments, and other dispositions, a part time support person could be assigned. Experience will show the frequency of need for this service.

OPTIONS FOR STAFF SUPPORT
To provide increased staff support to the Mayor and Council, three options are outlined below. All are consistent with the City Charter and the Council/Manager form of government under which the City of Santa Cruz operates.

Option 1: Reassign existing staff. Determine whether capacity exists within the City structure to reassign staff to provide the needed additional support to the Mayor and Council. If so, those positions could be reassigned, with supervision provided through the City Manager’s Office. No cost estimate is available on this option, nor is its practicality known.

Option 2: Add positions to the City Manager’s Office. The intent would be to provide additional capacity to meet the specific needs of the Mayor and members of Council that are currently unmet. Depending on the tasks, the appropriate level of position would be identified.

Option 2 is most consistent with other cities in Raftelis’ benchmarking who provide staff support to the Mayor and Council, since those cities are also Council/Manager cities. Of the five survey cities with dedicated Mayor/Council support, only one, the City of Berkeley, has staff reporting directly to elected officials. In the other cities staff support is based out of the City Manager’s Office.

For the purposes of this discussion, the estimated workload for the four types of work described above is as follows:
• Scheduling: scheduling is assumed to require a total of 20 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at an administrative level. • Research assistance: research assistance is assumed to require a total of 25 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at a management analyst level. • Talking points and preparing for presentations: this assistance is assumed to require as much as 15 hours a week to serve the Mayor and all members of the Council and would be at a management analyst level. • Emails: email support is assumed to require 20 hours a week to serve all the Mayor and Council Members and would be at an administrative level.

It is important to note that these are estimated staff hours for the various task. The actual workload will not be understood until staff have been hired and the work begins. For that reason, Raftelis recommends a phased approach.

Phase I would be creating a full-time Administrative Assistant III position providing scheduling and other administrative support.
14 Phase II would involve hiring a full-time Management Analyst for research assistance and data analysis.

The following table summarizes the estimated annual costs for each position. 14 A higher-level Administrative Assistant position is recommended due to the discretion required, and the fact that the position will be working with elected officials.

23.22 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 13
Table 7: Summary of Estimated Staffing Costs for Mayor and Council Support Positions Under Option 2 Phase Position Estimated Annual Cost
1 Administrative Assistant III $121,654
2 Management Analyst $177,104
Total $298,758
Option 3: Add positions aligned to the Mayor and Council. During Council interviews, an interest was expressed in having staff hired by and reporting directly to them for staff assistance. As mentioned earlier, staff must ultimately report to the City Manager per the Charter but could dotted-line report to the Mayor and Council.

There are two possible vehicles to fulfill this option:

1. Temporary staff hired under the Management Professional and Technical Assistant classification.

Using the temporary staffing model, the Mayor and Council could hire limited-term staff under the City’s temporary bargaining unit parameters with the restriction of 999 hours or less in a fiscal year (approximately 48% full-time equivalency). Utilizing part-time, temporary positions for this work has the potential of being challenging in attracting candidates, and there could also be frequent turnover, resulting in ongoing recruitment and training.

2. Creation of a new classification or classifications that are added under the at-will section of the City’s Human Resources Personnel Rules.

Under a more permanent model, Human Resources would create a new classification or classifications under the appropriate City bargaining unit and, since the incumbents would be aligned to the Mayor or to a respective Council Member, would also need to be added to the at-will positions under the City’s Human Resources Personnel Rules. These changes would go through standard processes to coordinate classification changes with the bargaining units, and the specific at-will change would also need to be adopted by Council via resolution to adjust a personnel rule15.

The cost of this option (under either vehicle) would be determined based on the level of the temporary employee hired or of the created position that is added, as well as the number of hours that are assumed to be provided to the Mayor and each member of Council. If one were to assume 20 hours per week for the Mayor and 10 hours per Council Member per week, for a total of 80 hours per week of support to the Mayor and Council, then City staff could offer a range of costs, depending on where temporary hire or the new classification ended up in the salary scale, with consideration of experience and background of each successful candidate.

Since the City Manager is the sole hiring and supervisory authority for all other City staff (except for the City Attorney’s Office), having a clear set of guidelines would be important for smooth functioning by all parties. If this option were pursued, protocols would need to be put into place pertaining to the role of these part-time staff, and how they interact with the City Manager’s Office and other City staff. 15 Currently, the staff at-will positions in Personnel Rule 2.01 are mostly in the executive area, and the positions would need to be designated under this rule.

23.23 14 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Conclusion
Compensation provided to the Mayor and Council of the City of Santa Cruz is lower than the average of the eight survey cities by approximately $3,000 for the Mayor and approximately $11,000 for the Council Members16, and higher than the average of the 30 cities compared utilizing State of California Controller’s Office data. The major issue raised by members of the Council in their interviews regarding compensation pertained to equity and access to the elected positions. The interest is in the potential of encouraging lower income people to run for office and increasing the candidate pool if the City offered a higher level of pay for elected office.

With regards to staff support provided to the Mayor and City Council, Santa Cruz is similar to the survey cities, except for the City of Berkeley. In all but Berkeley, support is provided through the City Manager’s Office and other City departments. Given the Council/Manager form of government, that is not surprising. However, this does not mitigate the concerns raised by members of the Council that there are unmet needs they would like to have addressed.

That could be done through adding staff to the City Manager’s Office, consistent with the City Manager’s hiring authority and responsibility as chief executive of the organization. 16 The averages of the surveyed cities were impacted by outlying salaries in Berkeley - $128,500 for the Mayor, and $80,955 for Council Members.

23.24 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 15
APPENDIX A:

Controller’s Office Data

23.25 16 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Controller’s Office Data
State law requires the Controller’s Office to collect and publish compensation data on public officials. Cities are required to submit annual data on total wages17 as well as total retirement and health contributions for mayors, council members, and city managers. The Controller’s Office does not collect or publish any information on other benefits or compensation paid to the officials. All information is publicly available on the Government Compensation in California website.

Raftelis collected data from 30 California cities, including the eight survey cities discussed in the report, with populations between approximately 50,000 and 225,000. The upper range was chosen to take into account some unique characteristics of Santa Cruz, such as the UC Santa Cruz student population of approximately 20,000 students.

There are some important caveats to this data:
• Maximum is used, rather than average, because the Controller’s Office reports actual rather than authorized wages. This means that if certain officials only serve part of the year, their reported wages will be artificially low, and not useful as a basis for comparison.
• In some cases, maximum actual council wages are higher than the actual wages earned by the mayor. This may be due to the mayor only serving part of the year (and only earning a portion of the salary they would earn over a full year) or to the council members receiving additional wages, such as stipends for serving on special committees.
• Raftelis did not independently verify the accuracy of this data. • The data received directly from the eight survey cities differs from the data reported on the State Controller’s Office website. This is because the Controller data is from 2022, while the survey data was from 2023, and because the Controller data reflects actual compensation per individual, while the survey data reflects authorized base compensation.

The following table illustrates the 30 cities, their population, and maximum Total Wages18 per mayor and council member, per the Controller’s 2022 records.

Table 8: Controller’s Office Salary Benchmarking
City Population19 Maximum Mayor
Wages 2022
Maximum Council
Wages 2022
Santa Cruz 61,800 $45,581 $27,964
Berkeley 118,950 $108,961 $79,608
Brentwood 66,127 $11,377 $11,377
Daly City 100,007 $26,352 $35,494
17 “Total Wages” is defined by the Controller’s Office as, “Total wages reported by the employer from Box 5 of the W-2, with some exceptions, and Elected Officials who received pay reported on IRS Form 1099. Amounts listed may include regular pay, overtime, cash payments for vacation and sick leave, and bonus payments.” 18 “Total Wages” is defined by the Controller’s Office as, “Total wages reported by the employer from Box 5 of the W-2, with some exceptions, and Elected Officials who received pay reported on IRS Form 1099. Amounts listed may include regular pay, overtime, cash payments for vacation and sick leave, and bonus payments.” 19 All populations are from the United States Census’s 2022 Population Estimates Program

23.26 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 17
City Population19 Maximum Mayor
Wages 2022
Maximum Council
Wages 2022
Davis 67,048 $17,172 $17,172
Dublin 72,060 $20,962 $15,421
Encinitas 61,369 $26,604 $27,386
Fremont 223,871 $18,315 $27,008
Gilroy 58,005 $25,603 $19,627
Hayward 156,754 $41,688 $24,975
La Habra 61,978 $6,300 $6,300
La Mesa 60,360 $30,183 $17,850
Livermore 84,701 $17,880 $13,007
Milpitas 77,738 $21,309 $18,592
Monterey Park 58,554 $6,000 $6,000
Mountain View 81,059 $17,910 $15,204
Palo Alto 66,010 $13,802 $15,410
Pico Rivera 59,781 $27,190 $28,390
Pleasanton 76,689 $15,741 $14,541
Redondo Beach 68,918 $28,986 $34,673
Redwood City 80,512 $7,200 $7,200
Salinas 161,020 $18,600 $16,200
San Clemente 63,457 $4,800 $4,800
San Leandro 86,762 $49,860 $21,720
San Luis Obispo 48,341 $30,205 $25,203
San Rafael 59,971 $8,424 $13,960
Santa Barbara 87,533 $75,910 $61,905
Santa Clara 126,930 $31,680 $25,680
Santa Monica 89,947 $25,800 $24,162
Sunnyvale 153,091 $39,216 $33,296
Yorba Linda 67,089 $7,200 $7,200
Peer Average 88,154 $26,041 $22,312
Peer Median 74,375 $21,136 $18,221

23.27 18 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
The following figure summarizes the results of this comparison.

Figure 2: Comparison of 2022 Mayor and Council Wages, per City Controller Data $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Maximum Mayor Salary Maximum Council Salary
Comparison of City of Santa Cruz Elected Official
Salaries to Comptroller Office Compensation 2022
Santa Cruz Peer Average Peer Median

23.28 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 19
APPENDIX B:

Staffing and Compensation
Survey Questions

23.29 20 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City of Santa Cruz
Council Compensation and Staffing Study
October 18, 2023
INTRODUCTION.

The City of Santa Cruz has engaged Raftelis to conduct a study of city council compensation and staffing provided to the mayor and council. As part of this work, Raftelis is seeking information from a select group of comparison cities. Your city has been identified as one for this survey and we would seek your assistance in providing some information. The survey responses will be consolidated and provided to the City of Santa Cruz for their information. If your City would like to receive the results, the City of Santa Cruz will be happy to provide them to you.

Please provide your responses by November 3, 2023 to Claire Pritchard at [email protected].

Background
The City of Santa Cruz operates under a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council is comprised of six Council Members and a Mayor, and the Council is transitioning to election by Council district. The Mayor is elected at large by city voters. At the November 8, 2022 election, Council Members from two districts were directly elected, as well as the Mayor. At the November 5, 2024 election, Council Members from the remaining four districts will be elected, completing the transition to election by districts.

Survey Cities:
• Berkeley
• Davis
• Fremont
• Pleasanton
• San Luis Obispo
• San Rafael
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Monica
Name of individual completing this questionnaire:

Email:

Phone:

Part A: Compensation
We are interested in all forms of compensation your city provides to your Mayor and members of Council (e.g., pay, benefits, other items). Please describe the compensation by filling out the following tables:

1. Compensation for the Mayor:

Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary
Benefits
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
*If known

23.30 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 21

2. Compensation for members of Council:

Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary
Benefits
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
*If known

3. Other comments about Mayor and Council compensation adjustments you would like to add.

Part B: Staff Assistance to Mayor and Council

4. Does your city have dedicated positions to provide staff assistance? Yes ☐ No ☐ • If yes, please tell us what those positions are, to whom they report, and where they are found in the budget.
• If yes, would you change anything about these positions?

5. If there are no dedicated positions, please describe how you provide staff assistance to the Mayor and/or Council.

6. If your city does not currently have staff assigned to the Mayor and/or Council, are you contemplating it? Yes ☐ No ☐
• If you are considering providing staff assistance, please share your decision-making criteria and timing.

7. What other comments do you have about staffing for the Mayor and/or Council?

8. Would you like a copy of these survey results? Yes ☐ No ☐ Thank you for your assistance to the City of Santa Cruz.

23.31 22 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

23.32 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 23
APPENDIX C:

Staffing and Compensation
Survey Responses

23.33 24 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Council Compensation and
Staffing Survey Responses
Part A: Compensation

COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR
City of Berkeley
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Annual Base Rate 128,500.06 12/25/2022 133,100.00 12/24/2023 Annual Salary adjustment - (Measure JJ) based on
Alameda County median
income for a three-person
household. ($4,599.94)
Benefits 94,331.89 12/25/2022 97,708.71 12/24/2023 Estimated Fringe Benefit Rate – 73.41% (not actual)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of Davis
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Paid bi-weekly $1366 per
month

2.01.110 Compensation of
council members.
(a)    As provided in Section
36516 of the Government
Code, each member of the
city council shall receive a
salary.
(b)    Pursuant to the
provisions of Government
Code Section 36516(a)(4),
the compensation of each
member of the city council
shall be increased to a
monthly salary of one
thousand three hundred
sixty-six dollars. This
increase in compensation
shall be effective at the
beginning of the term of
office of the council
members elected at the
general municipal election of
June 2018.

Benefits Health (Medical, Dental,
Vision, 125, Life Ins),
Staff provided an
attachment with details

23.34 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 25
Retirement, Retiree
Medical, Workers Comp
Per diems
Stipends Funds available for costs
incurred as Council
Member (supplies,
conferences, etc.).
$2500 per
year
We refer to it as a “stipend”
because it is assigned to a
specific Council Member,
but it is really just a line item
in our budget to reimburse
or charge for eligible
purchases
Other (please be
specific)
City will also provide
travel and payments for
certain conferences and
other meetings if Council
Member attending on
behalf of full Council
Varies
City of Fremont
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly $4,313.28 11/8/2022 TBD TBD
Benefits 07/1/2023 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Stipends 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Other (please be
specific)
Staff provided an
attachment with details
City of Pleasanton
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary salary 1421.92/month Dec 2022 No
Benefits Health, dental, vision 1. $25.00 per month
for Mayor only coverage,
$25.00 per month for
Mayor +1, $50.00 per
month for Family
coverage

2. The difference
between the family rate
of the lowest cost HMO
and the premium of the
more expensive plan
selection
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
CalPERS membership Optional Membership
City of San Luis Obispo
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Base Wage $32,352

23.35 26 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Benefits Life Insurance, Medicare,
Health Flex Allowance
$3,131 This can vary based on
health flex choice (ex: opt
out, employee only,
employee +1)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of San Rafael
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly salary $702.00 01/01/1990 no
Benefits City contribution of flex
dollar amount for
medical coverage.

City-paid Dental and
Vision coverage at
family level
Varies
depending on
enrollment
selection(s)
City
contributions
for 2024 will
increase for
medical
coverage
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems NA
Stipends NA
Other (please be
specific)
NA
City of Santa Barbara
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary $5007.34 TBD Per Month
Benefits $1731.62 Per Month
Per diems $0 Unless on travel and
dependent on location
City of Santa Monica
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary 21,468.00
annually
July 1 every
year
City Council and Mayor
shall be automatically
increased effective
July 1 of each year, in an
amount equal to the
increase in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for the
Twelve-month period
immediately preceding
July 1. As used in this
section, the CPI shall be
the index for All Urban
Consumers for the Los
Angeles, Long Beach,
Anaheim Metropolitan
Area (All items), provided

23.36 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 27
by the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Benefits Medical insurance with
EE cost share;
Employer paid Dental,
Vision, Employee
Assistance Program,
$50,000 Basic Life
Insurance, $10,000
AD&D, LTD, Retiree
Health Reimbursement
Plan;
Optional CalPERS
pension membership
See Rate
sheets
1 st of the
month
following 30
days
See Rate
sheets
1/1/2024
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)

COMPENSATION FOR THE COUNCIL
City of Berkeley
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Annual Base Rate 80,954.90 12/25/2022 83,853.00 12/24/2023 Council Members at 63% of the Mayor’s salary, with
annual adjustments based
on adjustments to the area
median income.
($2,898.10)
Benefits 59,428.99 12/25/2022 61,556.49 12/24/2023 Estimated Fringe Benefit Rate – 73.41% (not actual)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of Davis
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Paid bi-weekly $1366 per
month

2.01.110 Compensation of
council members.
(a)    As provided in Section
36516 of the Government
Code, each member of the
city council shall receive a
salary.
(b)    Pursuant to the
provisions of Government
Code Section 36516(a)(4),
the compensation of each
member of the city council
shall be increased to a
monthly salary of one
thousand three hundred
sixty-six dollars. This
increase in compensation

23.37 28 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
shall be effective at the
beginning of the term of
office of the council
members elected at the
general municipal election of
June 2018.

Benefits Health (Medical, Dental,
Vision, 125, Life Ins),
Retirement, Retiree
Medical, Workers Comp
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems
Stipends Funds available for costs
incurred as Council
Member (supplies,
conferences, etc.).
$2500 per
year
We refer to it as a “stipend”
because it is assigned to a
specific Council Member,
but it is really just a line item
in our budget to reimburse
or charge for eligible
purchases
Other (please be
specific)
City will also provide
travel and payments for
certain conferences and
other meetings if Council
Member attending on
behalf of full Council
Varies
City of Fremont
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly $2,427.76 11/8/2022 TBD TBD
Benefits 07/1/2023 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Stipends 10/18/2022 TBD TBD Staff provided an
attachment with details
Other (please be
specific)
Staff provided an
attachment with details
City of Pleasanton
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary salary 1321.92/month Dec 2022 No
Benefits Health, dental, vision 1.$25.00 per month for
Council only coverage,
$25.00 per month for
Council +1, $50.00 per
month for Family
coverage

2.The difference between
the family rate of the
lowest cost HMO and
the premium of the more
expensive plan
selection
Per diems
Stipends

23.38 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 29
Other (please be
specific)
CalPERS membership Optional Membership
City of San Luis Obispo
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Base Wage 25,668
Benefits Life Insurance, Medicare,
Health Flex Allowance
5,535 This can vary based on
health flex choice (ex: opt
out, employee only,
employee +1)
Per diems
Stipends
Other (please be
specific)
City of San Rafael
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary Monthly salary $468.00 01/01/1990 no
Benefits City contribution of flex
dollar amount for
medical coverage.

City-paid Dental and
Vision coverage at
family level
Varies
depending on
enrollment
selection(s)
City
contributions
for 2024 will
increase for
medical
coverage
Staff provided an
attachment with details
Per diems NA
Stipends NA
Other (please be
specific)
NA
City of Santa Barbara
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary $5007.34 TBD Per Month
Benefits $1731.62 Per Month
Per diems 0 Unless on travel and
dependent on location
Per Diem Rates | GSA
Stipends 0
Other (please be
specific)
N/A
City of Santa Monica
Compensation
Type
Description Amount Effective
Date*
Any Planned Increases Comments
Amount Date
Salary 17,904.00
annually
July 1 every
year
City Council and Mayor
shall be automatically
increased effective

23.39 30 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
July 1 of each year, in an
amount equal to the
increase in the
Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for the Twelvemonth period
immediately preceding
July 1. As used in this
section, the CPI shall be
the index for All Urban
Consumers for the Los
Angeles, Long Beach,
Anaheim Metropolitan
Area (All items), provided
by the United States
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
Benefits Medical insurance with
EE cost share;
Employer paid Dental,
Vision, Employee
Assistance Program,
$50,000 Basic Life
Insurance, $10,000
AD&D, LTD, Retiree
Health Reimbursement
Plan;
Optional CalPERS
pension membership
See Rate
sheets
1 st of the
month
following 30
days
See Rate
sheets
1/1/2024
Per diems Auto Allowance $400/month
Stipends Special Meeting Pay $50/meeting
Other (please be
specific)

OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS City Comments
Berkeley None
Davis None
Fremont
Fremont Municipal Code Section 2.05.060 specifies the salaries of the Council Members and Mayor and establishes a process for reviewing and implementing compensation increases:
“Compensation increases shall be reviewed during each budget cycle and increases shall be considered commensurate with the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward in an amount not to exceed 4%. Any increase to the Council Members’ salaries shall become effective only upon commencement of a new Council term of office following adoption of an ordinance authorizing the increase. Any increase to the Mayor’s additional compensation (the amount that exceeds the Council Members’ salary amount) shall become effective as set forth in the ordinance adopting the increase.” Pleasanton
San Luis Obispo
PER CITY CHARTER (Section 410):

The Mayor and each Council Member shall receive compensation for services payable according to the regular City payroll schedule, with the Mayor receiving greater compensation than the other Council Members. Compensation for Mayor and Council Members shall be reviewed biennially in even-numbered years. When warranted, said compensation may be adjusted by Council resolution, to be effective the first full pay period in January of the year following the review. The compensation rate may be revised by the electorate by initiative. Mayor and Council Member expenses incurred for official business shall be reimbursed.

23.40 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 31
City Comments
San Rafael
Council Compensation Ordinance - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/councilcompensation-ord/ Elected Officials Compensation Detail - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/electedofficials-compensation-detail-summary/ Benefits summary - https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/benefit-summary/ - Last column “Elected City Clerk and City Attorney” EXCEPT Life AD&D = $50k for Council Members.

Santa Barbara
Compensation adjustments for Mayor and Council are impacted by the below:

In accordance with Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, Section 502, Compensation, “… the members of the City Council, except the Mayor, shall receive an annual salary in the sum equal to eighty percent (80%) of the annual Area Median Income and the Mayor shall receive an annual salary equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Area Median Income.” The Area Median Income is based on the income level for a single person household within Santa Barbara County, as reported by the United States Housing and Urban Development Department. The City is required to make these changes effective on April 1 each year.

Santa Monica None
Part B: Staff Assistance to Mayor and Council

DEDICATED STAFF POSITIONS
City Dedicated Staff
Positions?
Positions, Whom They Report To, Where
They Are in Budget
Change Anything About
Positions?
Berkeley Yes
Council Members have 1.5 FTE Legislative
Assistants per district who report directly to the
council members. The Mayor’s office has 3 FTE
Assistant to the Mayor and 4 FTE Legislative
Assistants. One of the Assistant to the Mayor
positions serves as the Chief of Staff.

Human Resources is currently
crafting Legislative Aide
classification, which will be a
deep class with a broad salary
range. (Currently the title and
range exists, but not a class
spec.)
Davis No Not applicable Not applicable
Fremont Yes
The City Manager’s has two positions that
provide Mayor and Council with assistance.
• Management Analyst (reports to the
Deputy City Manager)
• Executive Assistant to the City
Manager (reports to the City Manager)
The positions can be found in the Department
Budgets | City Manager section of the Fiscal
Year 2023/24 Adopted Operating Budget
N/A
Pleasanton Yes
The City has an executive assistant (1 FTE)
that supports the city manager and the
mayor/city council.

No response
San Luis Obispo No Not applicable Not applicable
San Rafael No Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Barbara Yes
Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and
Council – Full Time position reports to the
Admin Office Supervisor within the City
Administrators Office
Hourly Classifications that may be available
dependent on budget:
• Mayor’s Aide
No response

23.41 32 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Dedicated Staff
Positions?
Positions, Whom They Report To, Where
They Are in Budget
Change Anything About
Positions?
• Council Intern
• Assistant to Council I-III
Santa Monica Yes
Two positions in the Council Office, a division in
the CMO.

1. Council Office And Legislative Affairs
Liaison; reports to ACM

2. Administrative Staff Assistant; reports
to Liaison position above
No

NO DEDICATED STAFF POSITIONS
City Dedicated Staff
Positions? How Staff Assistance is Provided Any Planned Dedicated Positions? Berkeley Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Davis No
We have an Admin Specialist who assists all five
Council Members, (meeting scheduling, travel needs,
office supplies, etc.) but she is also the primary
admin assistance for the City Manager, the Assistant
City Manager and others in the City Manager’s
Office. She is not dedicated to the City Council.

The City Manager, Assistant City Manager,
Communications and Community Engagement
Director, City Clerk and other staff in the City
Manager’s Office all assist with various needs of
Council Member; none are dedicated only for the
Council. While Council Members are welcome to use
City offices for meetings, they do not have dedicated
office space or hold regular office hours at City Hall.

They end up being very self-sufficient.

It is also not uncommon for Council Members to
secure college interns to work with them. They often
have these interns attend community meetings, do
research on subjects of interest, etc. Can work really
well in a college town!
No
Fremont Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Pleasanton Yes Not applicable Not applicable
San Luis Obispo No
The officials of the City of San Luis Obispo shall
consist of a City Manager and a City Attorney. Such
officials shall be appointed by and may be removed
only by the affirmative votes of a majority of the
members of the Council. All other officials and
department heads of the City shall be appointed by
and may be removed by the City Manager. The
budget for these positions are found in the City
Administration Department and the City Attorney
Department budgets.

Under the City’s Charter, no other staff report directly to the Council. Council Members can choose to hire
their own unpaid interns; however, these are not City
employees. Council can use their discretionary
“Office Expenses” budget to buy the interns small gift
cards or other “thank you” items.

No

23.42 COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY 33
City Dedicated Staff
Positions? How Staff Assistance is Provided Any Planned Dedicated Positions? The “City Council” Non-staffing budget is $34,400.

This budget is split between the Council Members
accordingly.
• Print and Reproduction: $400
• Office Expenses: $17,400
• Trips & Meetings: $4,600
• League Convention Budget: $12,000
San Rafael No
The City Manager Office’s Senior Administrative
Assistant provides assistance to Council Members
on meeting planning and organization as part of the
scope of duties, but work is not solely dedicated to
City Council Members. Other staff positions may
work directly with Council Members in course of
duties related to sub-Committees, special projects,
and/or Boards and Commissions.

No
Santa Barbara Yes Not applicable Not applicable
Santa Monica Yes Not applicable Not applicable

OTHER COMMENTS
City Comment
Berkeley No response
Davis
We have had Council Members in the past express interest in having their own dedicated staff, but our budget has limited those opportunities. We have an unwritten rule of thumb for any staff that if a Council Member asks them to do a task that takes more than an hour, the staff person needs permission from higher up. In turn, we train our Council Members to go to City Manager, Asst City Manager or Department Head with requests for any staff work. This usually manages to strike the right balance – Council feels supported and we are able to manage requests and staff workload.

Fremont No response
Pleasanton No response
San Luis Obispo No response
San Rafael No response
Santa Barbara No response
Santa Monica No response

23.43 City of Santa
Cruz
Council Compensation and Staffing Study
May 28, 2024
Source: Annette Teng, Wiki

23.44 1. Project Overview

2. Benchmarking Summary

3. Council Interview Themes

4. Options for Consideration

5. Discussion
2 Agenda
Photo courtesy of Bruce Emmerling, Wiki Source: Ponderosapine210, Wiki

23.45 Project Overview
Project Purpose: Conduct an independent
study of compensation provided to mayors and
councilmembers in comparable cities, as well
as how staff support is provided.
3 Key Project Elements
• Benchmarking
• Santa Cruz City Council interviews
• Identification of compensation and staffing options
Source: Vadim Manulov, Wiki

23.46 4
Benchmarking
Summary

23.47 Council Elected by
District? City Population Directly Elected Mayor?
Santa Cruz 61,800 Yes Yes
Peer Average 96,544 6 Yes; 2 No 6 Yes, 2 No
Berkeley 118,950 Yes Yes
Davis 67,048 No Yes
Fremont 223,871 Yes Yes
Pleasanton 76,689 Yes Yes
San Luis Obispo 48,341 Yes No
San Rafael 59,971 Yes Yes
Santa Barbara 87,533 Yes Yes
Santa Monica 89,947 No No
Overview: Survey Cities
5 23.48
Spotlight:

Homelessness
6 Santa Cruz faces greater challenges
than its peers
City Count as a
Percent of County
2022 Point-In-Time
Homelessness Count City
Santa Cruz 1,439 63%
Peer Average 556 18%
Berkeley 803 8%
Davis 181 24%
Fremont 1,026 11%
Pleasanton 72 1%
San Luis Obispo 385 27%
San Rafael 348 31%
Santa Barbara 822 42%
Santa Monica 807 1%

23.49 7
Salaries

23.50 Annual Salary Comparison: Mayor
8 $8,424
$26,910
$41,048 $43,884
$128,500
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Peer
Minimum
(San
Rafael)
Peer
Median
Santa Cruz Peer
Average
Peer
Maximum
(Berkeley)
Salaries vary significantly, but
Santa Cruz is 6% lower than
the peer average.

Data is based on surveys
collected between October
and December 2023.

23.51 Annual Salary Comparison: Council
9 $5,616
$20,524 $21,486
$31,377
$80,955
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Peer
Minimum
(San
Rafael)
Santa Cruz Peer
Median
Peer
Average
Peer
Maximum
(Berkeley)
Again, salaries vary
significantly, but Santa Cruz
is 35% lower than the peer
average.

Data is based on surveys
collected between October
and December 2023.

23.52 Peers with Automatic
Salary Increases
10 Median Household Income
Berkeley and Santa Barbara set Mayor and
Council salaries annually as a percentage of
median income
Change in Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Fremont and Santa Monica adjust Mayor and
Council salaries annually based on the CPI
change over the past year
Source: Aaronbrick, Wiki
(would require a charter change in Santa Cruz)

23.53 11
Staff Support
CP0

23.54 Slide 11
CP0 All the slides in the "staff support" section have been revised Claire Pritchard, 2024-05-20T20:25:49.556

23.55 Dedicated Staff
Support to the
Mayor and
Council
12 • Three peers have staff
entirely dedicated to support • Two peers have staff partially dedicated to support • Only Berkeley has staff
reporting directly to elected
officials
Staff Positions
Dedicated Partially
to Mayor/Council
Staff Positions
Dedicated 100% to
Mayor/Council
City
Santa Cruz 0 0
Berkeley 19 0
Davis 0 0
Fremont 0 2
Pleasanton 0 1
San Luis Obispo 0 0
San Rafael 0 0
Santa Barbara 1 0
Santa Monica 2 0

23.56 Examples of Staff Support
13 Santa Barbara (Full Support) • An Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and Council reports to an Office Supervisor in the City
Administrator’s Office
Santa Monica (Full Support) • A Council Office and Legislative Affairs Liaison reports to the City Manager • An Administrative Staff Assistant reports to the Liaison Source: Don DeBold, Wiki
Fremont (Partial Support) • A Management Analyst reports to the Deputy City Manager • An Executive Assistant to the City Manager reports to the City Manager

23.57 14
Council Interview
Themes

23.58 Potential
Benefits of
Salary
Increases
• Could help expand the candidate
pool to include lower-income
residents
• Recognition of the importance of
the work the Mayor and Council
does
• Recognition of the time spent on
City-related work

23.59 Potential
Unmet Staff
Support Needs
• Policy support for work on regional
bodies
• Research assistance
• Constituent engagement and
support
• Scheduling and email management
• Meeting talking points

23.60 17
Options for
Consideration

23.61 18
Compensation

23.62 Compensation
Considerations
19 Cost of Living
The current salaries were adopted in
2017, but inflation has increased
costs by more than 25% since then
Charter Constraints
The City Charter prohibits salaries from
increasing by more than 5% each
calendar year and prohibits salaries
from increasing automatically.

Source: City of Santa Cruz, Wiki

23.63 20
Staff
Support

23.64 Scheduling Assistance
Potential
Staffing Needs
Key areas for potential support
include:
21 Research Assistance
Meeting and Presentation
Preparation
Email Management

23.65 Staffing Option
1: Reassign
Existing Staff
• Existing staff would be reallocated
to provide additional support to
elected officials
• More research would be needed
into feasibility
22 23.66
Staffing Option 2:

Add Positions to
the City Manager’s
Office • Most consistent with benchmark
communities • Would allow for additional capacity
for support without reducing
capacity for other responsibilities • City Manager’s Office would be responsible for day-to-day
supervision of staff
23 23.67
Estimated
Annual Cost Phase Position Responsibilities
$121,654 • Scheduling
• Email management
Administrative
Assistant III 1
$177,104 • Research assistance
• Meeting and presentation preparation
Management
Analyst 2
Total $298,758
Option 2: Potential New Staff Positions and
Estimated Annual Cost
24 23.68
Staffing Option 3:

Add Positions
Aligned to the
Mayor and Council • Charter requires staff to report to the City Manager, but there could
be a dotted-line relationship to the
Mayor/Council • Could be accomplished through: o Adding temporary staff limited to 999 hours per year o Creating new at-will
classification(s)
25 23.69
Contact: Jan Perkins
949 202 8870 / [email protected]
26 Discussion

23.70 State Controller
Wage Data
Overview (2022)
27 $45,581
$27,964 $26,691
$22,833
Mayor Wages Council Wages
Santa Cruz Peer Average
Santa Cruz Mayor and
Council wages are generally
higher than 30 peer cities
with populations between
50,000 and 225,000
Caveat: Data reported to the State Controller is actual compensation, not authorized. Includes misc. items like stipends which can cause the numbers to vary significantly.

23.71 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/13/2024
AGENDA OF: 05/28/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: FY 2025 Proposed Budget
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget Hearings, receive information from staff for the City’s requested budget across all departments and the Capital Investment Program, and provide feedback for preparation of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Budget can be found here:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/finance/city-budget/fiscal-year2025-budget

24.1 1
Lindsay Nelson
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 12:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 5.24.24 Agenda Item #24 Enormous Budget

5.24.24 Agenda Item #24 Enormous Budget
Dear Council,
I jot a few thoughts down here after a brief look at the budget.

City budgets are long and hard to analyze or compare, but my general brief take on 2024-25 budget starts with comparing this to 2015-16 proposed budget, the last year of easily available data spanning a fairly long 9 year interval, the longer the interval, the better the perspective.

Try to remember this one fact that the quoted population then in 2015 was 63,789 compared now to a decline to 63,224, a population decrease of 1% unless you count homeless people, got me maybe it then went up a little.

The 2015-16 general fund was $86.2 million compared to now f $150.5M, a total increase of 74.5% or about $7.1 million on average every year. The total 2015-16 budget was $212.8 million vs. this budget total of $453.4M, a total increase of $240.6 million, a total increase of 113%, or an average increase of 12.5% of the 2015-16 budget a year.

In 2015-16 was no mention of the “Awaswas” tribe, or “climate change”, or any mention compared to the 21 mentions of “equity” as there is now. No mention of Health and All Policies, originated by a globalist entity (UN) consisting of a majority of countries that aren’t democracies, passed by that brief Progressive City Council that did a lot of damage to the muni code until forced out by an historic recall.

In 2015-16 the city projected a -1.1% budget shortfall, this year it is a similar shortfall taken from general fund reserves.

Employment in 1015-16 was 33,100, now it is 29,700, a decrease of 10.3%. One wonders who is paying the bills and how much more of those bills are paid by those fewer working people, but of course there is welfare and the cesspool of government dependence, as well as people like me who get all their money from outside the city and spend a lot of it here.

In 2015-16’s budget there were projected 735 Full time employees vs. now projected to be 916 plus 27.5 more to 943 FTE's, a total increase of 28.4% or about 3.2 % of

24.2 2
2015-16’s count total every year. This year it is about +3% more of a much higher comparison to the current 916 FTE in 2023-4. (Unless we use that P48 stat of 963 positions, then comparisons get even worse).

I know it’s a “stupid” question, but how about just passing a balanced budget? I mean, are you telling us that balanced is “impossible”. Really? Really? (Insert swear word).

It’s funny how some things change and others don’t, no matter how much income goes up. Like budget deficits and dire predictions of future fiscal doom.

In 2015-16 total debt was $122,5 million , now total debt is $398 million, an increase of 254%, or +28% yearly on average compared to 1015-16 total debt. That’s a whopping rate of increase that we (the people) have not even begun to pay on since most will be offloaded onto utility bills soon. Thank you for sharing.

I’ll offer one comparison. My property tax bill has 9 amendment debt obligations besides normal property taxes. In Santa Clara, I have one, for $100.

As you note, revenue sources rate of increases are topping out after a decade of vast increases, except for your one time jacking of sales taxes which is also now maxed out. One would think the recent past increases in fees are also about tapped out (not holding breath on that one though), so it’s time to face reality, but apparently not this year, or any year.

As to the financial data, I always found amusement with the “Services, Supplies, & Other Charges” category, whatever that is.

I missed the part where you total the amounts spent on consultants. They are essentially employees, but are not counted that way, or even transparently accounted for at all.

Back to point 1, The population has actually decreased in the last 9 years according to your own data.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

24.3 FY 2025
Proposed Budget
Matt Huffaker – City Manager
Elizabeth Cabell – Finance Director
1 24.4
1 Progress in Action
2 Budget Update
3 Capital Investment Program
Agenda
4 Discussion
2 24.5
Fiscal
Sustainability
Safety & Wellbeing
Strong Business
Communities
Housing Thriving
Organization
Natural & Built
Infrastructure
Homelessness
Response
Progress in
Action
Citywide
Strategic Plan
3 24.6
4 4

24.7 Budget Process
July–Oct.

New Fiscal Year
begins, Review
previous Fiscal
Year end
Oct.–Feb.

City Council Goals
and Priorities
Jan.–May
Budget
Development
February
Mid Cycle Review
and Budget
Adjustments
May
Proposed Budget
Available for
Public Review and
comment
May–June
Budget Public
Hearings and
Budget Adoption
5 24.8
New to the
FY 2025
Budget
Document
1 2
3 Adopted by Council on August 8, 2023,
the plan has been incorporated into the
Department Goals and
Accomplishments.

The next budget phase of HiAP has
been incorporated into the FY 2025
budget.

Each department section will start with
an overview of all current and future CIP
projects, followed by Fact Sheets for FY
2025 funded projects.

Citywide Strategic Plan
Health in All Policies (HiAP)
Capital Investment Program
(CIP)
4 An indication of the level to which the FY
2025 Budget complies with City
financial and budgetary policies is
provided.

Financial and Budgetary
Policies
Equity Sustainability Public Health
6 24.9
Themes for FY 2025
• First full post-pandemic budget with no state or federal assistance (ARPA)
• Status quo budget with some additions for new staff, contractual increases, and software needs
• Structurally, revenues are not keeping up with growing expenditures/community needs
7 24.10
Thank You!
Measure L - Closing the Fiscal Gap
• Climate and Environmental Projects
• Public Works Field Services
• Rental Programs
• Homelessness Outreach and Shelter
• Fire Equipment, Maintenance and Training
• Harvey West Pool Operations
• Maintenance of Services Amidst Rising Costs
8 8

24.11 Expenditure Controls and
Cost Shifts Service Delivery Changes Revenue Enhancements Long Range Financial Plan
Budget Strategies Identified
• Implement operational
efficiencies, streamline
operations, strategic
filling of vacant positions
• Invest in CIP Manager
• Full cost recovery in
grants
• Implement technology
• Explore regional shared
service models
• Share homelessness
response with County
• Diversify investment
portfolio/allocation
• Reassess some
maintenance functions
•Increase sales tax
•Create a community
facilities district (parcel tax)
•Increase Parks and
Recreation cost recovery to
50%
•Modernize business license
tax methodology
•Increase admissions tax
•Increase utility user tax
• Increase transient occupancy tax
• Increase cost recovery for GF fees
• Increase landfill tipping fees
• Initiate disc golf program
• Resume audits of taxable entities
• Diversify investment
portfolio/allocation
• Increase parking fees and permit
requirements
9 24.12
10 24.13
General
Fund
Budget
FY 2025 Budget Proposed Adjustments Adopted
Tax revenues $102,064,287 $1,678,970
Additional UUT /
Franchise taxes
$103,764,287
Other revenues 46,146,195 433,342
Admissions tax
46,558,507
Total revenues $148,210,482 $2,112,312 $150,322,794
Personnel services $87,505,212 ($300,987)
Limited term
funding correction
$87,204,225
Services, supplies, &
other charges
54,792,370 54,792,370
Capital, debt service, &
transfers
8,326,199 8,326,199
Total expenditures $150,623,781 ($300,987) $150,322,794 Surplus/(Deficit) ($2,413,300) + $2,413,300 - 11 24.14
General Fund
Additions to
the Budget
Services and Supplies Amount
Contract increases $774,695
Development, building,
and permitting software
500,000
Deferred maintenance 151,646
Legal and compliance
requirements
77,900
One-time requests 62,000
Staff appreciation 14,000
Total $1,580,241
1212

24.15 Consolidation of
Fire Services
Feasibility
Study (1x)
Increases
Absorbed by the
General Fund
Animal Services
JPA Contribution
Alleyway
Activation
City Street
Restriping
Water Rate
Increase at Golf
Course
Harvey West
Pool
Services for FEMA
Cost Recovery
Microsoft 365,
Virtual Server, &
vMware Contract
Increases
Mattress
Replacement in All
Fire Stations
(1x)
911 Dispatch
Contract and
Netcom Price
Increases
Replace 2 Police
Investigations
Vehicles
Fuel

24.16 General
Fund
Positions
Department Position Salaries/
Benefits
City Council/CPVAW Admin Assistant III $121,654
Human Resources Admin Assistant II 100,928
Information Technology Business Sys Analyst III 201,142 Police Police Investigations
Analyst
122,501
Police Police Property and
Evidence Supervisor
148,545
Police Police Records Supervisor 142,474
Total $837,244
14 24.17
Other Funds
Positions
Department Position Funding Source Salaries/
Benefits
Economic
Development
& Housing
Development
Manager
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund 279
$236,365
Economic
Development
& Housing
Principal
Management
Analyst
Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund 279
200,588
Economic
Development
& Housing
Principal
Management
Analyst
Public Art Fund
313
200,588
Finance Risk
Management
Tech
Liability Insurance
Fund 842
124,067
Information
Technology
Business
Systems
Analyst III
Wastewater- 45%
Refuse- 35%
Parking- 10%
General Fund10%
201,142
Public Works Equipment
Mechanic I/II
Fleet Fund 811 87,814
Public Works 4 Resource
Recovery
Workers I/II
Refuse Fund 731 264,163
Total $1,314,727
15 24.18
Limited Term
Positions
Department Position Salaries/
Benefits
Finance Accounting Technicians (3) $372,201
Human
Resources
Human Resources
Technician
130,000
Parks and
Recreation
Assistant Urban Forester 108,000
Public Works Engineering Associate 209,640
Water Admin Assistant III 91,165
Water Utility Service
Representative (2)
193,164
Total $996,170
16 24.19
Citywide Operating Budget - $320.4M
17 24.20
Capital Investment Program (CIP)
FY 2024 Funding FY 2024 Progress FY 2025 -
Moving Forward
Pause, Prioritize, Plan
Re-align Investment Timing with Resource Availability
• No new funding from the
General Fund
• Focus on executing and
completing in process
work
• $141.8M General CIP
• $26.5M expended
• $14.7M encumbered
• Rail Trail Segment 7, Building
Energy Efficiency, Garfield Park
Playground, Beach St. Bathrooms,
Fire Engine Type 1, Fire Paging
System, (paid for) Pierce Ladder
Tiller Truck 107… and more!
• Budget balanced without
$5M investment in CIP
• Investment still happening
via strategic
reprogramming and use of
other funding sources
18 24.21
19 Rail Trail Segment 7
Beach St. Bathrooms
Garfield Park
Playground
Equipment Fire Engine Type 1
Downtown Intersection
Improvements
Harvey West
Clubhouse Fencing
FY 2024

24.22 20
Fire Engine Type 6
West Cliff Stabilization Pacific Station North
Murray St. Bridge
Seismic Retrofitting
Storm Damage
Repair on Wharf
FY 2025

24.23 • Align FY 2025 budget with City
Council's 2023-2028 Strategic
Priorities.
• Enhance organizational resilience
through mindful fiscal strategies.
• Maintain fiscal stability while
supporting innovative services.
• Collaborate with City Staff to
effectively prioritize services for
the community.

Looking Ahead
21 24.24
Housing Programs
Program Fund Source Grantee
FY21
Spent
FY22
Spent
FY23
Spent
FY24
Budget
FY25
Budget
Pending
Awards
Landlord Incentive
Program AHTF Housing Authority $6,240 $1,835 $12,397 $25,102 $30,000 Tenant Based Rental
Eviction
HOME, State Funding
and Red Cross
Community Action
Board 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 9,400
Emergency Eviction
Prevention
HOME and State
Homelessness Funding
Community Action
Board 193,965 6,035 150,000 0 0
Anti displacement
Program AHSC
Community Action
Board
N/A New
Program 150,000 150,000
Tenant Legal Services CDBG CRLA 20,000 25,000 14,460 0 0 Tenant Legal Services CDBG
Housing & Economic
Rights Advocates
(HERA)
N/A New
Program 12,500
Tenant Legal Services CMO – General Fund 29,085 29,363 30,000 50,000 50,000 Security Deposit Program
HOME/CDBG and State
Relocation Funding Housing Authority 61,566 70,640 64,550 86,900 106,900 Rental Assistance State PIP Funds TBD
N/A New
Program 500,000
Total Housing Program
Funds $321,856 143,873 $267,407 $173,002 $358,800 $650,000 22 24.25 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/09/2024
AGENDA OF: 05/28/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Independent Police Auditor Report (CM)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the annual report from the City’s Independent Police Auditor, OIR Group.

BACKGROUND: In January 2003, Santa Cruz City Council created the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) position. The IPA is charged with assisting complainants, providing independent reviews of use of force, citizen complaints and critical incidents, reviewing and making recommendations regarding the Santa Cruz Police Department’s (SCPD) policies and practices, and reporting on findings to City Council annually.

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

The OIR Group reviewed cases with the City’s Public Safety Committee (PSC) and published at least one (1) public report annually. The annual reports included summaries of cases reviewed, information about misconduct complaint investigations and trends, recommendations concerning improvements to SCPD policy, procedures and training, and the results of audits since December 1, 2020.

The OIR Group presented its second annual report to the PSC on March 23, 2022, and then to the City Council on August 23, 2022. For increased transparency, OIR Group recommended, to which the PSC and City Council agreed, to forgo future presentations to PSC and instead provide a public presentation of their annual report to the City Council.

The OIR Group’s third annual report addressed thirty-three (33) use of force and public complaint investigations completed in 2022. The report included twenty-one recommendations that “indicate the SCPD would benefit from enhancing some existing protocols.” In response to the report, the SCPD drafted policy to address sixteen (16) of the twenty-one (21) recommendations.

DISCUSSION: The (OIR Group 4th Annual Review of SCPD) addresses its review of 17 formal investigations closed between January 1 through December 31, 2023. Five (5) of the cases were internally generated by the SCPD, with two (2) cases being deemed “significant incidents.” Complaints from the public externally generated twelve (12) investigations. The

25.1 annual report includes OIR Group’s findings and recommendations, of which five (5) have been addressed and completed by the SCPD, and three (3) are in the process of being completed.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Catherine Brothers
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. OIR GROUP 4TH ANNUAL REVIEW OF SCPD.PDF

25.2 Michael Gennaco
Samara Marion
Teresa Magula
City of Santa Cruz
Independent Police Auditor
4 th Annual Report
May 2024

25.3 323-821-0586
6510 Spring Street #613 | Long Beach, CA 90815
OIRGroup.com

25.4 Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Review of Two Significant Incidents ................................................................................ 3 Incident #1: Officer-Involved Shooting ......................................................................... 3 Incident #2: Canine Bite ............................................................................................. 12 Administrative Process Recommendations ................................................................... 18 Timeliness of Investigations ....................................................................................... 18 A Holistic Approach to Review ................................................................................... 19 Investigations of Racial Bias Allegations ................................................................... 22 Bilingual Correspondence with Complainants ........................................................... 25 Policy and Procedure Recommendations ..................................................................... 26 Warnings Prior to Use of Force ................................................................................. 26 Report-Writing ........................................................................................................... 27 Firearm Safety ........................................................................................................... 28 Traffic Stops and RIPA Data ...................................................................................... 29 Automated License Plate Readers ............................................................................ 29 First Amendment Rights ............................................................................................ 30 Incidents Involving Children & Families ..................................................................... 32 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 34 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 35 Appendix A: Case Summaries & Recommendations .................................................... 37

25.5 25.6
Introduction
In 2003, the City of Santa Cruz established the position of Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) and assigned it the role of auditing the Santa Cruz Police Department (“SCPD”). In Santa Cruz, the IPA is an entity separate from SCPD that is responsible for monitoring the civilian complaint process and other police practices, usually including uses of force and internal investigations. The IPA’s role is to help ensure the legitimacy of SCPD’s internal review processes. It does this through its unfettered access to confidential investigative materials, which provide the basis for objective assessments and recommendations for improvement.

In 2019, the City selected OIR Group to fulfill this role.1 In our role as the IPA, OIR Group reviews investigations of formal civilian and Departmentinitiated complaints completed by SCPD to determine whether they were complete, objective, and thorough, and that actions taken in response to the investigations were appropriate. We also review uses of force, including all critical incidents.

In addition to case review, the IPA team is available to meet with complainants who may want assistance in filing their complaint or to learn about the internal investigation process and our role in it. Throughout the year, we fielded referrals and complaints regarding SCPD actions. The IPA team talked with complainants and assisted them at various stages of 1 OIR Group has been working in the field of independent oversight of law enforcement for two decades. It is led by Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor and a nationally recognized leader in the oversight field, as well as three expert associates. We specialize in evaluating and seeking to strengthen law enforcement policies, practices, and accountability measures. You can learn more at our website, www.OIRGroup.com. You may contact us at [email protected].

25.7 2 | P a g e
the complaint process. We also met with members from the ACLU and the NAACP during the year.

Another key aspect of our work that is central to the IPA model of police accountability is our public reporting on the cases we have reviewed, accompanied by a subsequent presentation to the City Council. This report constitutes our fourth annual report.

From January 1 through December 31, 2023, the Department closed 17 Formal internal investigations. Five of these were internally generated, meaning that the Department chose to initiate an administrative investigation due to the nature of the incident or internal concerns about officer performance; these included two significant incidents (an officerinvolved shooting incident and a canine bite that resulted in injury).

Twelve of these were externally-generated -- complaints from members of the public -- that the Department determined if true would constitute a violation of SCPD policy.2
2 In our 2022 Report, we referred to cases as “Category 1” and “Category 2” and so on. SCPD streamlined its case classification system in late 2022 because it determined that it had become overly complicated. Now, under General Order 1009, investigations are classified in one of three ways: “Formal,” meaning that the complaining party requests further investigation or a department supervisor determines further action is warranted and if true, could result in discipline-; “Inquiry,” meaning questions or concerns by community members about policies or procedures or improper conduct of relatively minor violations of procedure, courtesy or service, which, even if true, would not result in discipline; or “Informational,” meaning that upon complaint receipt, review of the evidence (i.e. body camera footage, police reports) clearly shows the allegations did not occur.

See Santa Cruz Police Department Policy Manual Policy 1009 Personnel Complaints, available at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/97437/6384126 81431200000

25.8 P a g e | 3
Review of Two Significant
Incidents
Incident #1: Officer-Involved Shooting
In 2023, SCPD officers were involved in a non-injury officer-involved shooting incident. The Department issued a detailed “Critical Incident” video and released all related video footage in timely fashion as required by California law.3
The Critical Incident video ends with a description of the various investigative tracks to which the shooting was subjected, beginning in its immediate aftermath. These include the criminal investigation – which was handled jointly by the Critical Incident Investigation Team (CIIT), a team of County resources including the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and SCPD personnel. SCPD’s Professional Standards unit completed a parallel administrative review.

The criminal case was completed and submitted for a prosecutorial determination as to legality; the District Attorney’s Office determined that the officers’ use of deadly force was justified.

As part of our scope of work, we received the full investigative file for review.
3 The Critical Incident Briefing Video and all related body-worn and in car camera footage can be accessed at https://vimeo.com/showcase/10276361

25.9 4 | P a g e
Incident Summary
In the early morning hours, SCPD received a call for service of a subject who had pointed a gun and threatened to shoot a resident. Officer 1, a training officer, and Officer 2, his trainee, responded to the call; Officer 2 was driving. As they drove up to the location, Officers 1 and 2 observed a black SUV parked partially on the roadway and partially on a front lawn.

Officer 2 slowed the police vehicle to a stop as Officer 1 stated, “light it up, light it up.” Officer 2 activated the police vehicle’s emergency lights and placed the police vehicle in park (in his interview, Officer 1 clarified that he wanted Officer 2 to illuminate the SUV with the police vehicle’s spotlight, but Officer 2 misunderstood and activated the red and blue emergency lights instead).

As the police vehicle was slowing, the subject raised his arms out of the SUV’s sunroof, and then immediately dropped down and pointed a firearm through the open passenger’s side window in the direction of the police vehicle.

Officer 1 rapidly exited the police vehicle, broadcast that he needed priority radio traffic, yelled “Drop it!” and stepped backward along the passenger side of the vehicle. Officer 1 fired seven rounds from his firearm in the direction of the SUV in rapid succession. According to Officer 1, he observed a subject in the front seat of the SUV pointing a firearm out of the open passenger’s side window in the direction of the police vehicle. Officer 1 paused, stepped to his right for better positioning, and fired four more rounds. When he could no longer see the subject, he stopped firing and performed a tactical reload.

Meanwhile, Officer 2 reported that when he looked back from turning on the lights, he observed the subject lift his arm and point a firearm at their location through an open passenger’s front side window. Feeling too exposed in the front seat, he exited the driver’s side and ran to the rear of the police vehicle. As he ran, he heard gunshots, but could not tell where the gunshots were coming from; he believed that he was hearing an

25.10 P a g e | 5
exchange of gunfire between his partner and the subject. He broadcast “shots fired” as he reached the rear of the police vehicle.

At this point, Officer 2 reported that he could still see the subject moving.

He did not see a firearm but believed that the subject was still armed, could see the subject’s hands pointed in his direction and heard shots being fired. Officer 2 reported that he thought that the subject was firing at him and his partner. Believing that he and his partner were in imminent danger, Officer 2 fired four rounds down the left side of the police vehicle in the direction of the SUV. He stopped firing when he could no longer see the subject.

Officer 1 instructed Officer 2 to “back up” and also broadcast, “shots fired.” Both officers met at the rear of the police vehicle and yelled for the subject to show his hands. Additional SCPD officers, personnel from the California Highway Patrol, and Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office deputies arrived, as well as an armored rescue vehicle. Officers 1 and 2 informed the responding units that the subject was in the backseat of the SUV.

At least one officer yelled that the subject had thrown the gun out of the window. Later, a BB gun made to resemble a pistol was recovered from the ground where the subject had thrown it. There were no markings on the BB gun to distinguish it from an actual firearm.

A supervisor arrived and took Officers 1 and 2 aside for a public safety statement and debrief. Officer 1 advised that he fired several rounds at the subject’s vehicle and that perhaps a female subject was outstanding, and Officer 2 advised that he had fired rounds.

Officer 1 then resumed a tactical position in the ongoing incident. He unholstered his firearm and continued to issue commands to the subject to show his hands. When they made contact with the subject, Officer 1 asked if the subject was injured and if anyone else was inside the vehicle.

Officer 1 instructed the subject to exit the vehicle, which he did, and directed the subject to walk back toward the officers. Santa Cruz Sheriff Deputies formed an arrest team and apprehended the subject. The subject was not injured.

25.11 6 | P a g e
Meanwhile, a supervisor instructed Officer 2 to move police vehicles that had blocked the roadway (but not his own police vehicle, which had been involved in the critical incident) to make room for the armored rescue vehicle to approach. He then returned to stand near Officer 1, unholstered his firearm, and held it at the low ready until the subject was apprehended.

The supervisor directed Officers 1 and 2 to contact the original reporting party, who stated that she was not injured and had not observed anyone else in the vehicle. The supervisor then directed the officers to not speak with each other. Both were transported to the police station, where they waited in separate offices. They were placed on Administrative Leave and released from duty that day.

Once the scene was secure, the Critical Incident Investigation Team (CIIT) was mobilized. This team, made up of representatives from the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and SCPD personnel, began their criminal review of the officer-involved shooting. A representative from SCPD’s Professional Standards Unit also responded to begin the administrative investigation.

As part of this investigation, a Sheriff’s Office Deputy attempted to turn on Officer 1 and 2’s patrol vehicle passenger-side spotlight to illuminate the area around the patrol vehicle to search for evidence. He observed that the backside of the spotlight appeared to have a bullet hole in it and was broken. He then turned off the vehicle’s red and blue emergency lights and turned on the driver’s side spotlight. He documented these changes to the involved patrol vehicle in a police report that he later submitted to SCPD. It was later determined that one of Officer 1’s shots had likely struck the patrol vehicle’s spotlight.

Later that day, the subject was interviewed by the CIIT with SCPD’s Professional Standards investigator present. The subject reported that he believed he had shot his firearm into the air when the officers were present.

Two days later, Officers 1 and 2 provided interviews to the CIIT led by a District Attorney’s Office Investigator. Both officers declined to review their body-worn camera footage prior to providing the interview.

25.12 P a g e | 7
Upon completing its investigation, the CIIT presented its findings to the District Attorney, who determined that the officers’ use of deadly force was justified.

SCPD’s administrative investigation found the officers’ use of deadly force to be within policy, and SCPD command staff “exonerated” both officers.

OIS Investigative Process: Review & Recommendations
SCPD provided the case file, which included all police reports, body-worn, in car, and resident camera footage, photographs, recorded interviews, and investigative reports, for our review. We found the investigations to be complete and thorough and agree with the ultimate findings.

However, we did identify areas in the investigative process that we recommend SCPD revise to reflect best practices that have been adopted by progressive policing agencies nationwide.

First, we noted that Officers 1 and 2 each provided a brief safety statement to the responding supervisor and then resumed roles in the ongoing incident despite the fact that many other officers had responded in the interim: Officer 1 took over communication with the subject while Officer 2 was tasked with moving police vehicles, and later joined Officer

1. Once the subject was apprehended and the scene secured, both officers were then assigned to contact the reporting party to gather more information.

While in this case the continued on-scene presence and assistance of the involved officers might have been necessary to resolve the active situation, a best practice is to ensure that involved officers be immediately sequestered, and not assigned new roles and responsibilities, when feasible.

While the County’s Critical Incident Guidelines note that the subject officers should be separated “as soon as possible,” SCPD’s internal policy, General Order 306: Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths, does not provide any detailed guidance on when and how to sequester subject officers immediately following a critical incident. We recommend that the Department provide this guidance through either a training bulletin or further development of policy.

25.13 8 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 1
SCPD should revise its critical incident protocols or develop training materials to ensure that once an officer-involved shooting scene is secure, SCPD should direct any available officer to immediately sequester involved officers and prevent those officers from further involvement in the incident.

RECOMMENDATION 2
SCPD should revise current policy or develop training materials to explicitly require that all involved officers shall be observed and sequestered until they are able to provide a Public Safety Statement to a supervisor, and then removed from the immediate scene of an officer-involved shooting, when feasible.

Second, we noted that the subject officers were released from duty the evening of the incident and were interviewed two days after the incident occurred. We have discussed this at length with SCPD. In our 2022 Annual Report, we recommended that subject officers be required to provide an interview before the end of shift unless extenuating circumstances preclude this, such as an officer injury, and to update policy accordingly. At that time, SCPD responded that the County’s Critical Incident Guidelines provided sufficient guidance on subject officer interviews and declined to change their own policy.

We noted, however, that the Guidelines are not prescriptive, and leave the timing of subject officer interviews up to the individual investigator (see section G.3.e. of the Guidelines). While they do not prevent same-shift interviews, the guidelines suggest that the investigator can delay if the investigator believes that a “rest period” would result in a more complete and thorough interview.4
4 As we stated in our earlier report, memory experts have debunked the notion that there is any improved memory recall after an individual goes through several

25.14 P a g e | 9
While we note improvement from a 3-day delay in the previous case that gave rise to our 2022 recommendation to a 2-day delay, we advise that the County revisit its Guidelines and express a preference for same-day interviews to better align with 21st Century critical incident investigative practices.5 And, as we advised in 2022, we also again recommend that the Department revise its own internal policy, Policy 306, to express that same preference to require interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift. This latter step is particularly important, insofar as the Department has direct control over its own procedures.

SCPD advised of its agreement with the goal of having a same-shift interview barring extenuating circumstances but believed that sufficient extenuating circumstances existed in this incident to warrant a delay. The Department notes that the shooting occurred in the pre-dawn hours towards the end of the involved officers’ shift. SCPD further noted that roll-out protocols require time for the investigators from the District Attorney’s Office to assemble, obtain preliminary information about the incident, and review the scene prior to conducting interviews. The Department further notes the challenges of having the officers’ representatives timely responding to the scene.

While we recognize that there are logistical challenges to obtaining sameshift interviews from involved officers, other jurisdictions have overcome those challenges and routinely obtain same shift interviews after officerinvolved shootings. Oftentimes a shooting occurs in the late night or predawn hours, yet those jurisdictions (such as LAPD) are able to muster investigators, officer attorneys, and review the scene and then obtain a same-shift interview. Most of the “extenuating circumstances” cited by “sleep cycles”. See, “What Should Happen After An Officer-Involved Shooting?” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5 (2016) 246–251. 5 We recognize that the timing of the criminal interview is largely controlled by the District Attorney. That being said, we recommend that SCPD continue to work with its County partners to obtain an interview prior to end of shift as the ideal objective. And SCPD does control the timing of the administrative interview which could be conducted by end of shift regardless of the timing of the criminal interview.

25.15 10 | P a g e
SCPD are going to be evident following every officer-involved shooting, and as a result, the exception is bound to swallow the rule.

We also recognize that the District Attorney has been designated as the lead agency for investigating these critical incidents in Santa Cruz County and that its investigators have a significant role in determining when the interviews of involved officers are to occur. However, the City of Santa Cruz, as one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the County should have influence in setting out protocols for how officer-involved shootings are to be investigated and when interviews of involved officers are to occur.

We also recognize the concern of conducting two separate interviews should the District Attorney investigators are pre-disposed not to conduct same shift interviews. However, if SCPD conducted a same shift administrative interview, the officer could agree to have that interview used as part of the criminal interview, thus avoiding the need for separate interviews. In short, while we appreciate and recognize the complexities of these events, the higher interest should be in obtaining a “pure statement” from officers, free from contamination and degradation of memory over time and advocate for same shift interviews, SCPD’s articulated competing concerns notwithstanding.

RECOMMENDATION 3
SCPD and its County partners should revisit its Critical Incident Guidelines and express a preference for same-day interviews to better align with 21st Century critical incident investigative practices, unless precluded by extenuating circumstances such as an injury of an officer.

RECOMMENDATION 4
SCPD should revise its own internal policy, General Order 306, to express that same preference to require interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift.

Third, we noted that Department General Order 428: Body-Worn Camera Policy currently allows subject officers the opportunity to view their own body-worn camera footage prior to providing the interview, as follows:

25.16 P a g e | 11
428.12. CRITICAL INCIDENTS […] Personnel who are involved in any critical incident shall be permitted to view their recording prior to providing a formal statement or written report. Personnel may consult with legal representation prior to viewing their recordings.

In this case, and to their credit, both officers declined to view their bodyworn camera footage prior to their interviews on the advice of their legal representation. This is a perspective we strongly agree with: we discourage the practice of allowing officers to view video footage prior to providing statements. We prefer that officers provide a “pure” statement, followed by the opportunity to review video footage and clarify their statement if necessary.

While the officers and their legal representatives chose not to view their video in this case, we advise that SCPD revise its body-worn camera policy to formally reflect this best practice.6
6 See Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)’s December 2023 recommendation that officers involved in a critical incident be interviewed before watching relevant body worn camera footage. “Body-Worn Cameras A Decade Later: What We Know” (December 2023), pages 24-31;
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/BWCdecadelater.pdf.

This would also align SCPD with the Santa Clara County Chiefs’ Association Officer-Involved Incident Guidelines, which state the involved officer interview should occur before the officer has reviewed any recordings of the incident. It states: “The initial interview of an Involved Officer should occur before the officer has reviewed any audio/video recordings of the incident. An Involved Officer will have an opportunity to review recordings after the initial statement has been taken. Investigators should be mindful that audio/video recordings have limitations and may depict events differently than the events recalled by an Involved Officer. If the investigator shows any audio/video recordings to an Involved Officer after the initial interview, the investigator has the discretion to admonish an Involved Officer about the limitations of audio/visual recordings.” See the full policy at:

25.17 12 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 5
SCPD should modify language in its current policy so that officers are to first provide a pure statement, then have the opportunity to review any body-worn camera recordings and an opportunity to supplement their statement if that review enhances or refreshes their recollection
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this incident prompted us to inquire about SCPD’s convening of its Use of Force Review Board to holistically review incidents beyond evaluating the use of force explicitly. The Department reported that it plans to establish and regularly hold a Use of Force Board Review Board and has held its first session to evaluate this specific officer-involved shooting. We look forward to learning more about the process, to attending a Board review should the opportunity to do so arise in the future, and to evaluating the Board’s findings and recommendations.

Incident #2: Canine Bite
In 2021, SCPD officers engaged in an incident that resulted in the wrong individual being bitten by a police canine. The bite victim filed a civil case against the City seeking damages for his injuries. The Department initiated a formal administrative review of the incident.

As detailed below, the investigation of this case was not completed in a timely manner, which, as we discuss, had significant implications for the ultimate outcome.
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/8877/Officer-InvolvedIncident-Guidelines

25.18 P a g e | 13
Incident Summary
Officer 1 responded to a call of a residential burglary that had been interrupted, and believed the subject was a male who had previously committed an armed robbery. Officer 2 also responded and deployed her assigned patrol rifle. While officers were speaking to the reporting party, a vehicle entered the driveway of the residence. A male, later identified as the subject, exited the residence, and spoke with the male driver of the vehicle, who was later identified as the victim whose residence had been burglarized.

At the time, the officers did not know the identities of the two males; they were dressed similarly and were of similar stature.

The subject threw a glass bottle at the victim and began running away, and the victim pursued him on foot. The subject threw a kitchen knife at the victim. Officer 2 observed the knife land on the sidewalk and pursued the two men on foot while holding the rifle.

Meanwhile, Officer 1 followed in his vehicle.

The males stopped and began to fight. Officer 1 exited his police vehicle with his police canine. According to his report, Officer 1 observed the two males separate from each other, but did not know who they were or why they were fighting. He decided to deploy his canine to prevent the males from continuing to attack one another.

Without giving any verbal warnings that the canine would be used, Officer 1 commanded the canine to bite; Officer 1 reported that there was insufficient time to give a verbal warning. The canine lunged and, in doing so, pulled Officer 1 to the ground. The canine bit the victim’s hand. The two males raised their hands and stood apart from each other, and Officer 1 again commanded the canine to bite. The canine did not bite, appeared to be confused, and ran in circles around the two males.

Meanwhile, other officers had arrived at the location, including Officer 2.

They issued commands to the two males to lay on the ground. Both

25.19 14 | P a g e
complied and were handcuffed. Later, the officers identified one man as the victim and the other as the subject, provided the victim medical treatment for the dog bite, and transported the subject to jail. A supervisor responded to conduct a use of force investigation consistent with SCPD’s protocol.

Internal Review Process Recommendations: Scope &
Findings
When we received the investigation, we found the scope – which exclusively evaluated the use of the canine -- to be insufficient, and that this limited scope resulted in incomplete findings. We discussed this concern with the Department. SCPD shared that they faced various larger challenges in investigating this case that they are in the process of addressing.

First, the Department reported that the PSU investigator was explicitly directed to review the use of the canine because the canine bite was the main subject of the civil claim. However, upon review, we found other areas that should have been considered, and discussed these with SCPD; these included Officer 2’s decision to engage in a foot pursuit, whether responding officers effectively considered use of de-escalation tactics, and the performance of the supervisor on scene. SCPD agreed that, in retrospect, the scope of this investigation had been too narrowly tailored.

Second, we noted, and the Department acknowledged, that the incident was not thoroughly investigated when it occurred. While a supervisor responded to the scene, that supervisor did not conduct a formal use of force review because there was initial confusion about whether the canine deployment had injured the victim. As a result, the incident was not formally evaluated using the Department’s reporting and review requirements as listed in its Use of Force policy. SCPD reported that it is committed in the future to better tracking and a more robust review of these cases.

But we recommend going a step further by formalizing the review process for canine bite cases specifically. Current policy, General Order 309:

25.20 P a g e | 15
Canines, only requires that canine bites be documented in an administrative report. We recommend that SCPD update this policy to require that all canine bites be reviewed using the formal use of force review process, including on-scene investigation (e.g., interview of subjects, victims and witnesses), review by command staff, and convening of a Use of Force Review Board. This addition would reflect its commitment to a robust reporting and review process for serious incidents such as canine bites.

RECOMMENDATION 6
SCPD should update General Order 309: Canines to require that all canine bites be reviewed using the Department’s formal use of force review process, including on-scene investigation (e.g., interview of subjects, victims and witnesses), review by command staff, and a Use of Force Review Board.

A third challenge was the inability to interview the subject officer. By the time that the PSU initiated the investigation many months later, the subject officer had retired from SCPD, and, despite several attempts to interview him, PSU was unable to obtain an interview. When coupled with the supervisor’s limited on-scene investigation, this left informational gaps and questions unanswered.

All of these factors undermined the overall quality of SCPD’s response to the incident and its ability to render an evidence-informed conclusion.

As written in his memo, the investigator relied solely on what the officer had written in his Incident Report as the rationale for his first canine deployment: the officer articulated that he deployed the canine to prevent the fleeing and fighting subjects, one of which was wanted for a felony, from further harming one another. Seeing this as a reasonable reason to use the canine, the Department found the first canine deployment to be in policy. The Department then found the failure to issue a verbal warning and the second bite command to be “Not Sustained” because they did not have sufficient evidence to know what the officer observed that caused him to direct the second bite, or if he had time to issue a verbal warning (the officer reported that he did not have time to issue a warning, despite body-worn camera footage showing that he perhaps did).

25.21 16 | P a g e
SCPD responded that the newly established Use of Force Review Board, more training for field supervisors, and more training and experience for PSU investigators, will remedy many of the concerns raised by this investigation going forward. We will continue to collaborate with SCPD to help ensure that future investigations are timely, properly scoped and thoroughly investigated to allow for a holistic evaluation of significant incidents.

Policy Implications: Foot Pursuit and Canine Procedure
As we noted, among the areas of concern was Officer 2’s decision to split from her partner, engage in a foot pursuit of a possibly armed subject and a second unknown subject alone and while carrying her rifle, while Officer 1 followed in his police vehicle. Our review suggested that this tactical decision placed Officer 2 in a compromised position (holding the rifle, with limited capacity to use other force options if they were needed) and without physically proximate back-up and cover. Our discussion prompted SCPD to draft a new policy regarding foot pursuits, which it did not previously have. We worked with SCPD to develop a policy based on model policies nationwide, and as of the publication of this report, the Department is in the process of finalizing the policy.

We commend this important policy development that will provide important guidance regarding when and how officers should engage in a foot pursuit balancing officer safety with public safety needs. Once the policy is implemented, we recommend that SCPD train officers in the new policy and evaluate any incidents that involve a foot pursuit against this policy.

RECOMMENDATION 7
Upon implementation of its new Foot Pursuit Policy, SCPD should train officers in its new Foot Pursuit Policy.

RECOMMENDATION 8
Once implemented, SCPD should evaluate all incidents that involve a foot pursuit for compliance with the Foot Pursuit policy.

25.22 P a g e | 17
While discussing this incident, SPCD also related that, like many departments, the canine unit created and maintains a Procedure Manual for canine deployments; this is used for training and general reference by canine officers. But SCPD reported that these procedures are not all codified or reflected in the Department’s policy. Conversely, the Manual does not contain all policy requirements. We recommended, and the Department agreed, to align the Procedure Manual with the policy.

RECOMMENDATION 9
SCPD should align the canine unit’s Procedure Manual with General Order 309: Canines.

25.23 18 | P a g e
Administrative Process
Recommendations
Timeliness of Investigations
As we reported last year, since the fall of 2021, the Department has taken significant steps to address delays in the investigation of officer misconduct allegations. The Department enhanced its system for tracking and monitoring investigations and appointed a new sergeant who steadily addressed a backlog of force and complaint investigations. To the Department’s credit, in 2023 it completed investigations in all of its outstanding 2020 through 2022 cases except one.

The Department’s efforts to address its backlog are commendable. And, fortunately, timeliness concerns did not result in any significant issues in the majority of cases, as the allegations in most were found to be unfounded or exonerated after the Department completed its thorough investigation.

However, in a few cases, the delay did have an impact. For example, the investigative delay caused significant issues in the critical incident involving the canine bite discussed above, where the subject officer was no longer available for an interview because of his retirement.

25.24 P a g e | 19
In another case, we noted that the delay in the investigation also resulted in evidence gaps. In that case, fifteen months after the incident, the complainant alleged that the traffic stop, search of her purse and vehicle, detention, and handcuffing were unlawful and the result of biased policing due to her talking with a homeless person.7 The PSU investigator who took her complaint (which occurred prior to the new sergeant’s assignment) identified body worn camera footage of the incident but failed to properly categorize it as evidence of a public complaint and thus, it was purged. Other evidence concerning the stop was very limited. None of the involved officers documented the results of the search and the complainant’s detention in handcuffs as required by policy. The previous PSU investigator’s failure to preserve critical body worn camera footage undermined the Department’s ability to investigate and evaluate whether officer performance met SCPD expectations as set out in policy.

As we noted above, the Department has made marked strides in the timeliness of internal investigations and has now staffed its PSU appropriately to address these issues. We will continue to monitor case timelines to ensure they meet policy and best practice guidelines.

A Holistic Approach to Review
In some investigations, we were impressed with SCPD’s willingness to identify and take formal action, including framing allegations and issuing discipline, on misconduct that only emerged in the course of the investigation – and transcended the particulars of the original complaint.

However, we also found (as with the canine deployment discussed above) that the scope of some cases was too limited.
7 We acknowledge that any time that there is a significant delay before a complaint is received, it creates investigative challenges.

25.25 20 | P a g e
In another case, we found that SCPD should have considered additional performance issues. Our review of an internal investigation of an officer’s actions during a fatal overdose incident who engaged in misconduct in three other incidents close in time prompts our recommendation that the Department adopt a more holistic approach to multiple incidents of misconduct involving the same officer.

In 2022, the Department initiated an internal investigation into an officer’s conduct following an incident whereby a Santa Cruz resident succumbed to a fatal overdose. Responding to a 911 call of drug-ingested medical distress, the officer arrived on scene where an unresponsive individual was on the ground being attended by two individuals.

While Santa Cruz Fire Department personnel assisted the individual in medical distress, the officer talked with the reporting party (“RP”). In reviewing the body-worn camera footage of this conversation, we found the officer took a casual, conversational demeanor. The officer did not request any information that would have been necessary for her report/investigation, such as the RP’s name or contact information, nor did she collect relevant information from a bystander witness or medical personnel. The officer then departed for another service call. The officer later learned that the victim had died at the hospital.

In reviewing police reports, we noted that the officer failed to include important information regarding the victim’s death, such as the circumstances of his death and possible witnesses, and incorrectly reported other information.

The Department’s investigation found that the officer failed to fulfill her duties as the primary investigative officer and that the report she drafted contained significant errors and omissions. The Department also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine if the officer’s conduct on scene was unbecoming. The Department imposed discipline and recommended a performance improvement plan. To its credit and as discussed in more detail below, the Department also recommended changes to its Report Writing policy to enumerate the responsibility of supervisors and to include overdose cases among death cases requiring specific investigation and documentation procedures.

We commend the Department for initiating its own internal administrative investigation of the incident. Nonetheless, we found that several aspects

25.26 P a g e | 21
of this incident and the officer’s conduct merited further scrutiny.

In addition to the Department’s focus on the officer’s failure to properly investigate and write a complete and accurate report, we suggest that the Department should have addressed the overall way the officer’s approach to her role and responsibilities fell below the standard expected of law enforcement. For example, although the primary investigating officer on scene, it appeared she did not talk with the Fire Department personnel or check with them about the status of the individual who was in medical distress. Communicating with medical personnel and sharing relevant information that may assist in an individual’s medical treatment are basic expectations of a primary investigating officer.

Regarding the investigation into the officer’s unbecoming conduct, we found the scope too limited: the investigation focused on the officer’s casual conversation with the RP, during which she shared experiences of having attended “rave” events. Here, the Department could have evaluated the officer’s overall comportment, decision-making and interactions with the persons on scene to determine whether her actions were consistent with the professionalism expected of law enforcement or constituted conduct unbecoming an officer. And even if that review did not result in an adverse finding, a review of her body worn camera with a more seasoned officer could have provided an important coaching opportunity.

We encourage the Department to build on its commitment to rigorous selfassessment: at its best, the internal investigative process is a vehicle for self-scrutiny that an agency will approach in an inclusive manner. We encourage SCPD to engage in broader “issue spotting” and provide appropriate remedial action across all PSU investigations.

RECOMMENDATION 10
SCPD should conduct a holistic review of all cases and engage in broader “issue spotting” to provide the appropriate level of investigation and remedial action across all PSU investigations.

25.27 22 | P a g e
Investigations of Racial Bias Allegations
In this reporting period, SCPD received two cases involving an allegation of bias-based policing. One of these involved an allegation of racial bias that prompted a discussion of how best to investigate these difficult cases.

Cases involving allegations of racial bias can be unsatisfying for complainants and accused officers alike as, nationwide, they are rarely, if ever, sustained. These allegations are notoriously hard to prove as much depends on the subjective or implicit mindset and motivations of the involved officers.

In this case, an SCPD officer observed a subject sitting in a parked vehicle that he knew to have an outstanding felony warrant. The subject refused to exit his vehicle, and five other officers responded to assist. The subject eventually complied. During the encounter, the subject accused the officers of being racist several times, stating that they only stopped him because of his race. Because of these allegations, officers called a supervisor to the scene.

Eventually, the subject was arrested on the warrant and his vehicle was towed. Later that day, another SCPD supervisor contacted the subject to follow-up on the complaint of racial bias. The subject reported that the officers were racist and that, while searching his vehicle, the officers had purposefully damaged the interior with a knife. He could not, however, articulate any specific reasons he felt that the officers were racist. SCPD classified this case as a “Category 1” investigation and conducted a formal investigation.

SCPD framed allegations of biased-based policing (General Order 401) and unbecoming conduct (General Order 320) against the six employees who responded to the scene. Based on its investigation, which included reviews of all body-worn camera and incident reports and interviews with all employees - except for one who had resigned in the interim - and the complainant, SCPD unfounded all allegations. Here, the officers – and in particular the first-responding officer who observed the subject -- all reported that their prior knowledge that the subject had an outstanding warrant, and not his race, was the motivating factor for initiating police contact.

While we found SCPD’s investigation to be thorough in this case and agree with the ultimate findings, we recommend that its investigations of

25.28 P a g e | 23
racial profiling could go further. In an effort to better investigate these challenging cases, and to go beyond the paradigm of "You stopped me because of my race" vs. "No, I didn't," research has suggested that racial bias investigations seek to answer an explicit set of questions. By specifically evaluating an incident in this way, the Department can better hone-in on the basis for the complainant's perceptions and analyze the relevant encounter in its complete context.

1. Intent. Investigators should consider the officer’s intent, both explicit and implicit, and especially probe this in officer interviews. For example, did the officer have a “veil of darkness” prior to contacting the subject (that is, could the office identify the subject’s race prior to a contact?)? Did the officer have an articulable and reasonable rationale for contacting the subject?
In this case, the officer reported that he knew that the subject had an outstanding felony warrant, and his subsequent actions were based on this knowledge, not on the subject’s race or ethnicity.

2. Knowledge and Impact. The investigation should explore why the subject perceived racial bias. Was that perception reasonable based on the officer’s actions? Here, the subject was not able to articulate why he believed that the officer’s actions were racially-motivated, and only responded that he was stopped, “because [he was] Mexican.” Conversely, the investigation should explore if the officer believed that his/her actions might be perceived as racial bias. And, if that belief might occur, did the officer take any action to mitigate the perceived bias? In this case, the officer repeatedly informed the subject that he had an outstanding warrant but did not explicitly connect this to the stop or address the subject’s repeated assertions that the officers were racist (except by attempting to clarify if the subject thought that he was racist, or all officers were racist).

3. Repeat behavior. Research has recommended that investigations of racial bias go beyond the isolated incident to assess a larger sampling of the subject officer's activity to look for noteworthy patterns or disproportionalities. For example, does this officer have a pattern of allegations of racial bias? Does the office exhibit any race-based patterns of practice related to stops or other police encounters? Some jurisdictions have gone so far as to test “comparator evidence,” an analysis of the officer’s actions in same type of encounter, but with a

25.29 24 | P a g e
subject of a different race. This is an especially effective tool in evaluating the outcomes of traffic stops.

SCPD did not conduct this type of analysis in this investigation. While a “deep dive” may not have been warranted in this specific investigation because the officer was able to articulate his rationale with certainty, we do recommend at least some review of subject officers’ complaint history and recent stop data statistics.

RECOMMENDATION 11
SCPD should consider more detailed analysis of biased-based policing investigations, including at least a document review of subject officers’ complaint history and recent stop data statistics.

In reviewing this case, we also reviewed the Department’s General Order 401: Biased-Based Policing Policy. We found that the definition of biasedbased policing could be amplified to match the Penal Code referenced by the Department more explicitly (PC §13519.4) as follows:
"The consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest."
We note that SCPD’s current definition of biased-based policing does not explain the type of law enforcement activities the policy covers such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches, property seizure, removing occupants from car during a traffic stop, issuing a citation and making an arrest.

25.30 P a g e | 25
We recommend that SCPD update its policy to reflect this more comprehensive definition of biased-based policing. The Department has drafted policy to address this recommendation.

Bilingual Correspondence with
Complainants
In the case detailed above, we also noted that all written correspondence with the complainant was in English, though the complainant communicated in Spanish. We recommend that the Department consider translating all written correspondence, such as the close-out letter, with complainants who predominantly communicate in another language. The Department agrees with this recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 12
When corresponding with complainants known to communicate in a language other than English, SCPD should consider translating all written correspondence, such as the close-out letter, into the complainant’s language using the City’s translation services.

25.31 26 | P a g e
Policy and Procedure
Recommendations
Warnings Prior to Use of Force
In our 2022 Annual Report, we recommended that the Department enhance its Use of Force policy by requiring, when feasible,8 that officers provide a verbal warning and opportunity to comply before using force.

Several law enforcement agencies require a verbal warning before force is used. For example, Los Angeles Police Department Use of Force policy states “[w]here feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of any force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of those facts.”9 United States Homeland Security’s policy also instructs officers to provide a warning and time to comply before using force.10 University of California Santa Cruz Police Department includes a similar requirement.11 Additionally, the Major 8 We suggest “when feasible” to describe the duty to warn for consistency with the state law’s requirement that officers use de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics and other alternatives to force “when feasible.” In the context of an officer’s duty to de-escalation, state law defines feasible as “means reasonably capable of being done or carried out under the circumstances to successfully achieve the arrest or lawful objective without increasing risk to the officer or another person.” (California Government Code section 7286 (a)(3).) 9 (LAPD Volume I, Use of Force 556.10
(1/26/23). https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-manual/
10 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Department Policy on the Use of Force Policy Statement 044-05, page 3 (September 7, 2018). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmtdir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf. 11 (See UC Santa Cruz Police Department Use of Force policy, Section 806 1/15/21). https://police.ucsc.edu/report/policies/use-of-force.html

25.32 P a g e | 27
Cities’ Chiefs Association recommends that “[p]rior to the use of any kind of force, when safe and feasible, officers should provide a warning and allow the individual(s) time to comply.”12
Significantly, SCPD already has a similar warning requirement in its use of force policies prior to deployment of deadly force (Policy 300.4), deployment of less lethal force (Policy 303.3 and 303.9.2), and deployment of a Taser (Policy 305.4). The logic for such a warning requirement, particularly considering the emphasis on de-escalation, should naturally extend to all uses of force.

Additionally, we suggest that officers be required to document whether a warning was given prior to using force and if not, an explanation as to why a warning was not feasible.

As of publication of this Report, the Department has drafted policy to address our recommendation to require a warning and time to comply before the use of force.

Report-Writing
In several cases reviewed, we noted overall challenges with the accuracy and completeness of officers’ police reports. Report writing is a fundamental procedural component of police work as accurate and complete reports are often-times critical to case outcomes. And if officers are experiencing challenges with this component of police work, it is incumbent on their supervisors to train and teach these report-writing skills.
12 (Major Cities Chiefs Association, “Final Report of the MCCA Police Reform Working Group January 2021, page 6.)
https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MCCA-Police-ReformWorking-Group-Report.pdf

25.33 28 | P a g e
In discussion with the Department, we learned that the issues related to report writing were already of concern: SCPD reported that “kick-backs,” or a supervisor sending an incomplete or inaccurate report back to an officer for revisions are an ongoing challenge for the Department. SCPD is not alone in these challenges: issues with report writing are a commonality that we have identified in nearly every jurisdiction that we audit.

While supervisors were already reviewing and returning reports in practice, we and SCPD felt it important to formally create a review mechanism by adding this explicit supervisor responsibility to the report writing policy, General Order 321. SCPD added a section that requires that all reports, even those generated at the front counter or by Records Bureau personnel, be reviewed by a shift supervisor. Now, per the policy update, “All supervisors have the authority and responsibility to review all reports critically.”
The policy details each component that a supervisor must review, including basics such as grammar and readability, to checking for “canned language.” And, in the absence of a supervisor, the reports will be checked by a Watch Commander or other command staff.

We will continue to assess the accuracy and completeness of police reports in our case reviews.

Firearm Safety
This year we reviewed an investigation into an officer’s negligent discharge of a firearm that resulted in the death of a bystander. An off-duty SCPD officer who was preparing to clean his personal firearm in the company of a friend as they stood in a garage, dropped and caught his handgun which caused it to discharge. The bullet hit his hand and then fatally struck his friend who stood close by.

The law enforcement agency in the county where the incident occurred conducted an immediate criminal investigation. The out-of-county district attorney reviewed the criminal investigation and found no basis for criminal liability. SCPD initiated an administrative investigation. Ultimately, the Department found the discharge out of policy and released the officer who was still on probation from service. The Department also recommended that probationary police officers receive no less than four

25.34 P a g e | 29
(4) hours of instruction specific to firearms safety, basic firearms operation, firearms ammunition, and firearms cleaning and maintenance.

Our review found the Department’s administrative investigation timely and complete. We agreed with the Department’s out of policy finding and found the Department’s training recommendations for probationary officers to be sound and commendable.

Traffic Stops and RIPA Data
In late 2023, SCPD published its 2022 Racial Profiling and Identity Act (RIPA) data to its transparency portal. As of the publication of this report, the Department has published three data elements -- perceived race/ethnicity, gender, and age -- as percentages of total stops.

We recommend that the Department go further, both to make the data more understandable to members of the public who review it, and to provide a more complete data set. For example, SCPD could post total numbers of stops in addition to the percentage of total stops in the charts of race/ethnicity, gender, and age. These additions would help the enduser understand the total universe of stops and place the statistics into a more useful context. And, in the interest of full transparency, we also recommend that SCPD post all RIPA data elements as these become available.

RECOMMENDATION 13
SCPD should post a more complete RIPA data set to increase transparency and accountability in its traffic stops including the total number of detentions in addition to percentages.

Automated License Plate Readers
Another topic of community concern was the Department’s request for Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). ALPRs are standing cameras that would photograph the license plates of passing vehicles at various of the City’s major intersections and at major entryways to the City. The data collected by these cameras, reported SCPD, would be predominately used to track stolen vehicles and missing persons.

25.35 30 | P a g e
We reviewed the Department’s ALPR policy to ensure that the policy had sufficient guardrails in place to limit the use, sharing, and retention of the data collected. We found the policy guarded against use of ALPR data for any purpose other than a designated enforcement investigation with a specific case number. We found that the policy could go further to align with state law, guidance provided by California’s Attorney General, and court rulings regarding their use (specifically, to prevent data-sharing with any out-of-state public, private, or federal agency), and recommended edits.

SCPD accepted our recommended policy changes and, in late December 2023, the City Council authorized SCPD to seek grant funding to acquire the ALPRs.

First Amendment Rights
In this period, we reviewed a case that involved bystanders’ First Amendment rights. While maintaining the perimeter during an in-progress commercial burglary, a sergeant asked an individual who approached with a video camera to back up several times. The individual refused, stating there was no crime scene tape. When the individual did not respond to the sergeant’s additional commands to move back, the sergeant physically moved him by placing his hand on the individual’s chest and moving him to the street. The individual was subsequently arrested. The individual alleged that he was unlawfully arrested, subjected to improper use of force, that the sergeant had failed to identify himself and that the sergeant’s actions violated the First Amendment.

The Department’s investigation exonerated the sergeant on the First Amendment violation, unlawful arrest and use of force allegations and found the failure to provide identification not sustained. And, in light of the available evidence, we concurred.13
But in the course of reviewing this incident, we learned that the Department does not have a policy that addresses the public’s right to 13 Namely, we found the sergeant’s actions to be reasonable in light of the circumstances of an in-progress commercial burglary with a suspect inside, the complainant’s proximity to the sergeant and his repeated refusal to move back.

25.36 P a g e | 31
record law enforcement actions. We recommend that the Department draft policy that provides guidelines for the public recording of law enforcement activity. This policy should address the right to observe, record and retain recorded material of law enforcement activities and explain limitations to this First Amendment right such as safety and interference with officer’s duties restrictions.

Additionally, we suggest that the policy address supervisor’s on-scene response, warnings when an individual is interfering with safety or an officer’s duties and the circumstances that permit seizure of evidence. And this additional guidance can be provided through simple adoption of the current policy of the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Department or other similarly situated law enforcement agencies.14
RECOMMENDATION 14
SCPD should draft a policy to address the public recording of law enforcement activity that address topics such as the right to observe, record and retain recorded material of law enforcement activities, safety and interference of officer duty restrictions, supervisor on-scene response, warning when an individual is interfering with safety of an officer’s duties and the circumstances that permit seizure of evidence.
14 See e.g. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, Policy 429 “Public Recording of Law Enforcement
Activity”https://www.scsheriff.com/Portals/1/County/sheriff/formsdocs/SO%20Poli cy%201_10_24.pdf University of California Santa Cruz Police Department, Policy 466, Public Recording of Law Enforcement Activity
https://police.ucsc.edu/report/policies/chapter-400/public-recording-of-lawenforcement-activity.html; San Francisco Police Department General Order 5.07 “Rights of Onlookers” https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2023- 12/SFPDDN_23_186_20231213.pdf

25.37 32 | P a g e
Incidents Involving Children & Families
In our March 2023 Annual Report, we recommended that SCPD adopt a Children of Arrested Parent’s policy. Our recommendation was in response to an incident in which a juvenile was taken into custody during the arrest of the juvenile’s parent. The goal of a Children of Arrested Parent’s policy is to minimize trauma to children of an arrested parent and when possible, to place them with a responsible adult rather than in the care of Family and Children Services.15
In consultation with our team, SCPD has created a policy that provides important procedures to protect children when officers arrest a parent.

SCPD’s policy:
 Requires officers to ask about children for whom an arrest adult has responsibility.
 Instructs officers if feasible to make the arrest away from a child’s view or at a time when the child is not present.
 Permits when safe to do so, an arrested parent to have the opportunity to assure their child they will be safe and provided for.  Enables officers to deliver the child to an adult relative or other responsible adult designated by the arrested parent with the approval from Family and Children services if there is no custodial parent available.
15 See e.g. Safeguarding Children of Arrested Parents, International Association of Chiefs of Police (2014), accessed at
https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/IACPSafeguardingChildren.pdf

25.38 P a g e | 33
 Requires officers to consider the ages and presence of children when determining time, place and logistics for executing arrest and search warrants.

Our team also reviewed the investigation of several complaints concerning SCPD officers’ role when a Santa Cruz County Superior Court ordered a transport company to take custody of two children who resided in the county and transport them to their mother’s location.

Complainants alleged that the officers failed to protect the children. The Department investigated the allegation and concluded the officers had not failed in their duty to enforce the law.

We reviewed the Department’s investigation and agreed with its findings. We noted that the Department sent several officers to the residence including a supervisor. Body worn camera footage showed that the supervisor talked at length with the children and adults on scene before the arrival of the transport company. The sergeant explained that the Superior Court custody order authorized the transport company to remove the children regardless of the children’s and other adults’ objections to the court order. The sergeant also explained that the officers’ presence was to maintain tranquility at the scene. The sergeant was professional and patient throughout the incident. The sergeant and several other officers stood by on the property while members of the private transport company physically picked up the two minors against their will, placed them into a car, and transported them away from their residence.

25.39 34 | P a g e
Conclusion
We hope that our review of SCPD investigative and review procedures and our experience with best practices across a range of agencies has contributed to a strengthening of SCPD operations, both its internal administrative procedures and how it polices the community of Santa Cruz. Our recommendations – and the Department's consideration of them – are intended to inform and improve these processes in ways that we hope will make the agency better.

We have been fortunate that our relationship with SCPD leadership over the past five years of our work as the Independent Police Auditor has been marked by receptivity and constructive dialogue. We take this opportunity to acknowledge that the City's commitment to a progressive, responsive police department is being reflected in the work that is done by SCPD each day.

We look forward to our continued engagement with the Department and its forward-thinking leadership.

25.40 P a g e | 35
Recommendations
1: SCPD should revise its critical incident protocols or develop training materials to ensure that once an officer-involved shooting scene is secure, SCPD should direct any available officer to immediately sequester involved officers and prevent those officers from further involvement in the incident.
2: SCPD should revise current policy or develop training materials to explicitly require that all involved officers shall be observed and sequestered until they are able to provide a Public Safety Statement to a supervisor, and then removed from the immediate scene of an officer-involved shooting, unless there is a special need to assist at the location.
3: SCPD and its County partners should revisit its Critical Incident Guidelines and express a preference for same-day interviews to better align with 21st Century critical incident investigative practices, unless precluded by extenuating circumstances such as an injury of an officer.
4: SCPD should revise its own internal policy, General Order 306, to express that same preference to require interviews of involved and witness officers before the end of their shift.
5: SCPD should remove language in current policy that permits officers involved in a critical incident from viewing their body-worn camera recording(s) prior to providing a statement.
6: SCPD should update General Order 309: Canines to require that all canine bites be reviewed using the Department’s formal use of force review process, including on-scene investigation (e.g., interview of subjects, victims and witnesses), review by command staff, and a Use of Force Review Board.
7: Upon implementation of its new Foot Pursuit Policy, SCPD should train officers in its new Foot Pursuit Policy.

25.41 36 | P a g e
8: Once implemented, SCPD should evaluate all incidents that involve a foot pursuit for compliance with the Foot Pursuit policy. 9: SCPD should align the canine unit’s Procedure Manual with General Order 309: Canines.
10: SCPD should conduct a holistic review of all cases and engage in broader “issue spotting” to provide the appropriate level of investigation and remedial action across all PSU investigations. 11: SCPD should consider more detailed analysis of biased-based policing investigations, including at least a document review of subject officers’ complaint history and recent stop data statistics. 12: When corresponding with complainants known to communicate in a language other than English, SCPD should consider translating all written correspondence, such as the close-out letter, into the complainant’s language using the City’s translation services. 13: SCPD should post a more complete RIPA data set to increase transparency and accountability in its traffic stops including the total number of detentions in addition to percentages.
14: SCPD should draft a policy to address the public recording of law enforcement activity that address topics such as the right to observe, record and retain recorded material of law enforcement activities, safety and interference of officer duty restrictions, supervisor onscene response, warning when an individual is interfering with safety of an officer’s duties and the circumstances that permit seizure of evidence.

25.42 P a g e | 37
Appendix A: Case Summaries
& Recommendations

25.43 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 1 2023
Officers responded to a report of a
subject who pointed a gun at and
threatened to shoot the RP. When
officers arrived on scene, the
suspect pointed a firearm at the
officers. Both officers shot at the
subject but did not hit him. The
subject was taken into custody.

The subject's weapon was later
determined to be a BB gun made
to resemble a pistol. SCPD initiated
an administrative investigation as
required by policy.

SCPD exonerated the officers on the
allegation of use of force.

Concur with findings. See IPA’s
discussion and
recommendations in the
narrative of this Report.
2 2023
Department-initiated investigation
when officer failed to notify his
supervisor of damage to his patrol
vehicle after he used it during his
shift.

Sustained finding for failure to report
damage to supervisor when brought to
officer's attention; not sustained finding
for failure to report damage at time of
the collision.

Concur. See IPA’s discussion in
the narrative of this Report.
3 2023
Officers grabbed hold of
complainant when he rode his
scooter on hotel property after
being told he was trespassing;
complainant alleged that officers
used unreasonable force & failed to
provide Miranda.

Officers exonerated on use of force
allegation; unfounded on Miranda
violation; sustained finding for failure to
obtain medical clearance or report
subject’s injury to supervisor; no further
investigation on failure to notify
supervisor of use of force and injury
involving retired officer.

Concur, noting missed
allegation involving retired
officer.

25.44 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 4 2023
Allegation that civilian employee
engaged in improper conduct
involving complainant's son several
years ago.

Exonerated employee of violating
standard of conduct.

Concur. See IPA's discussion in
the narrative of this Report.
5 2022
Department-initiated investigation
into incident involving deployment
of a K-9. Officers responded to a
call of an interrupted home burglary
and observed two males, later
identified as the burglary suspect
and victim. When the two males
began physically fighting and then
fled, one officer pursued the two
males on foot while a second
officer pursued in his patrol car.

The individuals stopped running,
fought again and then separated.

The second officer who arrived on
scene then released his K-9 and bit
the victim.

Department exonerated officer on use
of force and canine policy allegations.

Involved and witness officers
were not interviewed at the time
of the incident; involved officer
retired and declined to be
interviewed for PSU
investigation. See IPA’s
discussion and
recommendations in the
narrative of this Report.
6 2022
An officer observed a subject who
the officer knew from previous
contacts and had an outstanding
felony warrant. During the
encounter, the subject accused the
officers of detaining and arresting
him due to his race.

Department concluded allegations of
biased-based policing and conduct
unbecoming were unfounded.

Concur. See IPA's discussion
and recommendations in the
narrative of this Report.

25.45 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 7 2022
Complainant alleged that the officer
was harassing the individual and
violating the individual's 1st
Amendment rights to film based on
a video posted on a social media
site. Employee had called the
police when individual had been
filming and attempted to open the
door to a private office within the
parking garage.

Allegation of conduct unbecoming was
not sustained.

Concur; see IPA’s discussion in
the narrative of this Report.
8 2022
The Department initiated an
internal investigation into an
officer’s conduct following a fatal
overdose incident. Although the
primary investigating officer on
scene, she did not obtain the
identity and contact information of
the Reporting Party (RP) who had
reportedly provided drugs to the
overdosing individual and delayed
obtaining medical help or the
identity and contact information of
a bystander. Officer's report
omitted that the individual had died
and time of his death and her
contact with the Coroner's Office
that had informed her of this
information.

Department sustained allegations that
the officer had failed to investigate and
write a complete report. The
Department found "not sustained"
conduct unbecoming an officer for her
remarks about attending raves.

Department also observed deficiencies
in supervisor's conduct and took
corrective action.

IPA concurs with sustained
allegations and action involving
supervisor. IPA recommends
broader view of evidence
supporting conduct unbecoming
an officer allegation. See IPA’s
discussion and
recommendations in the
narrative of this Report.

25.46 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 9 2022
Department-initiated investigation
of off-duty probationary officer’s
negligent discharge of his personal
firearm while cleaning it that
resulted in the death of a
bystander. The investigation
indicated that the officer caught the
gun as it was falling, it discharged,
striking him in the left hand and the
bullet passed through his hand and
fatally struck his friend who was
standing close by.

Department found officer's discharge of
his weapon out of policy, released the
probationary officer from service and
also recommended enhancing its
firearm safety training for recruits.

Concur; see IPA’s discussion in
the narrative of this Report.
10 2022
Officers called as stand by to Santa
Cruz County Superior Court Order
that authorized private transport
company to forcibly remove two
minors from father's home to join
mother in Los Angeles.

Officers exonerated on allegation that
they had failed to uphold the law.

Concur; see IPA's discussion in
the narrative of this Report.

25.47 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 11 2021
During an in-progress burglary, a
sergeant asked the complainant
who approached with a video
camera to back up several times.

He refused and the sergeant
placed his hand on the individual’s
chest, moved him to the street and
subsequently arrested him. The
individual alleged that the officer
unlawfully arrested him, used
unlawful force, violated his First
Amendment rights and failed to
identify himself.

Sergeant was exonerated on unlawful
arrest, use of force & 1st Amendment
violation. Not sustained finding on
sergeant's failure to identify himself.

Concur with findings. IPA
recommends Department adopt
policy to address public's right
to record law enforcement
actions. See IPA’s discussion
and recommendation in the
narrative of this Report.
12 2021
An officer was called to a business
when several individuals wanted to
enter without masks when a
COVID public health order was in
effect and the business permitted
only masked customers to enter.

Complainants alleged the business
was discriminatory and requested
the officer document the incident
which he did.

Officer exonerated on allegation that he
failed to investigate claim of
discrimination. Unfounded finding on
allegation that officer conspired to
violate the rights of the complainant.

Concur. Significant delay
between time of the complaint
(2021) and completion of the
investigation in 2023.

25.48 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 13 2021
Complainant alleged that officers
improperly stopped her, searched
her purse and her car, and
handcuffed her due to biasedpolicing after reportedly observing her talk to a homeless person.

Exonerated officers on allegations of
illegal stop, detention, search and
biased-policing. Found evidence
inadequate to determine who had
handcuffed the complainant.

IPA has concerns with the
significant delay in the
investigation, failure to preserve
body worn camera evidence,
delay in officer interviews and
limited documentation. See
IPA's discussion in the narrative
of this Report.
14 2021
Officers arrested complainant for
being drunk in public after receiving
reports that he refused to leave a
construction zone late at night.

Complainant alleged that he was
unlawfully arrested, police failed to
safeguard his property that he had
with him at time of arrest, and that
police had unnecessarily prolonged
the booking process.

Exonerated officers on allegations of
improper arrest, failure to safeguard
property and unnecessarily prolonging
the booking process.

Concur; significant delay
between the complaint filing
(2021) and completion of the
investigation in 2023.
15 2021
Complainant alleged that police
damaged the interior of her
boyfriend's car after they arrested
him and towed it due to expired
registration; BWC footage showed
an officer cut the seat belt when
the arrestee refused to get out of
vehicle.

Officers were exonerated of allegation
that they engaged in conduct
unbecoming an officer.

Concur; significant delay
between the complaint filing
(2021) and completion of the
investigation in 2023.

25.49 Annual
Report
Case
No. Year Brief Summary SCPD Allegations/Findings IPA Review and Comments 16 2020
Officer conducted a traffic stop
after driver making an unsafe lane
turn; after officer contacted her and
asked for her driver's license, the
driver drove off and then stopped
several yards away after he
followed her with sirens on. He
handcuffed her and cited her for
several traffic violations and issued
a Notice of Re-Examination with
the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Officer exonerated for use of force
(grabbing hold of her arm), handcuffing
and conduct unbecoming an officer
allegations.

Concur; significant delay
between 2020 complaint and
conclusion of the investigation
in 2023.
17 2020
Complainant alleged that she was
unlawfully arrested while police
were conducting a stolen vehicle
investigation & encountered her
naked in the back seat of the
vehicle. Officers covered her with
blanket. At the jail, she alleged
that officers had sexually assaulted
her by touching her buttocks and
not having a female officer remove
her from the vehicle. A sergeant
conducted an immediate
investigation; body worn camera
footage showed the officers
removing the woman from the car
by grabbing hold of her arms.

Not sustained finding for allegation of
conduct unbecoming an officer.

Concur; although the
allegations were immediately
investigated, a significant delay
occurred between 2020
complaint and case closure in
2023.

25.50 2023 Annual
Review of the
Santa Cruz
Police
Department
MAY 28, 2024

MICHAEL GENNACO

SAMARA MARION

TERESA MAGULA

25.51 OIR Group
Overview
•Over 20 years of experience in
law enforcement oversight
• Specializing in the independent
evaluation of police agencies’
internal review systems
•Our team in Santa Cruz

25.52 Our Role as
Independent
Police Auditor
(IPA)
•Meet with Department on
a quarterly basis
•Provide input on policy and
procedures
•Review completed use of
force and complaint
investigations
•Analyze officer-involved
shootings & other critical
incidents

25.53 Our Role as
Independent
Police Auditor
(IPA)
• Assist complainants
• Talk with community
members and advocacy
groups
• Report to City Council
annually

25.54 2023 Annual Report: Reviewed 17
Formal Investigations
Internally generated by Department
• Initiated due to the nature of the incident or internal concerns about officer performance
• Two were significant incidents
Externally generated from members of the public
(e.g., “complaints”) that the Department determined
if true would constitute a violation of SCPD policy

25.55 Findings & Recommendations:

Process
• Updates to the critical incident review
process to align with best practices
• Adopt a holistic approach to administrative
investigations
• Focus on timeliness: SCPD addressed their
case backlog and is on track
• Considerations for bias-based policing
allegations & investigations

25.56 Findings & Recommendations:

Policy and Procedures
• Creation of a Foot Pursuit Policy – in progress
• Update Biased-Based Policing definition –
complete
• Update Use of Force to include warnings –
complete
• Focus on accuracy of report writing and update
policy – complete

25.57 Findings & Recommendations:

Policy and Procedures
• Draft policy on First Amendment Right to record –
in progress
• Draft policy for Children of Arrested Parents –
complete
• Draft policy for use of Automated License Plate
Readers (ALPRs) – complete
• Increased transparency of RIPA data – in progress

25.58 Questions
9 25.59
OIRGroup.com
[email protected]

CONTACT US

25.60 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 5/17/2024
AGENDA OF: 5/28/2024
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: 1130/1132 Mission Street: CP23-0103 (APN 006-203-24, -25) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of the Development Proposal at 1130/1132 Mission Street Involving Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to Demolish Two Commercial Buildings, Boundary Adjustment to Combine Two Parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to Construct a Five-Story Mixed-Use Building Consisting of 2,627 Square Feet of Ground Floor Commercial Space and 48 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Units Above. The Project Also Includes a Request for Density Bonus Including Waivers to Exceed Building Height, Setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as well as Proposes to Utilize AB2097 to Reduce On-Site Parking. The Parcels Are Both Located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) Zone District and the Mission Street Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination:

Categorical Exemption 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. Owner:

Douglas Wallace (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal(s), thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s acknowledgment of the environmental determination (Categorical Exemption Section 15332, Class 32) and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit; Boundary Adjustment; Density Bonus request, including waivers to exceed height and FAR and reduce setback requirements; and Design, Special Use, Watercourse Development Permits, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit, based on the findings listed in the draft Resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.” BACKGROUND: At the April 30, 2024 City Council hearing, the City Council approved a motion referring the subject application to the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation on the applicant’s proposed changes and continued the appeal to the May 28, 2024 City Council hearing.

Following the April 30, 2024 Council hearing and before the May 16, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant updated their plans to clarify various questions that had arisen in advance of the April 30, 2024 Council hearing. The full analysis of the plan changes at various stages are contained in the attached Council and Planning Commission staff reports.

26.1 At the May 16, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, the proposed plan changes were presented to the Commission. Eight members of the public spoke at the hearing, with six in support and two expressing concerns with certain aspects of the project. The concerns expressed by the two speakers included:
 Limited locations for delivery trucks and creating a potentially dangerous situation on Mission Street; and
 Impacts to the adjacent Laurel Creek and animals in the area.

The six speakers in support of the project expressed the following:
 Projects like this are the reason the city met its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals last cycle;
 Project is taking too long to be approved and constructed;  High rents and lack of housing are major issues that need to be addressed;  Students live care-free in single-family homes in the area;  City is in need of sustainable, affordable housing;
 No need for parking, as project is in a great central location for students;  Caltrans and city are investing in bike and transit improvements;  Stable housing in mixed-use environment is desired;
 Project maintains a long-time local market (Food Bin) on site; and
 Project provides much needed student housing near University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC).

The Planning Commission listened to the public testimony and discussed some of the issues raised by the speakers. The Commissioners each commented on the project, expressing the following:
 Project is just what the City needs;
 It is important to have a wide variety of housing types, and these small units are needed for single people, who are 40% of the population;
 These smaller units provide housing for single people and in turn free up larger singlefamily homes for families;  How many single-room-occupancy (SRO) type units the city is striving for?  Support housing but have some issues with how the applicants and owner have approached the process;
 Preparation of a new biotic report and traffic study would ease community concerns and the gesture would heal community relations;
 Appreciate the applicant volunteering to address the neighbor’s solar issue and for deed restricting the additional very-low income affordable units;  The added storage space and conversion of that space to ADUs is a little funky but understand that it meets state and city requirements;
 Disappointing that ADUs do not pay impact fees, but understand that is state law;  Appreciate that this is a local business owner developing the site and that the Food Bin market can remain on site; and
 Discourage the concession/incentive request to remove the condition involving commercial space improvements for future food service, as it would limit potential uses in the future.

26.2 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 with a recommendation to approve the 48-unit SRO Density Bonus project, finding that the project meets all City and State requirements. As part of the motion, the following revision was recommended to condition #70:

70. As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall pay the remaining balance on the cost of the solar panels of $10,000 to the adjacent property at 1212 Laurel St for the cost of the solar panels, not to exceed $10,000. The property owner shall provide evidence of the payment to the City prior to final or temporary occupancy.

The following condition of approval was recommended to be added as part of the motion:

77. A six-foot tall split-faced concrete block wall shall be constructed along the length of the western property line abutting the adjacent single-family home. (It was noted that the wall should be situated in a manner that does not create a safety hazard by blocking vision for the adjacent driveway.)
In addition, the Commission recommended that a peer review of the biotic report prepared by Biotic Resources Group dated August 17, 2023) be completed by the City’s contract environmental consultant.

DISCUSSION: See the attached April 30th City Council staff report for: Staff Responses to Appeal Topics; Health in All Policies; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Applicability of the Housing Accountability Act, SB330, and other state bills; Community Engagement; a detailed description of the project and compliance with objective standards, and Fiscal Impacts. The attachments can be accessed at the City Council’s April 30th meeting agenda at
https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2276&docty pe=1. Additionally, the Planning Commission reports and attachments can be found from the “Agenda & Reports” link at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/planning-and-community-development/public-hearing-bodiescommissions/planning-commission, with the Planning Commission dates being January 18, 2024 and May 16, 2024.

The Planning Commission’s latest recommended condition of approval regarding the six-foot tall solid wall has been generally incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, but the wording of the condition has been revised to remove the language referencing the “split-faced concrete block wall” at the request of the applicant. The condition reads as follows:

77. A six-foot tall solid wall or fence shall be constructed along the length of the western property line abutting the adjacent single-family home.

This condition still meets the intent of the Planning Commission’s recommendation which was to provide a barrier between the new development and the single-family neighbor to prevent automobile headlights from shining directly into the neighbor’s house and yard, and to generally provide more privacy screening between the properties. Additionally, the condition regarding the voluntary payment for the neighbor’s solar panels remains unchanged in the conditions of approval, as the applicants have indicated that they are still in negotiations with the neighbor on this agreement. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the City cannot require additional

26.3 conditions of approval without agreement from the applicant, hence the revisions from the language recommended by the Planning Commission.

It should also be noted that a new condition of approval has been included to address reimbursement for the cost of the biotic report peer review, which the applicant has agreed to:

78. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall reimburse the city for the costs associated with the peer review of the biotic report, as indicated in the Master Fee Schedule for Watercourse Variance Permits, “This application may require the use of expert outside analysis. Any consultants costs and/or additional staff time will be charge to and recovered from applicant.”
As of the drafting of this report, the biotics report has been forwarded to the city’s contract CEQA consultant for review. The results of that peer review will be summarized for the Council at the hearing, and the report will be posted for public review when received.

FISCAL IMPACT: See the attached April 30th City Council staff report for Fiscal Impacts.

Prepared By:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval

3. Project Plans (Revised post Planning Commission Approval – Rev 6 dated 5-9-24)

4. Workbench Letter Describing Project Plan Revisions dated May 10, 2024

5. May 16, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

6. May 16, 2024 Planning Commission Action Summary

7. May 16, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Public Correspondence

8. April 30, 2024 City Council Staff Report

9. January 18, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

10. Dudek Biologist’s Peer Review of Biology Report

11. Public Correspondence - #26 – 1130-1132 Mission Street

26.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DENYING

THE APPEALS OF IAN AND NATASHA GUY AND LAURA LIVINGSTON

REPRESENTING THE LAUREL AND CLEVELAND AREA NEIGHBORS THEREBY

ACKNOWLEDGING THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING A

NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH TWO

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT TO COMBINE TWO

PARCELS, AND A DESIGN PERMIT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WATERCOURSE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A FIVE-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 2,907 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 48 SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE. THE PROJECT ALSO

INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A DENSITY BONUS AND WAIVERS TO EXCEED

BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND FAR, AS WELL AS PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AB2097 TO REDUCE ON-SITE PARKING. THE PARCELS ARE BOTH LOCATED IN

THE CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)/MU-M (MIXED-USE MEDIUM DENSITY)

ZONE DISTRICT AND THE MISSION STREET OVERLAY ZONE, THEREBY DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE

THE PROJECT FILED BY IAN & NATASHA GUY AND THE LAUREL AND CLEVELAND AREA NEIGHBORS (APPLICATION NO. CP23-0103)
WHEREAS, On June 7, 2023, Workbench submitted an application for a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Adjustment to combine two parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to construct a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 59 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for density bonus including waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR), as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking. The parcels are both located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) zone district and the Mission Street Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, the project site and its development is governed by the standards and guidelines contained in Municipal Code Title 24, the Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Santa Cruz General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption in State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 as articulated below; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 18, 2024 and, after hearing public testimony, voted 5-1 to acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Line Adjustment to combine two parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use

26.5 Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to construct a fivestory mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 59 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for density bonus including waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and FAR, as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s approval was appealed to the City Council on January 29, 2023 by Ian & Natasha Guy and the Laurel and Cleveland Area Neighbors; and WHEREAS, following Planning Commission’s approval of the project, for reasons stated in a letter received by the Planning Department in March 2024, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Planning Department proposing 48 SRO’s with 2,907 square feet of commercial space;
WHEREAS, the City Council City Council on April 30, 2024 approved a motion referring the application to the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation on the applicant’s proposed changes and continued the appeal to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 2024.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 16, 2024 to consider the proposed changes to the project and voted 7-0 with a recommendation to the City Council to deny the appeal and approve the 48-unit SRO Density Bonus project that was found to meet all City and State requirements with recommended conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 28, 2024 to consider the application and appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now makes the following findings:

With Respect to the Environmental Determination
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332, related to infill development. The Class 32 categorical exemption applies to a proposed project fulfilling the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed project complies with all of the foregoing criteria and demonstrates eligibility for

26.6 implementation of a Class 32 Categorical Exemption as afforded by CEQA. The application exhibits consistency with General Plan and zoning designations, policies, and regulations, with a project site comprising 12,502 square feet (.287 acres) in size, below the maximum threshold of five (5) acres, located within city limits and surrounded by existing residential and commercial urban uses. As a previously-developed urban infill site, the subject lot holds no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, with none known to exist on the site; development of the project would not result in any significant impact relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality as supported by the submitted information; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposal qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, infill exemption.

None of the exceptions to the exemptions under Section 15300.2 apply to the project in that the project site is not located in a mapped environmentally sensitive area, the project is not part of a larger project that could result in a cumulative impact, there are no unusual circumstances associated with the project or subject parcel, the project will not result in damage to resources associated with an officially designated scenic highway, the project site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code related to Hazardous Waste Sites, and the project will not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource site in that there are no known historic resources on the property.

FINDINGS
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230

1. The cultural resources evaluation is accepted as accurate and complete; and the cultural resources evaluation concludes that the building or structure is not eligible for listing on the city historic building survey.

A historic report (DPR 523 Form) was prepared by historian Joseph Van Den Berg of Garavaglia Architecture which evaluates the existing buildings and the history of the site.

Based on records, the existing buildings were constructed in 1966, with subsequent additions and modifications occurring in 1974 and 1975. The report finds that the subject property does not display a level of historical significance or integrity that would qualify it for listing as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The site is not associated with any important historic events or patterns of history, is not associated with any historic people, the architecture is not notable and contains almost not character-defining features. Thus, the structure is not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

2. The project which will replace the demolished building or structure has been, or is concurrently being, approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been, or is concurrently being, issued; unless some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this requirement inappropriate.

The proposed mixed-use project is being approved concurrently with the approval to demolish the subject structure.

26.7 3. The property owner has been advised of the benefits of listing the property on the city historic building survey and incorporating the preservation of the historic resource into the proposed project.

Not applicable as the property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.

4. The cultural resources evaluation determines that the resource is eligible for listing on the city historic building survey, appropriate environmental review has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the zoning administrator can make a finding of overriding consideration that the replacement project will have public benefits which will outweigh the impact of loss of the historic resource.

It has been determined that the property does not qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Boundary Line Adjustment Section, 23.12.030.1(b)

5. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, zoning and building ordinances.

The proposal to merge parcels 006-203-24 and -25 into one 12,502 square foot parcel is consistent with the General Plan and Community Commercial zone district standards which require a minimum 8,000 square foot parcel size for mixed-use projects.

6. A greater number of parcels than originally existed are not created by the lot line adjustment.

The proposed Boundary Adjustment will not result in the creation of any additional parcels or building sites, but rather the two parcels will be combined to result in one parcel.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

7. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, the site plan and building design are also consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

The subject parcel has a Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) General Plan designation. This designation applies to sites along the Ocean Street and the Mission Street corridor between Swift and Laurel Street. Typical commercial uses are similar to those in the Community Commercial (CM) designation, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground floor. For reference, the CM designation calls for “businesses that serve the general needs of the community, including retail, service, and office establishments. Typical uses in these areas include restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores, general merchandise, medical and legal offices, and auto parts stores, as well as mixed-use projects that include these commercial uses on the ground floor.”

26.8 The Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project is 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 3.86 for the proposed development. With the proposed FAR exceeding the allowed FAR, a waiver to FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request.

The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.3.1 - Discourage strip commercial development in favor of clustered commercial and mixed-use development along transit corridors.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Community Design CD3.3 – Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.
 Community Design CD4.1.1 – Support compact mixed-use development Downtown, along primary transportation corridors, and in employment centers.  Community Design CD4.1.1 – Where possible, site buildings at the street frontage and place parking areas away from street corners and to the rear of buildings.  Community Design CD4.1.3 – On major corridors, encourage mixed-use development, especially projects with priority for commercial uses that can provide services to the adjacent community.
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11 - Improve traffic flow and safety and reduce impacts on arterial streets by limiting driveways, mid-block access points, and intersections; removing on-street parking; clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; providing access from side streets; and other similar measures.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.

26.9  Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

The project site is located within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan (MSUDP) which encourages developments such as this. The community’s vision is to re-establish Mission Street as a vibrant commercial corridor that recognizes and carefully balances its functions as both a State Highway and local-serving commercial street. As noted in the MSUDP, the corridor should maintain a predominantly commercial mixed-use character. Residential uses should be restricted to multi-family residential units, and to residential above ground floor retail or office. The remaining single-family residential uses should be allowed to eventually phase out. The intent is to create a corridor that is safe, attractive, economically and socially vibrant, which in turn will improve the quality of life for Westside residents.

The project site is within the “Westside Zone” area of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The Westside Zone, which extends from Laural Street to Swift Street includes predominantly retail and service type uses with scattered residential, office and institutional uses. The project meets the objectives of the Westside Zone by establishment of a development that provides retail and services for both residents and visitors and employing streetscape improvements such as street trees, lighting, and street furnishings to visually unify this section of the corridor and enhance the pedestrian environment. The project also meets the following areawide land use and redevelopment strategy plan policies:
 Policy 4a – Encourage a mix of higher density residential and office uses along Mission Street that will complement and support the retail base and contribute to the creation of a neighborhood with around-the-clock vitality.
 Policy 4b – Establish the Mission Street corridor as an attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district.
 Policy 4c – Encourage “mixed-use” development and “local-serving” commercial uses as a means of reducing automobile use within the planning area. Development of complementary uses (retail and office, retail and housing, office and housing) in proximity to each other allows residents, employees, and visitors to walk and/or bicycle when undertaking many of the typical daily trips, whether it is going to lunch, running errands, or going out for the evening.
 Policy 5c – Encourage redevelopment and infill development along Mission Street that will improve the corridor’s economic vitality, enhance the definition and character of the corridor, and create better pedestrian scale and orientation.

8. For nonresidential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the

26.10 objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

The project contains both nonresidential and residential components. Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses to the west and across the creek to the north. The commercial retail use will abut Mission Street maintaining a substantial distance from the neighboring residences and will not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties. For the residential portions of the development the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district as well as the Mission Street Urban Design Overlay District, taking into consideration the waivers requested as part of the Density Bonus request.

9. For nonresidential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.

Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses to the west and across the creek to the north. The commercial retail use will abut Mission Street maintaining a substantial distance from the neighboring residences, and fronting Mission Street will be compatible as well as add to the Mission Street commercial streetscape.

10. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

The proposed building has a contemporary design, incorporating a variety of exterior finish materials including textured concrete (board formed/textured), metal panels, fiber cement panel or stucco, patterned metal fence/gates/screens/sunshades, and a glazed aluminum windows. This stretch of Mission Street has a wide variety of building types and appearances, none of which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

11. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas.

Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rightsof-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

The Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR

26.11 of 3.86 for the proposed development. A waiver to exceed FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request, as complying with the designated FAR would reduce the volume of the building and would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. .

With the exception of height and setbacks, the siting and design standards are consistent with the zone district standards. The proposed building has been designed in a contemporary style with rooftop equipment incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view.

12. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.

Commercial uses surround the site, with the exception of residential uses to the west and across the creek to the north. The commercial retail use will abut Mission Street maintaining a substantial distance from the neighboring residences.

13. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The flat site is mostly paved with two commercial buildings constructed in the 1960s that are proposed for demolition. There are seven trees located on the site, two of which qualify as heritage due to their size. No special status plant species have been recorded for this property, and no special status species were observed and the potential presence of is considered very low due to the lack of suitable substrates/habitats and developed condition of the site. The majority of the proposed development will occur within areas supporting existing structures, parking areas, and non-native landscaping. The removal of this vegetation is not considered a significant impact to local or regional botanical resources. Recommended measures to protect the creek have been included as conditions of approval, including removal of invasive species, using locally native plant species for the new landscaping, and scheduling of vegetation removal to avoid the bird nesting season. The site will remain flat, with minimal alteration to the existing land forms.

14. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

The project site is not located adjacent to the coastline or within any scenic view area.

26.12 15. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors, which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.

The applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for the new building. The structure will be required to meet all applicable regulations of the California Building Code pertaining to noise, vibration, and other factors affecting indoor and exterior environmental quality.

Conditions of approval require that the applicant submit a project-level noise assessment for review and approval prior to building permit issuance and require compliance with the reports’ recommendations to ensure compliance with the noise policies in the General Plan.

16. Building and structures shall be so designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.

The proposed building will be designed to meet the City’s Green Building Program requirements. New planted trees and landscaping will reduce the heat island effect.

Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

17. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
The subject parcel has a Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) General Plan designation. This designation applies to sites along the Ocean Street and the Mission Street corridor between Swift and Laurel Street. Typical commercial uses are similar to those in the Community Commercial (CM) designation, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground floor. For reference, the CM designation calls for “businesses that serve the general needs of the community, including retail, service, and office establishments. Typical uses in these areas include restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores, general merchandise, medical and legal offices, and auto parts stores, as well as mixed-use projects that include these commercial uses on the ground floor.”
The Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD) designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range from .75 to 1.75. FAR is the total gross floor area of the development divided by the net area of the site. The total floor area for the proposed mixed-use project is 43,237 square feet and the net lot size (with deduction of riparian setback area) is 11,182 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 3.86 for the proposed development. With the proposed FAR exceeding the allowed FAR, a waiver to FAR is included as part of the Density Bonus request.

The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.3.1 - Discourage strip commercial development in favor of clustered commercial and mixed-use development along transit corridors.

26.13  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Community Design CD3.3 – Encourage the assembly of small parcels along transit corridors to achieve pedestrian-oriented development compatible with neighborhoods.
 Community Design CD4.1.1 – Support compact mixed-use development Downtown, along primary transportation corridors, and in employment centers.  Community Design CD4.1.1 – Where possible, site buildings at the street frontage and place parking areas away from street corners and to the rear of buildings.  Community Design CD4.1.3 – On major corridors, encourage mixed-use development, especially projects with priority for commercial uses that can provide services to the adjacent community.
 Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Mobility Development Policy M3.2.11 - Improve traffic flow and safety and reduce impacts on arterial streets by limiting driveways, mid-block access points, and intersections; removing on-street parking; clustering facilities around interconnected parking areas; providing access from side streets; and other similar measures.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

The project site is located within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan (MSUDP) which encourages developments such as this. The community’s vision is to re-establish Mission Street as a vibrant commercial corridor that recognizes and carefully balances its functions as both a State Highway and local-serving commercial street. As noted in the MSUDP, the corridor should maintain a predominantly commercial mixed-use character. Residential uses should be restricted to multi-family residential units, and to residential above ground floor retail or office. The remaining single-family residential uses should be allowed to eventually

26.14 phase out. The intent is to create a corridor that is safe, attractive, economically and socially vibrant, which in turn will improve the quality of life for Westside residents.

The project site is within the “Westside Zone” area of the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The Westside Zone, which extends from Laural Street to Swift Street includes predominantly retail and service type uses with scattered residential, office and institutional uses. The project meets the objectives of the Westside Zone by establishment of a development that provides retail and services for both residents and visitors and employing streetscape improvements such as street trees, lighting, and street furnishings to visually unify this section of the corridor and enhance the pedestrian environment. The project also meets the following areawide land use and redevelopment strategy plan policies:
 Policy 4a – Encourage a mix of higher density residential and office uses along Mission Street that will complement and support the retail base and contribute to the creation of a neighborhood with around-the-clock vitality.
 Policy 4b – Establish the Mission Street corridor as an attractive pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district.
 Policy 4c – Encourage “mixed-use” development and “local-serving” commercia uses as a means of reducing automobile use within the planning area. Development of complementary uses (retail and office, retail and housing, office and housing) in proximity to each other allows residents, employees, and visitors to walk and/or bicycle when undertaking many of the typical daily trips, whether it is going to lunch, running errands, or going out for the evening.
 Policy 5c – Encourage redevelopment and infill development along Mission Street that will improve the corridor’s economic vitality, enhance the definition and character of the corridor, and create better pedestrian scale and orientation.

The property is not located within the Coastal Zone Overlay.

18. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the commercial and residential activities do not negatively impact surrounding uses.

19. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
The project meets all district development standards, and the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatment. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view. Taking all of these into consideration, the proposed uses incorporated into the project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the development does not constitute a nuisance or would be detrimental to the public welfare of the

26.15 community.

20. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

Not applicable.

Watercourse Development Permit, Section 24.08.2190

21. The development and the project as a whole is consistent with the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan.

The project as a whole is consistent with the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan with the approval of the Density Bonus waiver to the required creeks setbacks and incorporation of the recommendations in the biotic report as conditions of approval. The stretch of Laurel Creek adjacent to the site is an open channel, with a mixture of natural and concrete-lined side slopes and is comprised of non-native landscaping and non-native forbs and vines. The value of the riparian corridor to native wildlife is moderated due to its small size and the lack of native riparian vegetation that would provide cover and forage for native wildlife. However, it provides value due to the year-round presence of surface water and the structure of the woody vegetation likely provides perching, roosting, and nesting sites for several bird species. Common wildlife species adapted to urban land uses are expected to inhabit the creek and the adjacent landscaping. Approximately 68 square feet of the building will overhang the riparian corridor (16 feet above grade); however, this feature will not impact any existing riparian woodland vegetation. No special status plant species have been recorded for this property, and no special status species were observed and the potential presence of is considered very low due to the lack of suitable substrates/habitats and developed condition of the site. The majority of the proposed development will occur within areas supporting existing structures, parking areas, and non-native landscaping. The removal of this vegetation is not considered a significant impact to local or regional botanical resources.

22. That the development is permitted per Section 24.08.2150 or that the zoning administrator has determined that the project is in substantial conformance with the listed permitted uses.

With the structure cantilevering into the 10-foot riparian corridor setback and the 15-foot development setback areas, the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan would require the issuance of a Watercourse Variance. However, with the project including a Density Bonus, a waiver to the creek setback is being requested in place of the Watercourse Variance.

Similar to the requirements of a Watercourse Variance, the biotic report evaluated the potential impacts of the project on the creek. Appropriate conditions of approval are included to improve the habitat of the creek by removing invasive, non-native plant species, improving water quality and flow with implementation of proper erosion control and best management practices, and planting of appropriate species. Therefore, the development is permitted with

26.16 the issuance of a Watercourse Development Permit and Density Bonus waiver to the creek setbacks.

23. That the development complies with the applicable watercourse development standards stated in Section 24.08.2180.

A biotic review was prepared by Biotic Resources Group in August of 2023 with the focus of the assessment being to identify watercourse setbacks and sensitive biotic resources within the project area and evaluate the proposed project relative to the resources. The report recommends measures consistent with the applicable watercourse development standards stated in Section

24.08.2180 which have been included as conditions of approval.

24. That the project has met the requirements of all other reviewing agencies including but not limited to state and federal government requirements.

The limit of the development is outside of state and federal government jurisdiction and therefore is not required to meet state and federal requirements.

Density Bonus, Section 24.16.270

25. The housing development is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications, or modified parking standards requested; conforms to all standards for affordability included in this section; and includes a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs.

Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 24.16.020(5)(b), “SRO Developments. In a rental residential development comprised of SRO units, twenty percent of the single-room occupancy units shall be made available for rent to very low-income households at an affordable rent.” With a base density of 32 units, six (20%) of the residential units are required to be provided as affordable housing units at the very-low income level (50% AMI). Additionally, if the storage units are converted to ADU’s, at the time of building permit issuance, the applicant will be required to restrict two additional ADU’s in accordance with Section 24.16.020(8). While these two units are required to be restricted at the Low Income level, the property owner has volunteered to restrict the units at the Very Lot Income level. According to AB 2345 Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), if 15% of the total conforming base density is designated very lowincome, development projects then qualify for a 50% density bonus. Therefore, the housing development is eligible for a density bonus and the requested waivers. All financing mechanisms for implementation and monitoring costs will be provided by the applicants.

26. Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable rents or affordable ownership costs based upon appropriate financial analysis and documentation if required by Section.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for incentives/concessions.

26.17 27. If the density bonus is based all or in part on dedication of land, the approval body has made the findings included in Section 24.16.230.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for dedication of land.

28. If the density bonus, incentive, or concession is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care center, the development conforms to the standards included in Section

24.16.235.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a child care center.

29. If the density bonus incentive or concession is approved for a condominium conversion, the development conforms to the standards included in Section 24.16.240.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a condominium conversion.

30. If the incentive or concession includes mixed-use buildings or developments, the nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and the proposed nonresidential uses are compatible with the housing development and with existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located.

Not applicable. The project does not include any requests for incentives/concessions.

31. If a waiver or modification is requested, the applicant has shown that the development standards for which the waiver or modification is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Part 3.

The applicant has requested three waivers of development standards, all of which are required to be waived if they preclude project development. The applicant is requesting waivers to height, setbacks, and FAR. The city must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact on health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated, or adversely impact real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. With regard to the proposed project, failure to grant the waivers requested would physically preclude construction of the project accommodating the number of residential units allowed under Density Bonus Law. As presented, the project would not induce any specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and includes no characteristics constituting grounds for reduction in residential density or project denial pursuant to the provisions of SB330. No evidence has been revealed which would suggest that the requested waivers should not be granted as required by State law.

32. If a commercial development bonus is requested, the project complies with the requirements of Section 24.16.258, the city has approved the partnered housing agreement, and the bonus has been mutually agreed upon by the city and the commercial developer.

Not applicable. The project does not include a proposal for a commercial development bonus.

26.18 33. If the housing development or the commercial development is in the coastal zone, any requested density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification, modified parking standard, or commercial development bonus is consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified Santa Cruz local coastal program, with the exception of density.

Not applicable as the site is not located in the coastal zone.

Heritage Tree Removal, Resolution NS-23,710

34. The heritage tree or heritage tree shrub has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way; Not applicable.

35. The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation, warrants alteration or removal; or
Not applicable.

36. A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or heritage shrubs.

An arborist report was prepared by Davey Resource Group in August of 2023 and revised in October of 2023. Seven trees located on or near the site were assessed, with two qualifying as heritage trees requiring a permit for removal. One of the heritage trees, a Black Walnut located adjacent to the site in the riparian area, is proposed to be retained with tree protection measures provided and included as conditions of approval. All other trees on site, including one heritage Evergreen Ash, are proposed to be removed due to the extent of the proposed construction.

The project’s proposed tree and planting plan includes a total of 6 new trees:
 Nine 24-inch box Armstrong Gold Maple (street trees)
 Seven 10-15 gallon Dogwoods (2nd level open space terrace)  Five 10-gallon Variergated Box Elder Maples (5th level open space) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby acknowledges the Categorical Exemption and approves the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Line Adjustment to combine two parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to construct a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,627 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 48 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for density bonus including waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and FAR, as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking. The parcels are both located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) zone district and the Mission Street Overlay Zone, thereby denying the appeals; and subject to the Findings listed above and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, thereby

26.19 denying the appeals.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk

26.20 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish two commercial buildings, Boundary Adjustment to combine two parcels, and a Design Permit, Special Use Permit, Watercourse Development Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to construct a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,431 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 48 single room occupancy (SRO) residential units above. The project also includes a request for a density bonus and waivers to exceed building height, setbacks, and FAR, as well as proposes to utilize AB2097 to reduce on-site parking. The parcels are both located in the CC (Community Commercial)/MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) zone district and the Mission Street Overlay Zone.

1. If one or more of the following conditions is not met with respect to all its terms, then this approval may be revoked.

2. All plans for future construction which are not covered by this review shall be submitted to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval.

3. This permit shall be exercised within three (3) years of the date of final approval, or it shall become null and void. When a building permit is required, a zoning permit shall be considered exercised following the issuance of a valid building permit.

4. If, upon exercise of this permit, this use is at any time determined by the Planning Commission to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, revocation of, or amendment to, this permit by the Planning Commission could occur.

5. The use shall meet the standards and shall be developed within limits established by Chapter

24.14 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code as to the emission of noise, odor, smoke, dust, vibration, wastes, fumes, or any public nuisance arising or occurring incidental to its establishment or operation.

6. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may result in the revocation of any approval or permits issued in connection therewith.

7. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans. Renderings shall accurately reflect the proposed materials, and details shall be provided demonstrating the mix of materials at the corners of the building.

8. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall be internally consistent.

9. The development of the site shall be in substantial accordance with the approved plans submitted and on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City

26.21 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
of Santa Cruz. All aspects of construction must be completed prior to occupancy. Major modifications to plans or exceptions to completion may be granted only by the City authority which approved the project.

10. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement at the bottom of these conditions, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves construction of a building (project) with an approved Design Permit. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner which results in a finished building with the same level of detail, articulation, and dimensionality shown in the plans submitted for building permits. I hereby acknowledge that failure to construct the building as represented in the building permit plans, may result in delay of the inspections process and/or the mandatory reconstruction or alteration of any portion of the building that is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans, prior to continuation of inspections or the building final.”
Signature of Building Contractor Date

11. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works, Environmental Health, and Water Departments shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

12. All refuse and recycling activities during construction shall be done in accordance with Chapter

6.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Private companies offering refuse or debris box services are not allowed to operate within the City limits, except under certain limited circumstances detailed in Chapter 6.12.160.

13. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans shall indicate at least one parking space in the garage that will be designated for residential and commercial tenant loading and rideshare by restricting to adequate time limits, such as 3 or 5 minutes maximum.

14. Adequate provisions shall be made to supply water to each of the premises covered by this application. The design of water facilities shall be to standards of the Water Department, and plans therefore must be submitted to the Water Department Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

15. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show all exterior site lighting locations and fixture details. All exterior building lighting shall be shielded and contained in a downward direction. No exterior lighting shall produce off-site glare. A photometric site plan shall be provided to verify this, and planning department staff shall observe the final lighting at night before Certificate of Occupancy is granted.

16. Exterior site lighting shall be provided along pedestrian pathways and in the vehicle parking area. Security lighting shall be motion sensor only.

26.22 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103

17. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application and will be reviewed by both the Planning Department and Water Department. The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s WaterEfficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit. All landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy.

18. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.

19. Subsequent to occupancy of the premises, all landscaping shall be permanently maintained.

Such maintenance shall be secured through an 18-month bond prior to occupancy.

20. All utilities and transformer boxes shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified.

21. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.

22. Prior to commercial/business use of a building or site, owners or tenants shall obtain a Zoning Clearance/Occupancy Permit from the City Planning Department and a Business License from the City Finance Department.

23. Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the construction of the new mixed-use development. Issuance of the demolition permit may be made prior to building permit issuance at the discretion of the Planning Director.

24. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include the following note: Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource or paleontological resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking; c. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

25. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, asbestos and lead based paint testing shall be performed by either Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California (CA) state health certified individuals to determine the extent of the onsite hazardous materials prior to any demolition of existing structures. Approval shall then be obtained from Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) for the hazardous or other regulated material removal.

Applicant shall provide the city with a copy of the ASB application or a copy of an email

26.23 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
from MBARD stating no application is required. A separate building permit application and plans are required for the proposed demolition from the City of Santa Cruz Building Division if prior to issuance of the building permit application.

26. Bike Parking. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall demonstrate that the bike parking demonstrated on the approved plans are provided on the building permit plans. The plans shall include specifications for the Class 2 bike parking racks including manufacturer, dimensions, and design, and a description of the access privileges to any proposed secure bike parking areas.

27. Affordable Housing Agreement: Applicant shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements and density bonus requirements set forth at SCMC Chapter 24.16 Parts 1 and 3, together with any applicable State statutes involving density bonus. With a base density of 33 units, six (20%) of the residential units will be required to be deed-restricted as affordable units at the VLI (50% AMI) and two ADUs will be required to be restricted at the LI level (80% AMI). The applicant has volunteered to provide all eight units at the VLI level which shall be reflected in an affordable housing development agreement. The applicant shall enter into and record an affordable housing development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit for any affordable unit in the residential development. The affordable housing development agreement shall run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest.

28. A new property description shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office and a copy of the recorded description provided to the City Planning Department. The deed(s) of conveyance must contain the following statement after the description of the property(ies) or portion(s) of property to be transferred:
"The purpose of the deed is to adjust the boundary between Assessor's Parcel Number 006- 203-24 and Assessor's Parcel Number 006-203-25 as approved by the City of Santa Cruz under Application CP23-0103. This conveyance may not create a separate parcel, and is null and void unless the boundary is adjusted as stated."

29. Trash Enclosure: Plans submitted for building permit shall include a new trash enclosure. A floor drain shall be installed in the slab and connected to the sanitary sewer system; and a hose bib shall be installed for the purpose of cleaning the interior of the structure. The final trash enclosure design shall be shown in the plans submitted for building permit and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department.

30. New Sanitary Sewer Connection: Plans submitted for building permit shall show a new sanitary sewer connection, which will be required to connect to the existing City sanitary sewer manhole.

A City standard clean-out will be required.

31. Existing Sanitary Sewer Lateral(s): Plans submitted for building permit shall show the existing sanitary sewer lateral(s) abandoned at the City sewer main by method of mechanical plug or factory cap.

26.24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103

32. Street Trees. City street trees, each of minimally 24-inch-box size, shall be planted in a quantity and at locations as determined by the City’s Urban Forester. City Street Trees to be planted must conform to the City’s approved Street Tree List.

33. Any tree marked for preservation which is subsequently removed shall be replaced by two (2) specimen trees of a variety and at locations specified by the Director of Planning and Community Development or authorized designee. All such trees shall be replaced prior to occupancy of the premises.

34. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a tree protection plan indicating the manner by which all trees designated for retention will be preserved during project construction.

35. TIF: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) as required by the Public Works Department.

36. Stormwater Management: Prior to submittal of any application for demolition permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit all necessary information, documentation, and plans necessary to demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, State Water Resources Control Board, and any other regulatory agencies related to satisfactory management and treatment of stormwater.

37. Compliance with Recommendations of Project Reports/Technical Studies. At all times, the project applicant/property owner shall ensure compliance with all recommendations included in reports/technical studies related to natural resources, including, but not limited to, the geotechnical report dated October 18, 2022, prepared by Rock Solid Engineering Inc.; the arborist report and tree protection plan dated October 2023, prepared by Davey Resource Group; and the biotic report dated August 17, 2023, prepared by Biotic Resources Group.

38. Bird-Safe Development. Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s Bird Safe Development Guidelines and shall include the use of glass with a frit pattern, or other bird-safe methods compliant with American Bird Conservancy guidelines, on the west facing elevation within 40-feet of grade.

39. During Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource or paleontological resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking;

26.25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
c. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

40. Grading shall be done during periods of dry weather and protective measures shall be incorporated during grading to prevent siltation from any grading project halted due to rain.

41. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, rooftop and ground-mounted equipment, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. visible from the public way and from adjacent properties, shall be screened with material compatible with the materials of the building and shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Sound control shall be considered when designing this screening.

42. Final colors shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to application for building permits, provided there are no substantial deviations from the final colors as shown on the approved plans. as proposed in the Project submittal and application materials.

43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Park and Recreation Facility Tax pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Park and Recreation Facility Tax pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

45. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the childcare impact fee pursuant to Chapter 8.48 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

46. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the public safety impact fee pursuant to Chapter 8.49 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

47. All downspouts shall be directed either to the City street or into percolation wells provided for the handling of such runoff.

48. Acoustic Report. Prior to issuance of building permit, an acoustic evaluation (noise study). prepared by an acoustic engineer licensed in the State of California must be submitted, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development or authorized designee. Plans and documents provided by the applicant/developer in conjunction with the application for Building permit shall incorporate building and site design demonstrating

26.26 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
compliance with all recommendations of the acoustic report. Compliance with all recommended measures for noise attenuation must be ensured at all times.

49. Soils Engineer Verification. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a letter from the project soils engineer, verifying that the scope of work and design of the project is consistent with, and in all respects complies with, the geotechnical report prepared for the project and the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, and erosion control.

50. County Environmental Health and Safety. Compliance with all requirements of the County of Santa Cruz Department of Environmental Health and Safety Department related to on-site assessment and remediation must be ensured at all times.

51. Future Food Service Use. All commercial spaces shall each be constructed to support a future food service use. Plans must include ducting and venting plans for all commercial spaces. All ducting and venting should be designed to be hidden or incorporated into the building design.

Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, and grease storage facilities, which shall be located outside of the public right of way.

52. No signs shall be installed on the site without prior approval of a Sign Permit.

53. The property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the building and site in good condition including maintenance of exterior materials, landscaping, sidewalks, street furniture, lighting, open space areas, appropriate window treatments, and the parking garages.

54. The property owner and/or project applicant agree(s) as a condition and in consideration of the approval of this discretionary development permit that it will, pursuant to agreement and/or statutory provisions as applicable, including but not limited to Government Code Section 66474.9, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Santa Cruz or its agents, officials, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, which action is brought within the time period provided for under law, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 66499.37, as applicable. The property owner and/or project applicant will reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees, which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such action; but such participation shall not relieve the property owner and/or project applicant of these obligations under this condition. An agreement to this effect shall be recorded upon demand of the City Attorney or concurrent with the issuance of building permits, use of the property, filing of the final map, whichever occurs first and as applicable. The City shall promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. If the City fails to promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense thereof, the property owner and/or project applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold the City harmless.

26.27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103

54. Applicant’s/Property Owner’s Duty to Defend, Indemnify, and Hold Harmless. a. Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (the “City Parties”) from and against all liabilities, losses, liens, damages, judgments, costs, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees (“Losses”), arising in any way related to this Project.
b. Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (“City Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, and proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) brought against the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or otherwise modify the decision on the Project, permit decision, or environmental review related to the Project; or Actions alleging failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, general plan, or zoning requirements related to the Project.

The defense and indemnification obligation includes reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred in connection with such Actions, including but not limited to, costs of suit, expenses, payment of attorney’s fees, City staff costs, court costs, damages, liabilities, judgments, and settlement costs.
c. Applicant and Property Owner shall also defend, indemnify and hold harmless City Parties for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (such as an EIR, negative declaration, specific plan, general plan amendment, or ordinance) if made necessary by said Actions and if the Applicant or Property Owner seeks to pursue securing such approvals and/or clearances, after initiation of the Actions, which are conditioned on the approval of these documents.
d. City shall notify Applicant and Property Owner of any such Actions and City agrees to cooperate in the defense of the Actions. Upon receipt of such notification, Applicant and/or Property Owner shall assume the defense of the Actions, including the employment of counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, City may employ separate counsel to represent the City; and Applicant and/or Property Owner agrees to pay for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the City’s separate counsel.
e. Applicant and Property Owner agree that City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such Actions; but such participation shall not relieve Applicant or Property Owner of any of the obligations herein to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties. If the City Attorney’s Office participates in the defense, all of the City Attorney’s Office fees and costs, and City staff costs, shall be paid by the Applicant and/or Property Owner.
f. In the event that Applicant and/or Property Owner is required to defend City in connection with any Actions, City shall retain the right to reasonably approve: the counsel to so defend City; all significant decisions concerning the manner in which

26.28 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
the defense is conducted; and any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld but which is contingent on the approval of the City council. g. Applicant and Property Owner agree to reimburse and indemnify the City for all of City’s costs, fees, including attorney’s fees and costs, staff costs, and damages incurred in enforcing these provisions to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties.
h. Applicant’s and Property Owner’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not apply to the extent such Actions or Losses are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Parties. Applicant’s and Property Owner’s obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that City Parties caused or contributed to the Losses.
i. The obligations of Applicant and Property to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Parties, are joint and several.
j. The obligations in this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this application.

55. The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any existing buildings approved for demolition or conversion remain occupied by a tenant or, if any buildings are vacant or become vacant prior to demolition or conversion, that these buildings are adequately secured to prevent break-ins and other vandalism. All windows, doors, and other openings into vacant buildings shall be completely covered and a six-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the property. Graffiti shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours. If a break-in occurs, the applicant and/or property owner shall, within 24 hours, clean the site of trash and debris, and re-secure the site and building(s).

Additionally, following a break-in, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Department, SCFD Fire Marshall and SCPD with a copy of a signed contract with a private security company to provide ongoing monitoring of the site. If a break-in or other public safety concern occurs at the site that requires an emergency response, the applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for paying the fully burdened hourly rates for Police, Fire, Code Compliance, or other City Staff to respond and follow up.

56. Prior to final inspection of a Building Permit, all rental units in the project shall be enrolled in the City of Santa Cruz Residential Rental Inspection Program. The units are exempt from inspections and annual registration fees for the first five years of occupancy (based on the date of building permit’s final inspection) and will be activated automatically after five years.

If the project consists of ownership units, each individual property owner is responsible for enrolling in the Rental Inspection Program prior to renting their unit(s).

57. Management Plan: Applicant shall submit a finalized management plan that provides the criteria specified in Zoning Code Section 24.12.1040, which shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance. The management plan shall include the following:

26.29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
a. The name and contact information for the property manager and that they will be available to respond to resident and community concerns at all times. b. That the building shall comply with the city noise ordinance (9.56), which restricts offensive noise between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM. Further, the plan shall specify that noise from the rooftop terraces between these hours shall not be audible off-site.
c. The owner’s intent to prioritize tenancy to households that do not own a car. d. Details regarding trash bin placement and removal from driveway.

58. The applicant shall implement riparian restoration/enhancement actions within the 10-foot wide riparian corridor. Within this zone, invasive, non-native plant species shall be removed, primarily bamboo, Himalaya berry, and English ivy, and install shade-tolerant locally native riparian species. Suitable species may include creek dogwood (Cornus sericea), California rose (Rosa californica), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) and flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum). The applicant shall implement maintenance of the corridor, including continued removal of invasive, non-native plant species and maintenance of installed plantings for a minimum of 5 years, providing yearly progress reports to the City. Within the 15-foot wide development setback area, the plantings in the bioremediation area of the proposed Landscape Plan shall exclude plant species that are not locally native and/or inappropriate for the region. Any/all milkweed species (Asclepias spp.) shall be removed.

59. The project shall utilize locally-native plant species within the 10-foot riparian corridor.

Plants shall be obtained from a local native plant nursery. Invasive, non-native plant species shall not be used for landscaping. Plant species that should not be used on the site include all plants recognized by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). This list includes: all brooms (i.e., French broom, Spanish broom and Scotch broom), periwinkle (Vinca sp.), Cape ivy, English ivy, Algerian ivy, acacia (all kinds), eucalyptus (all kinds), Monterey pine, cotoneaster, and pyracantha. A full list of prohibited species is found on www.cal-ipc.org.

Existing occurrences of invasive species that should be removed/controlled from the riparian corridor include: Himalaya, English ivy, valerian, and bamboo.

60. Lighting within the riparian corridor shall be prohibited and lighting in the development setback area shall be limited to low-level walkway, motion detection security, or entry lighting. Direct lighting shall be hooded and directed downward, away from the watercourse.

61. Mowing or removal of riparian vegetation shall be prohibited. Pre-construction bird nesting surveys shall be conducted adjacent to identified habitat areas.

62. Vegetation removal shall be scheduled to occur between September 1 and March 1 of any given year(s) to avoid the bird nesting season for this part of the central coast. If that schedule is not practical, then a qualified biologist shall be hired to conduct nesting bird surveys no more than two weeks (14 days) prior to vegetation removal. If any active bird nests are observed, the biologist shall designate a buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub as follows:
200 feet for nesting raptors and 50 feet for all other bird species. No vegetation removal shall take place within the buffer zone until the biologist has determined that all chicks have fledged and are able to feed on their own. Because this is a relatively small lot, it may not be practical to work around the buffer zone, in which case vegetation removal shall be

26.30 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
postponed until the biologist has determined that all chicks have fledged and are able to feed on their own.

63. The project shall implement standard erosion control BMP’s and riparian habitat protection measures during the project construction period to minimize impacts to the creek located adjacent to the work area, including:
a. Install devices to divert surface water away from the work area. b. Install plastic mesh fencing at the perimeter of the work area to prevent inadvertent impacts to the riparian corridor, stream channel, and injury to any vegetation to be retained.

Protective fencing shall be in place prior to ground disturbances and removed once all construction is complete. During construction, no grading, construction or other work shall occur outside the designated limits of work. Ensure no construction materials enter the creek/riparian area while construction the Building overhang. c. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored outside the designated limits of work.
d. All staging of equipment and materials, and refueling of equipment, shall be located in existing roadways and parking areas. The contractor shall prepare and implement a fuel spill prevention and clean-up plan.

64. The project shall apply native or other appropriate erosion control hydroseed mix on exposed soils and slopes and use biotechnical bank stabilization to the maximum extent feasible.

65. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower shall be zeroemissions or equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final or Interim compliant engines. Alternatively, CARB Tier 2 or 3 compliant engines may be used if CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled equipment.

66. The developer shall work with the Metro to implement existing bus pass programs for the project tenants.

67. The amenity/laundry rooms shall include motion-sensor lighting in compliance with the 2002 Energy Code. The windows facing the creek shall be equipped with blinds, shades or other window coverings and there shall be signage installed in the amenity/laundry rooms stating that such coverings shall be used during all hours of darkness to limit light trespass to the creek.

68. On the western roof terrace, plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include the use of vegetation, seat walls, or other design elements on the western edge to provide privacy buffering.

69. The curbside loading space within the Laurel Street right-of-way (north end of the driveway) shall be maintained and used for residential and commercial delivery trucks, and rideshare8.

The owner shall work with delivery services to the greatest extent possible to request loading on Mission for large semi-trucks.

26.31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103

70. As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall pay the remaining balance on the cost of the solar panels of the adjacent property at 1212 Laurel St., not to exceed $10,000. The property owner shall provide evidence of the payment to the City prior to final or temporary occupancy.

71. Fast-food uses, such as a Grab and Go window or food prepared at a deli counter, are not permitted with this permit. The applicant shall obtain approval of an Administrative Use Permit prior to such use, or shall otherwise comply with the code in effect at the time of application.

72. Future building colors shall be consistent with the Mission Street Urban Design Plan, with the exception of the mural.

73. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include the mural as shown on the approved plans, Sheet GP0.07. Significant changes in mural design shall be subject to the following artist selection process:
a. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall work with the City to select a mural artist and design concept for the mural on the Laurel Street elevation as shown on the plans. A panel consisting of one member of the Arts Commission, one member of the Downtown Association, and the Economic Development Director shall work in coordination with the applicant to select the artist and design. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide evidence that a contract has been entered into with the selected artist for the approved design.

74. Mural shall be complete prior to occupancy, including temporary occupancy.

75. As volunteered by the property owner, plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include an electronic sign and system to display available parking spaces within the garage, if it is technically feasible. Sign shall not be illuminated past close of business.

76. As volunteered by the property owner, the property owner shall post a cash bond in the amount of $7,500 with the City or Metro, which the City or Metro may use for future bus stop improvements anywhere within the City of Santa Cruz. Any remaining amount of the cash bond not used by City or Metro for bus stop improvements, after 5 years from the date of posting of the bond, shall be returned to Property Owner.

77. An environmental soil management plan must be reviewed and approved by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) prior to any soil excavation or trenching. If contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during the redevelopment, please notify the CCRWQCB for further direction.

78. A six-foot tall solid wall or fence shall be constructed along the length of the western property line abutting the adjacent single-family home.

79. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall reimburse the city for the costs associated with the peer review of the biotic report, as indicated in the Master Fee Schedule

26.32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 1130/1132 Mission Street – CP23-0103
for Watercourse Variance Permits, “This application may require the use of expert outside analysis. Any consultants costs and/or additional staff time will be charge to and recovered from applicant.”

26.33 PROJECT DIRECTORY

ARCHITECT

WORKBENCH
CONTACT: JAMILEH CANNON
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 831.227.2217
E: [email protected]

CLIENT/TENANT
CONTACT: DOUG R. WALLACE
1130 MISSION ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 831-254-1029
E: [email protected]

CONTRACTOR

WORKBENCH
CONTACT: TIM GORDIN
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 831.227.2217
E: [email protected]

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

MBLA, LANSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

MEGAN BISHOP
PO BOX 328
APTOS, CA 95001
P: 831.818.9227
E: [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

IFLAND ENGINEERS
5300 SOQUEL AVE.,
SUITE 101
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
P: 831.426.5313
E: [email protected]

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
ROCK SOLID ENGINEERING, INC.

YVETTE WILSON
1100 MAIN STREET, SUITE A,

WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA
95076, UNITED STAT
P: 831.724.5868
E:[email protected]

CODE INFORMATION

1. 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

2. 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE

3. 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE

4. 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE

5. 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE

6. 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE

7. 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS

8. 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY

9. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE AMENDMENTS
1 A101
1 SIM
101
1 1
A101
SIM 1i
1t

DOOR OR GATE NUMBER

WALL TAG

WINDOW TAG

ROOM NUMBER

ELEVATION MARKER

ROOM AREA

DETAIL NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

REVISION NUMBER

KEYNOTE NUMBER
A101
1 Ref
1Ref
1 Ref
1Ref

ELEVATION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

BUILDING SECTION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

GRAPHIC LEGEND
Room name
101
150 SF

X X X X ROOM FINISHES
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NTS
5/7/2024 6:33:18 PM
GP0.01

COVER SHEET INDEX
21128

01.09.2023
DS
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1130 & 1132 MISSION

PLANNING PACKAGE

DRAWING INDEX - PLANNING PACKAGE

GENERAL
GP0.01 COVER SHEET INDEX
GP0.02 PROJECT INFO
GP0.03 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
GP0.04 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
GP0.05 BONUS DENSITY EXHIBIT
GP0.07 RENDERINGS AND 3D EXHIBITS
GP0.08 SHADOW STUDY
GP0.09 GROSS AREA PLAN EXHIBITS
GP0.10 NET UNIT AREA PLAN EXHIBITS

LAND SURVEY
LS.10 LAND SURVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
CIVIL
C1.0 PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION PLAN
C2.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
C3.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C4.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
C4.1 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL DETAILS
C5.0 PRELIMINARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP

ARCHITECTURAL
AP0.50D PROPOSED DEMO SITE PLAN
AP0.51 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
AP1.01 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1
AP1.02 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2
AP1.03 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3
AP1.04 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4
AP1.05 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5
AP1.06 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
AP3.01 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP3.02 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP3.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP4.01 BUILDING SECTIONS
AP4.02 BUILDING SECTIONS
AP5.01 ENLARGED WALL SECTIONS
AP9.01 CAR, EV, BICYCLE PARKING, & STORAGE INFO

LANDSCAPE
L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN GROUND LEVEL
L1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN LEVEL 2
L1.3 LANDSCAPE PLAN LEVEL 5
L1.4 LANDSCAPE PLAN ROOF LEVEL
006-203-24 & 006-203-25 05/08/2024

NATURAL GAS-FREE DESIGN AS
REQUIRED BY SCMC 6.100, DESIGNED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER

6.100 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
4 PLANNING REV-04 04.19.2024
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
6 PLANNING REV-06 05.09.2024
5 6

26.34 PROJECT DATA
LOT 1 ADDRESS: 1132 MISSION ST
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
APN: 006-203-24
LOT SIZE: 5,314.3 SF (0.122 ACRES)
LOT 2 ADDRESS: 1130 MISSION ST
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
APN: 006-203-25
LOT SIZE: 7,187.4 SF (0.165 ACRES)
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 12,501.7 SF (0.287 ACRES)
ZONING DISTRICT: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MXMD - MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE I-A: 9,853 SF
TYPE III-A: 34,890 SF
PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES: TYPE I-A: 1-STORY
TYPE III-A: 4-STORIES
BUILDING OCCUPANCIES: R-2 (RESIDENTIAL)
S-2 (GARAGE)

B (COMMERCIAL)
EXISTING BUILDING 1 AREA: 1,505 SF
EXISTING BUILDING 2 AREA: 738 SF
TOTAL EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 2,243 SF
(TO BE DEMOLISHED)
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 2,243 SF/12,501 SF = 17.9%
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 9,852 SF/12,501 SF = 78.8%
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) ALLOWED: 1.75
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) PROPOSED: 3.46
(WAIVER #3 SOUGHT PER STATE DENSITY BONUS)
3 SCOPE OF WORK
THE PROJECT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 43,257 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH 4 STORIES OF TYPE III-A OVER ONE STORY OF TYPE I-A NEW CONSTRUCTION. 47 UNITS OF SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) HOUSING ARE PROPOSED ABOVE A 2,627 SF COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE BUILDING IS 5 STORIES TALL IN TOTAL AND UTILIZES THE STATE DENSITY BONUS AS WELL AS SB-330 AND CA AB 2097.

WAIVERS ARE REQUESTED FOR:

1. BUILDING HEIGHT

2. SETBACKS

3. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
CONCESSIONS ARE REQUESTED FOR:

1. IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID AT FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

2. REMOVE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FEATURES FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE USES NOT PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION THIS PROPOSAL SEEKS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE (2) EXISTING BUILDINGS CURRENTLY UNDERUTILIZE THE (2) SUBJECT PARCELS AND ARE NOTED AS HAVING A "LOW CONTRIBUTION TO URBAN QUALITY IN THE SANTA CRUZ MISSION STREET URBAN DESIGN PLAN". THERE ARE (2) SMALL EXISTING SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OCCUPIED BY A SINGLE GROCER TENANT.

THE EXISTING BUILDINGS TEND TO FLOOD, REQUIRE NEW ROOFS AND OTHER REPAIRS, AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDINGS WILL BE COSTLY AND DISRUPTIVE TO THE SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY.

THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION PROVIDES PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AS WELL AS AN APPROX. 5,722 SF PARKING GARAGE WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING.

THERE IS A LOBBY ENTRY SPACE FOR RESIDENTS WITH AMENITIES INCLUDING A MAIL/PACKAGE ROOM AND RENTAL OFFICE, AND THERE IS A LARGE OPEN AIR COURTYARD FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE 2ND FLOOR ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR PODIUM. OTHER AMENITIES LOCATED

THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING ROOMS ON EACH STORY WITH LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING FOR EVERY UNIT (CLASS-I), AND RESIDENT STORAGE PER SANTA CRUZ SRO CODE REQUIREMENTS. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL TENANTS ON FLOORS 2-5 INCLUDE COMMON USE AREAS, LAUNDRY AREAS AND TRASH/RECYCLING/COMPOST FACILITIES.

LEVELS 2 THROUGH 5 HOST SRO UNITS ON EACH FLOOR WITH INDIVIDUAL KITCHENS AND FULL BATHROOMS. LEVEL 5 HOSTS SHARED BALCONY AMENITY SPACE.

AN APPROX. 2,627 SF COMMERCIAL SPACE IS PLANNED ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF MISSION STREET WITH AN ASSOCIATED COVERED OUTDOOR ENTRY AT THE CORNER OF MISSION AND LAUREL STREETS. SUPPORTING UTILITY SPACES FOR BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL SPACES ARE PROVIDED. PUBLIC BICYCLE PARKING (CLASS-II) IS INCLUDED ALONG LAUREL STREET.

THE BUILDING'S MASSING ORIENTS THE RESIDENT COURTYARD TOWARDS LAUREL CREEK, PROVIDING GREEN VIEWS FOR RESIDENTS AND ACCOMMODATING REQUIRED CREEK DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS. SOME ROOF SPACE IS INTENDED FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS. SOME GREEN ROOF SPACE WILL BE PROVIDED AS WELL. 5 PLANNING CODE NOTES

BUILDING HEIGHT
& STORIES
SCMC 24.10.750

BICYCLE PARKING

24.12.1030 (7)

24.12.250(2)(b)

24.12.250(2)(b)

24.12.250(2)(a)

24.12.250(2)(a)

SEE PLANS
REQUIRED:

RESIDENTIAL: 48 SPACES (1 SPACE / UNIT)
48 CLASS-I SPACES (1 SPACE / UNIT)
= 12 CLASS-II SPACES (1 SPACE / 4 UNITS)
COMMERCIAL: 1 CLASS-I SPACE (20% OF 2 + 15% OF CAR SPACES) = 20% (2 + (15% OF 14)) = 20% (2.1 = 3)
= 0.6 = 1
3 CLASS-II SPACES (80% OF 2 + 15% OF CAR SPACES)
=80% (2 + (15% OF 14)) = 80% (2.1 = 3)
= 2.4 = 3
TOTAL: 60 CLASS-I SPACES
18 CLASS-II SPACES
PROVIDED: 82 CLASS-I SPACES
32 CLASS-II SPACES

SETBACKS REQUIRED
SCMC 24.10.750
(WAIVER #2 SOUGHT PER STATE DENSITY BONUS)
FRONT YARD: 0' CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA: 40'
REAR YARD: 0' CREEK DEVELOPMENT SETBACK: 15'
SIDE YARDS: 0' CREEK RIPARIAN SETBACK: 10'
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL YARD, ADJACENT TO R15 ZONE: 15'

PARKING
SCMC 24.16.256
SCMC 24.12.240
CA AB 2097
SCMC 21.12.241
CGBSC 4.106.4.2
CBC 1109A.3
CBC 11B 208.2
CBC 11B-208.2.4 &
CBC 1109A.8.6
PARKING REQUIRED:

RESIDENTIAL: 24 SPACES (.5 SPACE PER UNIT)
COMMERCIAL: 14 SPACES (RETAIL, SHOP, SERVICE 1 PER 250 SF OF FLOOR AREA) TOTAL: 38 SPACES
AB 2097 PROHIBITS ANY MINIMUM AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ANY

RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AS DEFINED, THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT, AS DEFINED. REDUCTION OF

ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING PARKING SPACES AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES IS PROHIBITED.

EV PARKING REQUIRED:

RESIDENTIAL: 3 SPACES (12% OF 24 SPACES)
COMMERCIAL: 1 SPACE (FOR 10-25 REQUIRED SPACES)
TOTAL: 4 SPACES
TOTAL: 4 SPACES (10% OF 38 SPACES)
ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED:

RESIDENTIAL: 1 SPACE (2% OF 24 SPACES)
COMMERCIAL: 1 SPACE (FOR 1-25 REQUIRED SPACES)
VAN SPACES: 2 SPACES (1 PER 6 COMMERCIAL SPACES, 1 PER 8 RESIDENTIAL) TOTAL: 2 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACES

PERMITTED USE

MISSION STREET

URBAN DESIGN PLAN
REQUIRED:

NO GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USE, MOST APPROPRIATE USE FOR MISSION

STREET C-C DISTRICTS INCLUDES GOODS/SERVICES, VISITOR-SERVING SERVICE

DEPENDENT ON HIGHWAY VISIBILITY/FRONTAGE, COMPATIBLE W/ AN

ATTRACTIVE, PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, NOT PRIMARILY AUTO-ORIENTED.

PROVIDED:

PROJECT COMPLIES (SEE SHEET AP2.01)

ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITIONS

USABLE OPEN SPACE
SCMC 24.12.1030 (1)
REQUIRED:
480 SF (10 SF / UNIT AND NO LESS THAN 200 SF COMMON OUTDOOR AND 200 SF COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE)
PROVIDED:
2,588 SF (SEE SHEET GP0.04 FOR OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT)
POINT SOURCE AIR/WATER POLLUTANTS: NO, NONE EXISTING AND NO PROPOSED POINT SOURCE

AIR/WATER POLLUTANTS
VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: NO, PER CAL FIRE 2022 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAP HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY SENSITIVITY: NO KNOWN HISTORIC AND/OR HISTORIC RESOURCES SENSITIVE HABITAT (WETLANDS): NO, PER U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE NATIONAL WETLANDS SURVEY HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE: NO, PER DTSC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE LIST

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY 100-YEAR FLOOD: NO, PER CITY G.I.S. AND FEMA FLOOD HAZARD AREA MAPS DELINEATED EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE: NO, PER USGS EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAP SPECIES OF CONCERN: NO, NO KNOWN SPECIES OF CONCERN ON SITE PER BIOTIC

REPORT (SEE ATTACHED)
RECORDED PUBLIC EASEMENTS: YES, SEE SITE SURVEY INCLUDED FOR ALL APPLICABLE PUBLIC EASMENTS.

COASTAL ZONE: NO, PER CITY G.I.S.

RESIDENT STORAGE

24.12.1030 (6)
REQUIRED:

RESIDENTIAL: 48 STORAGE SPACES (1 SPACE / UNIT)
PROVIDED:

RESIDENTIAL: 48 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE LOCKERS (SEE PLANS) (WAIVER #1 SOUGHT PER STATE DENSITY BONUS)
ALLOWABLE: 40' PROPOSED: 66'
ALLOWABLE: 3-STORIES PROPOSED: 5-STORIES
ALLOWABLE STAIRS - 12’
OVER LIMIT: ELEVATORS - 12’ RAILINGS - NO RESTRICTION
PROPOSED: SEE ELEVATIONS
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED:
10 STANDARD SIZE EV PARKING SPACES
2 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES W/ EV CHARGING STATIONS SETBACKS PROVIDED FRONT YARD: 1'-9" (MISSION STREET)
REAR YARD: 5'-8" (ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WAIVER SOUGHT) SIDE YARDS: 9'-8" (ADJACENT TO CREEK) & 3'-9" (LAUREL STREET) CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA: SEE BIOTIC REPORT, WAIVER SOUGHT CREEK DEVELOPMENT SETBACK: SEE BIOTIC REPORT, WAIVER SOUGHT CREEK RIPARIAN SETBACK: SEE BIOTIC REPORT, WAIVER SOUGHT STREAM OR OTHER RESOURCE: NO, PER CITY G.I.S. AND CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME STREAM MAP.

ANY APPROVALS UNDER THE SUBDIVISION

MAP ACT,INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

A PARCEL MAP, A TENTATIVE MAP, OR A
CONDOMINIUM MAP, BEING REQUESTED: NO, NONE ARE BEING REQUESTED. 1 1
1 3
3 3
3 CONTEXT & MOBILITY

SUBJECT SITE

BUS STOP, TYP
18, 40, 41, & 42 LINES
367 FT. FROM SUBJECT SITE

BUS STOP, TYP
18, 40, 41, & 42 LINES
276 FT. FROM SUBJECT SITE

BUS STOP, TYP
18, 40, 41, & 42 LINES

0.2 MILE FROM SUBJECT SITE

BUS STOP, TYP
40, 41, & 42 LINES

0.1 MILE FROM SUBJECT SITE

BUS STOP, TYP
19, & 41 LINES

0.3 MILE FROM SUBJECT SITE

ASSESSORS MAP

SUBJECT

PROPERTIES

ZONING MAP

SUBJECT

PROPERTIES
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NTS
5/7/2024 6:33:18 PM
GP0.02

PROJECT INFO
21128

01.09.2023
DS
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25

BUILDING GROSS AREA BY USE PROJECT UNIT COUNT

PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA
LEVEL RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION PARKING AMENITY SERVICE / MECH. COMMERCIAL STORAGE TOTALS LEVEL 1 0 SF 433 SF 5,722 SF 522 SF 549 SF 2,627 SF 0 SF 9,853 SF LEVEL 2 4,498 SF 1,878 SF 0 SF 1,767 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,008 SF 9,473 SF LEVEL 3 4,157 SF 1,591 SF 0 SF 838 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 8,321 SF LEVEL 4 4,157 SF 1,592 SF 0 SF 838 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 8,322 SF LEVEL 5 3,798 SF 1,542 SF 0 SF 213 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 7,288 SF GRAND TOTALS 16,610 SF 7,036 SF 5,722 SF 4,178 SF 1,837 SF 2,627 SF 5,247 SF 43,257 SF

UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 NOTE:

REFER TO SHEET GP0.05 FOR DENSITY

BONUS EXHIBIT AND CALCULATIONS
REFER TO SHEET GP0.10 FOR NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBIT
FLOOR
AREA

RESIDENTIAL
NONRESIDENTIAL
TOTAL
33,404 GSF 9,853 GSF
43,257 GSF
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
6 PLANNING REV-06 05.09.2024
3 3
3 5
6 6

26.35 16
12345
6789 10
11 12 13 14
16 17 18 19
21 22 23 24
26 27 28
12 3
2 1
11 9
10 12
15 20
25 4
6 5
7 8
14 15
19 17
20 21
27 24
25 22
23 26
28 18
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NTS
5/7/2024 6:33:29 PM
GP0.03

EXISTING SITE
PHOTOS
21128

01.09.2023
DS
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.36 WDWD
WDWD
WDWD
SCMC 21.12.1030 (1)

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ SHARED OPEN SPACE

REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL UNIT COUNT: 48 UNITS
SHARED USABLE OPEN SPACE REQ'D: 480 GSF
(10 GSF / UNIT)
COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:1,691 SF
COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 992 SF
A MINIMUM OF 200 SF OF COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE
AND 200 SF OF COMMON INDOR SPACE IS REQUIRED

USABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED

OPEN SPACE LEGEND

COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE

COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE
369 SF

COMMON INDOOR

OPEN SPACE
1,039 SF

COMMON OUTDOOR

OPEN SPACE
300 SF

COMMON INDOOR

OPEN SPACE
322 SF

COMMON INDOOR

OPEN SPACE
8' - 1"
325 SF

COMMON OUTDOOR

OPEN SPACE
12' - 3"
12' - 5"
326 SF

COMMON OUTDOOR

OPEN SPACE
22' - 1 1/8" 6' - 11"
N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:33:38 PM
GP0.04

OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
21128

01.09.2023
DS
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
LEVEL
COMMON

OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE
COMMON

INDOOR OPEN

SPACE TOTALS
LEVEL 1 0 SF 0 SF 232 SF
LEVEL 2 1,039 SF 369 SF 1,408 SF
LEVEL 3 0 SF 300 SF 300 SF
LEVEL 4 0 SF 322 SF 322 SF
LEVEL 5 652 SF 0 SF 652 SF
GRAND
TOTALS
1,691 SF 992 SF 2,915 SF
1" = 20'-0"
1 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
1" = 20'-0"
2 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 2
1" = 20'-0" 3
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 3
1" = 20'-0" 4
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 4
1" = 20'-0" 5
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - LEVEL 5
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.37 W W W D D D

COMMERCIAL
SPACE
TRASH
MEP
/ ELEC
LOBBY
/ MAIL
STAIR 1
18' - 0" TYP
T
YP
9' - 0"
53' - 11"

LAUREL AVE
8' -MISSION STREET
0" 9' - 0"
OFFICE

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
15' - 0" CREEK

RIPARIAN SETBACK
10' - 0" CREEK
R.Y.S.B.
25' - 0"

DRIVE AISLE
20' - 0"

ALL BASE DENSITY

PARKING IS EXTERIOR

COMMERCIAL PARKING,

SCREENED AS REQUIRED

RESIDENT
STOR.
33 RESIDENT STORAGE SPACES
PER SCMC 24.12.1030(6)
5 STAIR OVERHEAD,
9' - 0" MIN CLEARANCE
1 2
3 4
5 6
78 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

UNIT UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

UNIT UNIT
BIKE STOR.

MEP

AMENITY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
84' - 10"
R.Y.S.B.
25' - 0"

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
15' - 0" CREEK
(OCCURS ON L2 ONLY)
DASH

INDICATES

OPEN TO
ABOVE

OVERHEAD

LAUREL AVE

MISSION STREET

TERRACE /

OUTDOOR SPACE

RIPARIAN SETBACK
10' - 0" CREEK
34' - 1"
28' - 0"
UNIT

LAUNDRY
(3) WASHERS AND (3) DRYERS
PER SCMC 24.12.1030(3)
6 6
7 7
LA
5 UREL AVE

ADJACENT

PROPERTY

MISSION STREET
11'- 0" 11'- 0" 16'- 0"

MISSION STREET

CREEK AND

CREEK SETBACK

LAUREL AVE
11'- 0" 11'- 0" 16' - 0"
BASE DENSITY UNIT CALCULATIONS PER 24.16.255 (6):

FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF DENSITY BONUS UNITS IN AREAS WHERE A MAXIMUM DENSITY

RANGE IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE ZONE DISTRICT OR GENERAL PLAN, AN IMPLICIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY SHALL BE

CALCULATED BASED ON A PROJECT PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT THAT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND HEIGHT

LIMITATIONS, WHILE NOT DEFINING THE MAXIMUM DENSITY RANGE PER SE, CAN BE UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THE IMPLICIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED. IN THIS APPROACH, A PROJECT DEFINES THE APPLICABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ITSELF BASED ON MEETING APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS

PRESENTED IN THE BASE DENSITY PROJECT MUST BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS PRESENTED IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT.

DENSITY BONUS UNIT CALCULATIONS
BASE DENSITY UNITS MODELED PER OBJECTIVE STANDARDS:
16 UNITS ON LEVEL 2
+ 17 UNITS ON LEVEL 3
= 33 BASE DENSITY UNITS
BONUS DENSITY UNITS CALCULATED:
33 BASE DENSITY UNITS
x 50% BONUS DENSITY = 17 BONUS DENSITY UNITS
PER AB2345 (ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS)
TOTAL ALLOWED UNITS:
33 BASE DENSITY UNITS
+ 17 DENSITY BONUS UNITS = 50 ALLOWED UNITS

SEE AP SHEETS FOR PROPOSED BUILDING
COMMON INDOOR AMENITY SPACE PROVIDED SCMC 24.12.1030(1) (BASE DENSITY): 543 GSF (200 GSF REQUIRED, SEE GP0.09) RESIDENT STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED 24.12.1030(6) (BASE DENSITY): 33 SPACES PROVIDED (33 REQUIRED) BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED (BASE DENSITY): 52 SPACES PROVIDED (33 REQUIRED) COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED 24.12.1030(1) (BASE DENSITY): 854 GSF (330 GSF REQUIRED, SEE GP0.09) LOT AREA PER SURVEY:
1130 MISSION: 7,187.4 SF (0.165 ACRES)
1132 MISSION: 5,314.3 SF (0.122 ACRES)
TOTAL: 12,501.7 SF (0.287 ACRES)
ALLOWED FAR: 1.75
ALLOWED AREA: 21,877.98 GSF

BASE DENSITY
AVG UNIT AREA: 354.6 GSF PER UNIT (SEE GP0.09)

PROPOSED BASE
DENSITY FAR: 1.72
5 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 89
10 11
12 13
14 15 16

DEVELOPMENT SETBACK
15' - 0" CREEK

LAUREL AVE

MISSION STREET

RIPARIAN SETBACK
10' - 0" CREEK
17 OPEN TO OUTDOOR

SPACE/TERRACE
AT L2

REAR YARD SETBACK
35' - 0"
BIKE STOR.

STAIR 2
STAIR 1
6 6
7 7
5 Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:33:57 PM
GP0.05

BONUS DENSITY

EXHIBIT
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
BASE DENSITY - LEVEL 1
1/16" = 1'-0" 2
BASE DENSITY - LEVEL 2 3BASE DENSITY - 3D VIEW 1
4 BASE DENSITY - 3D VIEW 2

DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATED ON THIS SHEET ARE FOR BASE DENSITY CALCULATIONS ONLY, SEE AP SHEETS FOR PROPOSED DESIGN Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
4 PLANNING REV-04 04.19.2024
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
1/16" = 1'-0"
5 BASE DENSITY - LEVEL 3
4 4
4 BASE DENSITY - GROSS BUILDING AREA
LEVEL RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION PARKING AMENITY SERVICE / MECH. COMMERCIAL TOTALS LEVEL 1 0 SF 455 SF 0 SF 1,086 SF 682 SF 3,073 SF 5,295 SF LEVEL 2 5,784 SF 1,173 SF 0 SF 1,887 SF 96 SF 0 SF 8,939 SF LEVEL 3 5,918 SF 1,138 SF 0 SF 253 SF 0 SF 0 SF 7,310 SF GRAND TOTALS 11,702 SF 2,766 SF 0 SF 3,226 SF 778 SF 3,073 SF 21,544 SF 5 5

26.38 LAUREL AVE.

MISSION ST.

Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NTS
5/7/2024 6:34:14 PM
GP0.07
RENDERINGS AND 3D

EXHIBITS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
A: CORNER VIEW AT INTERSECTION OF MISSION ST. AND LAUREL AVE. B: MISSION STREET ELEVATION VIEW C: MISSION STREET CORNER VIEW FROM CREEK SIDE
A
B
C
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.39 ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 22'
STORIES: 2
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1220 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-21
ZONING: R-1-5
APPROX HEIGHT: 21'
STORIES: 2
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 13'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
APPROX HEIGHT: 15'
STORIES: 1
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
NTS
5/7/2024 6:35:33 PM
GP0.08

SHADOW STUDY
21128

01.09.2023
MB
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1 SOLAR STUDY - JUNE 21 - 9AM 2SOLAR STUDY - JUNE 21 - 12PM 3SOLAR STUDY - JUNE 21 - 3PM 4 SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 9AM 5SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 12PM 6SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 3PM Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
3 26.40

WDWD WWWDDD
WD WD
WDWD 717 SF

AMENITY
682 SF

SERVICE
3,073 SF

COMMERCIAL
79 SF

CIRCULATION
161 SF

CIRCULATION
215 SF

CIRCULATION
368 SF
RESIDENT STOR.

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366

COMMERCIAL

PARKING EXCLUDED

FROM AREA

TABULATION PER
SCMC 24.22.366
69' - 10"
98' - 2"
101' - 10"
53' - 11"
6 6
6 6
2,930 SF

RESIDENTIAL
2,854 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,173 SF

CIRCULATION
247 SF
BIKE STOR.
96 SF

SERVICE
543 SF

AMENITY
854 SF

COURTYARD
243 SF

LAUNDRY / STORAGE

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366
83' - 10"
112' - 6"
84' - 10"
112' - 6"
6 6
6 6
5,918 SF

RESIDENTIAL
253 SF
BIKE STOR.
1,138 SF

CIRCULATION

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED ONCE ON
LEVEL 1 PER SCMC 24.22.366
112' - 6"
74' - 11" 6
6 5,722 SF

PARKING
289 SF
TRASH
260 SF

MECHANICAL
281 SF

CIRCULATION
2,627 SF

COMMERCIAL
522 SF

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
152 SF

ELEVATOR
109' - 0"
103' - 4"
6 6
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
206 SF

MECHANICAL
89 SF

ELEVATOR
508 SF

AMENITY
1,008 SF

STORAGE
1,046 SF

COURTYARD
213 SF
BICYCLE STOR.
116 SF
TRASH
1,789 SF

CIRCULATION
691 SF

RESIDENTIAL

STAIR COUNTED

ONCE ON LEVEL
1 PER SCMC

24.22.366
341 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
6 28' - 8" 28' - 8" 14' - 4" 9' - 4" 26' - 3"
6' - 3"
8' - 9"
24' - 1" 37' - 7" 26' - 1"
4' - 8"
71' - 8" 41' - 10"
71' - 8"
5' - 0"
26' - 1"
6 6
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
206 SF

MECHANICAL
89 SF

ELEVATOR
534 SF

AMENITY
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,413 SF

STORAGE
213 SF
BICYCLE STOR.
116 SF
TRASH
1,502 SF

CIRCULATION
691 SF

RESIDENTIAL
91 SF
OFFICE

STAIR COUNTED
ONCE ON LEVEL 1
PER SCMC 24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED
ONCE ON LEVEL 1
PER SCMC 24.22.366
28' - 8" 43' - 0" 9' - 4" 26' - 1"
71' - 8"
5' - 0"
26' - 1"
71' - 8" 41' - 9"
6' - 2"
8' - 9"
24' - 1" 37' - 7" 26' - 1"
4' - 8"
6 6
6 6
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
206 SF

MECHANICAL
89 SF

ELEVATOR
494 SF

AMENITY
1,733 SF

RESIDENTIAL
213 SF
116 SF BICYCLE STOR.

TRASH
1,503 SF

CIRCULATION
131 SF
RESIDENT STOR.
691 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,413 SF

STORAGE

STAIR COUNTED

ONCE ON LEVEL
1 PER SCMC

24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED
ONCE ON LEVEL 1
PER SCMC 24.22.366
71' - 8"
5' - 0"
26' - 1"
71' - 8" 41' - 9"
28' - 8" 43' - 0" 35' - 6"
6' - 2" 8' - 9"
24' - 1" 37' - 7" 26' - 1" 4' - 8"
6 6
6 6
1,381 SF

RESIDENTIAL
206 SF

MECHANICAL
89 SF

ELEVATOR
345 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,381 SF

RESIDENTIAL
1,413 SF

STORAGE
213 SF

BICYCLE STORAGE
116 SF
TRASH
1,453 SF

CIRCULATION
691 SF

RESIDENTIAL

STAIR COUNTED

ONCE ON LEVEL
1 PER SCMC

24.22.366

STAIR COUNTED
ONCE ON LEVEL 1
PER SCMC 24.22.366
57' - 4"
5' - 0"
24' - 1"
57' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4"
24' - 1" 9' - 4" 43' - 0" 28' - 8"
8' - 9" 24' - 1" 37' - 7" 24' - 1"
5' - 8"
6 6
6 6
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1" = 30'-0"
5/7/2024 6:35:39 PM
GP0.09

GROSS AREA PLAN

EXHIBITS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
6 PLANNING REV-06 05.09.2024
1" = 30'-0"
1 BASE DENSITY - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 1
1" = 30'-0"
2 BASE DENSITY - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 2
1" = 30'-0"
3 BASE DENSITY - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 3
1" = 30'-0" 4
PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 1
1" = 30'-0" 5
PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 2
1" = 30'-0" 6
PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 3
1" = 30'-0" 7
PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 4
1" = 30'-0" 8
PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA - LEVEL 5

PROPOSED - GROSS BUILDING AREA
LEVEL RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION PARKING AMENITY SERVICE / MECH. COMMERCIAL STORAGE TOTALS LEVEL 1 0 SF 433 SF 5,722 SF 522 SF 549 SF 2,627 SF 0 SF 9,853 SF LEVEL 2 4,498 SF 1,878 SF 0 SF 1,767 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,008 SF 9,473 SF LEVEL 3 4,157 SF 1,591 SF 0 SF 838 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 8,321 SF LEVEL 4 4,157 SF 1,592 SF 0 SF 838 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 8,322 SF LEVEL 5 3,798 SF 1,542 SF 0 SF 213 SF 322 SF 0 SF 1,413 SF 7,288 SF GRAND TOTALS 16,610 SF 7,036 SF 5,722 SF 4,178 SF 1,837 SF 2,627 SF 5,247 SF 43,257 SF

BASE DENSITY - GROSS BUILDING AREA
LEVEL RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION PARKING AMENITY SERVICE / MECH. COMMERCIAL TOTALS LEVEL 1 0 SF 455 SF 0 SF 1,086 SF 682 SF 3,073 SF 5,295 SF LEVEL 2 5,784 SF 1,173 SF 0 SF 1,887 SF 96 SF 0 SF 8,939 SF LEVEL 3 5,918 SF 1,138 SF 0 SF 253 SF 0 SF 0 SF 7,310 SF GRAND TOTALS 11,702 SF 2,766 SF 0 SF 3,226 SF 778 SF 3,073 SF 21,544 SF PROPOSED PROJECT:

PROPOSED GROSS
RESIDENTIAL AREA: 16,622 GSF

PROPOSED UNIT
COUNT: 48 UNITS

AVERAGE GROSS
UNIT SIZE: 346.3 GSF

AVERAGE GROSS
RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZE:

BASE DENSITY:

BASE DENSITY GROSS
RESIDENTIAL AREA: 11,702 GSF

BASE DENSITY
UNIT COUNT: 33 UNITS

AVERAGE GROSS
UNIT SIZE: 354.6 GSF
5 PROPOSED GROSS BUILDING AREA PLANS BASE DENSITY GROSS BUILDING AREA PLANS SCMC 24.16.255 (6):

FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF DENSITY

BONUS UNITS IN AREAS WHERE A MAXIMUM DENSITY RANGE IS NOT

PROVIDED IN THE ZONE DISTRICT OR GENERAL PLAN, AN IMPLICIT

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY SHALL BE CALCULATED BASED ON A PROJECT

PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT THAT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

SUCH AS SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS,

WHILE NOT DEFINING THE MAXIMUM DENSITY RANGE PER SE, CAN BE

UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THE IMPLICIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
ALLOWED. IN THIS APPROACH, A PROJECT DEFINES THE APPLICABLE

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ITSELF BASED ON MEETING APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS

PRESENTED IN THE BASE DENSITY PROJECT MUST BE EQUAL TO OR

GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNITS PRESENTED IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT.

26.41 WD WD W W W D D D
WDWD
WD WD
239 SF
UNIT
242 SF
UNIT
242 SF
UNIT
349 SF
UNIT
299 SF
UNIT
298 SF
UNIT
264 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
385 SF
UNIT
303 SF
UNIT
293 SF
UNIT
347 SF
UNIT
242 SF
UNIT
82' - 10"
110' - 5"
82' - 10"
110' - 5"
6 6
6 6
255 SF
UNIT
271 SF
UNIT
330 SF
UNIT
354 SF
UNIT
235 SF
UNIT
264 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
272 SF
UNIT
385 SF
UNIT
303 SF
UNIT
293 SF
UNIT
307 SF
UNIT
194 SF
UNIT
194 SF
UNIT
189 SF
UNIT
72' - 11"
110' - 5"
72' - 10"
110' - 5"
6 6
6 6
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
288 SF 6
UNIT A
12' - 9" T
YP
22' - 6" TYP
3' - 7" T
YP 20' - 10" T
YP
8' - 3" TYP
4' - 6" TYP
288 SF
UNIT A 288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
6 T
YP
12' - 9"
22' - 6" TYP
T
YP
3' - 7"
20' - 10" T
YP
8' - 3" TYP
4' - 6" TYP
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
288 SF
UNIT A
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
6 12' - 9" T
YP
22' - 6" TYP
3' - 7" T
YP 20' - 10" T
YP
8' - 3" TYP
4' - 6" TYP
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B
287 SF
UNIT B 287 SF
UNIT B
6 12' - 9" T
YP
22' - 6" TYP
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1" = 20'-0"
5/7/2024 6:35:4
4 PM
GP0.10

NET UNIT AREA PLAN

EXHIBITS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
6 PLANNING REV-06 05.09.2024
1" = 20'-0"
1 BASE DENSITY - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 2
1" = 20'-0"
2 BASE DENSITY - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 3

BASE DENSITY - AVERAGE NET UNIT AREA

TOTAL NET UNIT AREA COUNT AVERAGE NET AREA
9,250 SF 33 280.3
1" = 20'-0" 3
PROPOSED - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 2
1" = 20'-0" 4
PROPOSED - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 3
1" = 20'-0" 5
PROPOSED - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 4
1" = 20'-0" 6
PROPOSED - NET UNIT AREA - LEVEL 5

PROPOSED - AVERAGE NET UNIT AREA

TOTAL NET UNIT AREA COUNT AVERAGE NET UNIT AREA
13,815 SF 48 287.8

PROPOSED NET UNIT AREA PLANS BASE DENSITY NET UNIT AREA PLANS PROPOSED PROJECT:

PROPOSED NET
RESIDENTIAL AREA: 13,815 NSF

PROPOSED UNIT
COUNT: 48 UNITS

AVERAGE NET
UNIT SIZE: 287.8 NSF

AVERAGE NET
RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZE:

BASE DENSITY:

BASE DENSITY NET
RESIDENTIAL AREA: 9,250 NSF

BASE DENSITY
UNIT COUNT: 33 UNITS

AVERAGE NET
UNIT SIZE: 280.3 NSF
SCMC 24.12.1010:

THE NET AREA OF A SRO UNIT MAY RANGE FROM A MINIMUM OF ONE

HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR HUNDRED

SQUARE FEET, WITH THE AVERAGE UNIT SIZE BEING NO GREATER THAN THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE SQUARE FEET.
5 6
6 6

26.42 Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/7/2024 6:35:45 PM
LS.10

LAND SURVEY (FOR

REFERENCE ONLY)
21128

01.09.2023
DS
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
NOTES:
• SURVEY INCLUDED FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY.
• SURVEY IS NOT TO SCALE

AS INDICATED
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.43 SL
TS
TS
PG&E
PG&E
PG&E
8"
8"
6"
6"
8"
8"
WM
WM
-1.5'
S
S
UV
UV
UV
UV
UV
MW
MW
MW
UV

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT

INFORMATION

2. REFERENCE LAND SURVEY FOR SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPES AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.

3. ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE SHOWN APPROXIMATELY BASED ON SURVEY INFORMATION AND GOOGLE EARTH MEASUREMENTS.

DEMO SITE PLAN NOTES
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1130 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-25
ZONING: CC
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1130 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-24
ZONING: CC
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5

UTILITY EASEMENT
15' - 0"
(E) SINGLE-STORY

COMMERCIAL BUILDING

TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) SINGLE-STORY

COMMERCIAL BUILDING

TO BE DEMOLISHED
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 22'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE

BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE

BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK
15' - 0" CREEK
(E) TREE TO BE

REMOVED
(E) LANDSCAPING AND

PARKING TO BE

REMOVED

RIPARIAN
CORR.
10' - 0" CREEK

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT
LAUREL AVE.

MISSION STREET
(E) TREES TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS

EXISTING STREET LIGHT

EXISTING SIGNAGE TO BE
SALVAGED AND REPURPOSED;
SEE AP9.01
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
AP9.01
2 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:29:48 PM
AP0.50D

PROPOSED DEMO

SITE PLAN
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1" = 10'-0" 1
EXISTING SITE PLAN_DEMO
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.44 L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT

INFORMATION

2. ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE TAKEN FROM ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATIONS.

3. REFERENCE LAND SURVEY FOR SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPES AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.

SITE PLAN NOTES
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2

PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1216 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-22
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 22'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE

BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE

BUILDING
HEIGHT: 13'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

RESIDENCE

APPROXIMATE BUILDING
HEIGHT: 15'

COMMERCIAL
ENTRY

RESIDENTIAL
ENTRY

VEHICLE ENTRY
(PARKING & LOADING)
L
A
U
R
E
L
A
V
E
.

MISSION STREET
109' - 0" OVERALL
REA
R
YA
RDS
E
TBAC
K
1 5' -
0 "
6' - 3"
9' - 2" 10' - 4"
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1130 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-25
ZONING: CC
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1130 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-24
ZONING: CCRIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT
123456

EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE
EVSE
89 10
7 40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
AP9.01 2

DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
1 1

DASH INDICATES

UNIT ABOVE
N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:29:52 PM
AP0.51

PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1" = 10'-0"
2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.45 UP
UP
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
AM
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
7 8
AH
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2

COMMERCIAL
SPACE

TRASH / RECYCLE /

COMPOST
GFEDC
123
45 6
ELEV

PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 9' - 0" 3' - 0"
4 5
3 3
4 7
4 6
6 6

PARKING
123456

EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE EVSE

ACCESSIBLE
EVSE
8 STAIR 1
12 12
12 DRIVE AISLE
18' - 0" TYP 24' - 0" TYP
9' - 0" TYP
9' - 0" TYP
18' - 0" TYP
8' - 0" TYP
LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
REA
RYA
RD
S
ETBA
CK
1 5' -
0"
14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" B
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02
STAIR 2
89 10
3 ELEC
MEP /

SERVICE

EXTERIOR LOBBY /
MAIL
7 RIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

LOADING / TURNAROUND
L
A
U
R
E
L
A
V
E
.
6 MISSION STREET

MOTORCYCLE PARKING
8' - 3" 88' - 3" 3' - 5" 5' - 0"
5' - 5" 98' - 0" 6' - 3" 7' - 0" 12' - 4" 76' - 3" 13' - 3" 14' - 3" 10' - 5"4' - 8" 4' - 5" 9' - 2"
3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0"
7' - 2"
36' - 6"
20' - 7"
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55'
-
6"
PRO
PERTY
LI
N
E
27' -
0"P
R
OPER
TYLIN
E
29 '
-
5 "
P
RO
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
1 1
0' -
0 "
P
R
O
P
E
R
TY
LIN
E
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE

ACCESSIBLE
AP9.01 1
AP9.01 2
2 TEMPORARY

TRASH STAGING

AREA FOR PICK-UP
7' - 0"
7' - 0"
1 1
7' - 0"
1 1
1 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
1 2

ACCESS CONTROLLED /

KEY FOB DOOR FOR

SECURE BICYCLE

STORAGE FOR

COMMERCIAL USE ONLY
2 2 CLASS-I BICYCLE SPACES
8 CLASS-II BICYCLE SPACES
16 CLASS-II BICYCLE SPACES
8 CLASS-II BICYCLE SPACES
2' - 6" 2' - 6"
2' - 6" 2' - 6"
3 CLASS-II SPACES PROVIDED

FOR COMMERCIAL USE
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:29:59 PM
AP1.01

PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN - LEVEL 1
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25

UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING 4

PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER 6

DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
3 26.46
D
W
DN
D
W
UP
Y

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
AM
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
7 8
AH
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2

AMENITY
TRASH BIKE STOR.

GFEDC
12 3
45 6
AP3.03 1
2 3
ELEV
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A

UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT B

PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
STAIR 1
PODIUM TERRACE 6
6 10
2 LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
REA
R
YARD
SETB
ACK
15' -
0"
76 7
LAUNDRY 12345
6 10
9 8
7 12
13 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" B
16 16
16 M
A
A
2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
STAIR 2

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT
PODIUM

TERRACE
20 CLASS-I BICYCLE SPACES

MEP / SERVICE

OPEN TO BELOW
RIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK
15' - 0" 24' - 1" 1' - 5"
7' - 5"
22' - 0"
9' - 8" 113' - 5" 6' - 11"
71' - 6" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 7' - 2"
6' - 3"
81' - 0"
26' - 1" 4' - 7"
0' - 2"
1' - 1"
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55'
-
6"
PRO
PERTY
LI
N
E
27' -
0"P
R
OPER
TYLIN
E
29 '
-
5 "
P
RO
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
1 1
0' -
0 "
P
R
O
P
E
R
TY
LIN
E
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE
AP9.01 2
5' - 2"
1 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
111

ACCESS CONTROLLED / KEY FOB

DOOR FOR SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE

FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY
2 3

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE
UNIT B
11 5
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:30:08 PM
AP1.02

PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN - LEVEL 2
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING 4

PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER 6

DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
5 PLANNING REV-05 04.24.2024
3 UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 26.47
WDWD

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
A
M
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
7 8
A
H
AP3.02
1 AP3.02 2
1 AP3.01
AP3.01
2 G
F
E
D
C
1 2 3 4 5 6
AP3.03
1 2 3
B
2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02

AMENITY
ELEV
UNIT B
UNIT B
TRASH

OPEN TO BELOW
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
10 2
11 PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK
15' - 0" CREEK

REAR YARD SETBACK
15' - 0"
1 2
3 4
5 6
10 9 8 7
11 12
16 16
16 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" A
A
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5

RIPARIAN
CORR.
10' - 0" CREEK

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
16 LAUNDRY
OFFICE
MEP /

SERVICE
BIKE STOR.
7 6
7 20 CLASS-I BICYCLE SPACES
6' - 3"
0' - 2"
71' - 8" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 7' - 2"
6' - 11" 113' - 3" 9' - 10"
15' - 0" 24' - 1" 1' - 5"
22' - 0"
81' - 0" 8' - 5"
4' - 7" 26' - 1"
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55' - 6" PROPERTY LINE
27' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
29' - 5" PROPERTY LINE
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
110' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE
5' - 2"
1 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
1 ACCESS CONTROLLED / KEY FOB

DOOR FOR SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE
FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY 2
3 STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:30:16 PM
AP1.03

PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN - LEVEL 3
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING
4 PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER
6 DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
1/8" = 1'-0" 1
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
3 UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 26.48
D WDW

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
AM
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
7 8
AH
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2
GFEDC
12 3
45 6
AP3.03 1
2 3

AMENITY
ELEV
UNIT B
UNIT B
TRASH

OPEN TO BELOW
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
10 2
11 PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
REA
R
YARD
SETB
ACK
15' -
0"
12345
6 10
9 8
7 11
12 B
16 16
16 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" A
A
2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
UNIT A
16 LAUNDRY
RESIDENT STOR.

MEP /

SERVICE
BIKE STOR.
76 7
20 CLASS-I BICYCLE SPACES
RIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK
0' - 2"
71' - 8" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 7' - 2"
6' - 11" 113' - 3" 9' - 10"
22' - 0"
81' - 0" 8' - 5"
1' - 5"
15' - 0" 24' - 1"
4' - 7" 26' - 1"
2' - 6"
3' - 6"
7' - 2"
6' -3
"
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55'
-
6"
PRO
PERTY
LI
N
E
27' -
0"P
R
OPER
TYLIN
E
29 '
-
5 "
P
RO
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
1 1
0' -
0 "
P
R
O
P
E
R
TY
LIN
E
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE
5' - 2"
1 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW
1 ACCESS CONTROLLED / KEY FOB

DOOR FOR SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE

FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY
2 3

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:30:25 PM
AP1.04

PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN - LEVEL 4
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING 4

PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER 6

DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
3 UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 26.49

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
AM
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
7 8
AH
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2
GFEDC
12 3
45 6
AP3.03 1
2 3

UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
UNIT B
TRASH

OPEN TO BELOW
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
ELEV

ROOF TERRACE
ROOF
TERRACE 9
9 2

PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
REA
R
YARD
SETB
ACK
15' -
0"
12345
6 9
8 7
10 11
B
16 16
16 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" A A 2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF

MEP / SERVICEEASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT
15 16
BIKE STOR.
76 7
20 CLASS-I BICYCLE SPACES
RIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK
12' - 6" 57' - 4" 5' - 0"
1' - 11"
22' - 2"
2' - 1"
1' -10
"
8' - 5" 81' - 0"
15' - 0" 24' - 1"
22' - 0"
112' - 3" 8' - 10"
24' - 1"
3' - 6"
2' - 6"
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55'
-
6"
PRO
PERTY
LI
N
E
27' -
0"P
R
OPER
TYLIN
E
29 '
-
5 "
P
RO
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
1 1
0' -
0 "
P
R
O
P
E
R
TY
LIN
E
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE
5' - 2"
1 DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW

ACCESS CONTROLLED / KEY FOB

DOOR FOR SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE

FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY
2 3

STORAGE

STORAGE

STORAGE
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:30:32 PM
AP1.05

PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN - LEVEL 5
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING 4

PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER 6

DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024
3 UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 26.50

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. ALL UNITS SHALL BE ADAPTABLE PER CBC CH 11A WITH BATHROOMS PER OPTION 2 -U.O.N

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL SITE ELEVATIONS, SLOPE AND CURB INFORMATION.

4. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING AND STREET TREE INFORMATION.

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX:
8 VERY LOW INCOME
50 MARKET RATE
1 MANAGER UNIT
AM
PLAN SYMBOL DESIGNATION:

RESIDENT AMENITIES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED: 60 SPACES
0 - SINGLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
0 - DOUBLE STORAGE LOCKERS 0 SPACES
20 - TRIPLE STORAGE LOCKERS 60 SPACES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WASHER/DRYERS PROVIDED: 6 WASHERS, 6 DRYERS 1 WASHER / DRYER REQUIRED PER 20 UNITS: 3 WASHERS, 3 DRYERS TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON INDOOR SPACE TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE PROVIDED: SEE GP0.04 FOR TOTAL COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE 1 NOTE:

SEE GP0.09 AND GP0.10 FOR

GROSS BUILDING AREA

EXHIBITS AND AVERAGE NET

UNIT AREA EXHIBITS
5 7
8 AH
AP3.02 1
AP3.02
2 1 AP3.01
AP3.01 2
GFEDC
12 3
45 6
AP3.03 1
2 3
63' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"
63' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"
61' - 0"
66' - 0"
71' - 0"
71' - 0"
66' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"
61' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"
63' - 0"
63' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"
63' - 0" 63' - 0"

PROPERTY
LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY
LI
N
E
LAUREL
CREEK
4 CENTERLINE
LAUREL CREEK 4 CENTERLINE
DEVELOPMENT SETBACK 15' - 0" CREEK
15 13
13 13
13 14
14 15
61' - 0"
61' - 0"
B
14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" 2 AP4.01
1 AP4.01
1 AP4.02
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-12
ZONING: R-1-5
ADJ. PROPERTY:
1112 MISSION ST.

PARCEL #: 006-203-23
ZONING: PA & OF
RIPARIAN CORR. 10' - 0" CREEK

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

EASEMENT

OPEN TO BELOW
20' - 11"
16' - 11"
8' - 5" 71' - 8"
20' - 11"
11' - 7"
6' - 11" 14' - 4" 57' - 4" 14' - 4" 28' - 6" 8' - 7"
14' - 4" 57' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1" 7' - 2"
0' - 2"
15' -0"
24' -1
"
1' - 5"

LOW SLOPE ROOF TBD
MIN 2% SLOPE

LOW SLOPE ROOF TBD
MIN 2% SLOPE

LOW SLOPE ROOF TBD
MIN 2% SLOPE
17 17
17 17
17 17
40' - 0" CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA
55'
-
6"
PRO
PERTY
LI
N
E
27' -
0"P
R
OPER
TYLIN
E
29 '
-
5 "
P
RO
P
E
RTY
L
I
N
E
130' - 0" PROPERTY LINE
1 1
0' -
0 "
P
R
O
P
E
R
TY
LIN
E
104' - 11" PROPERTY LINE
REAR
YARDS
ETB
ACK
15' -
0"
AP9.01 2
17 171

DASH INDICATES

DEVELOPMENT

SETBACK BELOW

DASH INDICATES
RIPARIAN CORR.

SETBACK BELOW 3
N
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:30:37 PM
AP1.06

PROPOSED ROOF
PLAN
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING
3 CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING 4

PROPOSED NEW PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN
OR SIM.
5 ABOVE GRADE BUILT-IN PLANTER 6

DASH INDICATES FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING / CANOPY

OVERHEAD
7 SLIDING VEHICLE ENTRY GATE
8 MAILBOXES
9 PLANTER / PLANTER BENCH
10 WASHER / DRYER MACHINES PER SRO REQUIREMENTS, 1 PER
20 UNITS
11 RESIDENT STORAGE LOCKERS PER SRO REQUIREMENTS
12 STRUCTURAL COLUMN / ELEMENT
13 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
14 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOF SCREEN, LOCATION

INDICATED CONCEPTUALLY
15 HATCH INDICATES EXTENT OF VEGETATED ROOF, TRAY SYSTEM OR SIM.
16 EXTERIOR CORRIDOR
17 DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO STORMWATER PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

UNIT TYPE COUNT
UNIT A 30
UNIT B 18
48 26.51

1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

MATERIALS LEGEND
8 123
11 15
27 13496
14 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
HA
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
GFEDC
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0" 11' - 0"

OVERRUN
2' - 0" TYP
10' - 0" ELEV
66' - 0" OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT
LAUREL AVE.
2 14
564 15
89 10
11 12
15 16
76 13
17 17
4 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" B

PROPERTY LINE

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY

PROPERTY LINE
LAUREL AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY
CREEK AND CREEK SETBACK, REF PLANS 18' - 0" APPROX. HEIGHT LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
87 LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
654321
17' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0"
10' - 0" ELEV

OVERRUN
2' - 0" TYP
66' - 0" OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT

MISSION STREET
2 15
164
11 14 10
11 13
657
7 18
19 26' - 1" 5' - 0" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4"

PROPERTY LINE

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY

PROPERTY LINE
MISSION ST. SUBJECT PROPERTY
18' - 9" APPROX. HEIGHT
1 Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:31:40 PM
AP3.01

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 TEXTURED CONCRETE, BOARD FORMED OR SIM.
3 METAL PANEL, CORTEN FINISH OR SIM.
4 GLAZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM OR SIM.
5 BUILT-IN PLANTER, FINISH TO MATCH TEXTURED CONCRETE OR SIM.
6 RAINSCREEN CLAD STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
7 PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN OR SIM.
8 WHITE FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
9 ALUMINUM OR VINYL WINDOW
10 METAL GUARDRAIL OR HANDRAIL
11 TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT PANE OR SIM.
12 GREY FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
13 METAL SUNSHADE
14 TEXTURED CONCRETE LOOK FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR SIM.
15 WARM BRONZE TONED METAL PANEL OR SIM.
16 DARK BRONZE METAL PANEL / SPANDREL PANEL OR SIM.
17 BUILDING SIGNAGE, FINAL LOCATION / DESIGN TBD
18 EXTERIOR WALKWAY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE
19 STRUCTURAL COLUMN, CONCRETE FINISH OR SIM.
20 PAINTED MURAL ON BUILDING FINISH, FINAL ARTWORK /

ARTIST TBD
21 DOWNSPOUTS ROUTE TO FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.52 1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

MATERIALS LEGEND
8 123
11 15
27 13496
14 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
78 LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
123456

MISSION STREET
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0"
2' - 0" TYP

OVERRUN
10' - 0" ELEV
66' - 0" OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT
11 10
15 13 12 14
11 1089
19 72456
208
14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 5' - 0" 26' - 1"

PROPERTY LINE

ADJACENT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY

PROPERTY LINE
SUBJECT PROPERTY MISSION ST.
17 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
AH
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
CDEFG
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0"
2' - 0" TYP
66' - 0" OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT

OVERRUN
10' - 0" ELEV
LAUREL AVE.
8 11
10 197
14 12 13
9 154
16 9
18' - 10" APPROX HEIGHT
21' - 2" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" B 20 PROPERTY LINE

ADJACENT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY

PROPERTY LINE

SUBJECT PROPERTY LAUREL AVE
21 21
21 1
11 3
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:32:28 PM
AP3.02

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 TEXTURED CONCRETE, BOARD FORMED OR SIM.
3 METAL PANEL, CORTEN FINISH OR SIM.
4 GLAZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM OR SIM.
5 BUILT-IN PLANTER, FINISH TO MATCH TEXTURED CONCRETE OR SIM.
6 RAINSCREEN CLAD STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
7 PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN OR SIM.
8 WHITE FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
9 ALUMINUM OR VINYL WINDOW
10 METAL GUARDRAIL OR HANDRAIL
11 TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT PANE OR SIM.
12 GREY FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
13 METAL SUNSHADE
14 TEXTURED CONCRETE LOOK FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR SIM.
15 WARM BRONZE TONED METAL PANEL OR SIM.
16 DARK BRONZE METAL PANEL / SPANDREL PANEL OR SIM.
17 BUILDING SIGNAGE, FINAL LOCATION / DESIGN TBD
18 EXTERIOR WALKWAY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE
19 STRUCTURAL COLUMN, CONCRETE FINISH OR SIM.
20 PAINTED MURAL ON BUILDING FINISH, FINAL ARTWORK /

ARTIST TBD
21 DOWNSPOUTS ROUTE TO FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.53 LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
7 LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
654
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0"
2' - 0" TYP
10 18 147
5' - 0" 14' - 4" 14' - 4"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
A
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
EDC
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0"
2' - 0" TYP
63' - 0"
8 10 18
1972
14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 21' - 2" B

PARKING AREA BEYOND

PROPERTY LINE

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
A
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
CDE
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0"

OVERRUN
2' - 0" TYP
10' - 0" ELEV
66' - 0" OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT
14 18 108
15 104
16675
18 21' - 2" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" 14' - 4" B

PARKING AREA BEYOND
ADJACENT CREEK 7

PROPERTY LINE

ADJACENT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY
21 21 21
1 1
1 1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

MATERIALS LEGEND
8 123
11 15
27 13496
14 Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN numberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
As indicated
5/7/2024 6:32:50 PM
AP3.03

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
21128

01.09.2023
OH
EB
1130 & 1132 MISSION1130 & 1132 MISION ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 006-203-25
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 COURTYARD ELEVATION - NORTH
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 COURTYARD ELEVATION - EAST
1/8" = 1'-0"
3 COURTYARD ELEVATION - WEST

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 ALIGN
2 TEXTURED CONCRETE, BOARD FORMED OR SIM.
3 METAL PANEL, CORTEN FINISH OR SIM.
4 GLAZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM OR SIM.
5 BUILT-IN PLANTER, FINISH TO MATCH TEXTURED CONCRETE OR SIM.
6 RAINSCREEN CLAD STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
7 PATTERNED METAL FENCE / GATE / SCREEN OR SIM.
8 WHITE FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
9 ALUMINUM OR VINYL WINDOW
10 METAL GUARDRAIL OR HANDRAIL
11 TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT PANE OR SIM.
12 GREY FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
13 METAL SUNSHADE
14 TEXTURED CONCRETE LOOK FIBER CEMENT PANEL OR SIM.
15 WARM BRONZE TONED METAL PANEL OR SIM.
16 DARK BRONZE METAL PANEL / SPANDREL PANEL OR SIM.
17 BUILDING SIGNAGE, FINAL LOCATION / DESIGN TBD
18 EXTERIOR WALKWAY AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE
19 STRUCTURAL COLUMN, CONCRETE FINISH OR SIM.
20 PAINTED MURAL ON BUILDING FINISH, FINAL ARTWORK /

ARTIST TBD
21 DOWNSPOUTS ROUTE TO FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER, REF CIVIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 01.09.2023
0 PLANNING APPLICATION 06.01.2023
1 PLANNING REV-01 08.25.2023
2 PLANNING REV-02 01.04.2024
3 PLANNING REV-03 03.11.2024

26.54 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
28' - 0"
7 8
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
50' - 0"
ROOF
61' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 6

COMMERCIAL

PARKING
RESIDENTIAL - 1

SERVICE

PARKING COMMERCIAL
SPACE
UNIT A
UNIT B
2 2
2 3
5' - 0" ELEV
OVERRUN 3' - 0"
2' - 0"
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 17' - 0"

PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT
61' - 0"

PODIUM TERRACE
EXISTING ADJ. PROPERTY:
1212 LAUREL ST.