Santa Cruz City Council
September 10, 2024

Date, Time
Fecha,
Hora
Type
Tipo
Bilingual
Bilingüe
Topic
Tema
Registration Link
Enlace de inscripción
Varies TA Session N Initial TA Sessions between June 17 – July 8
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-TA-Signup
6/6/24
3:30 – 5
Training
Capacitación
Y Developing a Theory of Change and
Logic Model With an Equity Lens
Desarrollando una teoría de cambio
y un modelo de lógica con un
enfoque hacia la equidad
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-June6
6/13/24
2 – 5
Office Hours
Horas de
oficina
By
request
Si es
solicitado
Office Hours, by CORE Condition
• Thriving Families (2-2:45)
• Lifelong Learning & Education
(3-3:45)
• Healthy Environments (4-4:45)
Horas de oficina, por Condición de
CORE
• Familias Prósperas (2-2:45)
• Aprendizaje y Educación de Por
Vida (3-3:45)
• Ambientes Sanos (4-4:45)
Thriving Families //
Familias Prósperas
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-June13-TF
Lifelong Learning &
Education //
Aprendizaje y
Educación de Por Vida
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-June13-LLE
Healthy Environments
// Ambientes Sanos
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-June13-HE
6/14/24
10 – 11:30
Training
Capacitación
Y Developing a Statement of Need &
Strengths
Desarrollando una declaración de
necesidad y fortalezas con un
enfoque hacia la equidad
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-June14
6/18/24
1 – 3
Training
Capacitación
Y Developing Your Programmatic
Approach & Evaluation Strategy
Desarrollando su enfoque
programático y estrategia de
evaluación
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-June18
6/21/24
10 – 12
Applicant
Conference
N Applicant Conference https://bit.ly/CORERFP-06-21-2024

25.12 Attachment B – CORE Investments RFP Training & Technical Assistance Schedule FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Date, Time
Fecha,
Hora
Type
Tipo
Bilingual
Bilingüe
Topic
Tema
Registration Link
Enlace de inscripción
6/25/24
10 – 11:30
Training
Capacitación
Y Finding & Using Community
Indicators on DataShare and Other
Sources
Encontrando y utilizando datos a
nivel comunitario en DataShare y
otras Fuentes
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-June25
6/28/24
11 – 12
Training
Capacitación
N How to Use the Online Portal for
CORE RFP Applications
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-June26
7/2/24
12 – 3
Office Hours
Horas de
oficina
By
request
Si es
solicitado
Office Hours by CORE Condition
• Lifelong Learning & Education
(12-12:45)
• Healthy Environments (1-1:45)
• Thriving Families (2-2:45)
Horas de oficina, por Condición de
CORE
• Aprendizaje y Educación de Por
Vida (12-12:45)
• Ambientes Sanos (1-1:45)
• Familias Prósperas (2-2:45)
Lifelong Learning &
Education //
Aprendizaje y
Educación de Por Vida
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-July2-LLE
Healthy Environments
// Ambientes Sanos
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-July2-HE
Thriving Families //
Familias Prósperas
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-OH-July2-TF
7/9/24
10 – 12
Training
Capacitación
Y Preparing a Program Budget &
Budget Narrative
Preparando un presupuesto de
programa y narrativa del
presupuesto
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-July9
7/12/24
10 – 12
Training
Capacitación
Y In Case You Missed It: Highlights
from Previous CORE RFP Trainings
Por si se lo perdió: Lo más
destacado de las capacitaciones
para la solicitud para propuestas
(RFP) de las Inversiones de CORE
https://bit.ly/CORERFP-Training-July12

25.13 Attachment C – Total CORE Investments Funds Requested, by CORE Condition and Tier FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Summary of total funds requested and proposals received, by CORE Condition, Impact Area and Tier:

CORE Condition and Impact Area Totals
Tier I
($150,001-
$500,000)
Tier II
($25,001-
$150,000)
Tier III
($25,000 and
Under)
Total
100 Apps
$15,301,019
27 Apps
$8,906,289
58 Apps
$6,072,498
15 Apps
$322,232
Lifelong Learning & Education:

Equitable access to high-quality
education and learning
opportunities
21 Apps
$3,221,478
5 Apps
$1,920,699
12 Apps
$1,202,779
4 Apps
$98,000
Thriving Families: Children and
youth
40 Apps
$5,596,558
9 Apps
$2,644,929
25 Apps
$2,847,279
6 Apps
$104,350
Thriving Families: Older and
Dependent Adults
30 Apps
$5,678,283
13 Apps
$4,340,661
13 Apps
$1,242,740
4 Apps
$94,882
Healthy Environments: Safe,
affordable, accessible recreation
spaces
9 Apps
$804,700 n/a 8 Apps$779,700
1 App
$25,000

25.14 Attachment D – List of Agencies Who Submitted CORE Investments Proposals FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

The following is a list of CORE Investments RFP Proposals submitted by the August 2, 2024, deadline, by agency and program name, categorized by CORE Condition and Impact Area, and broken down by Tier within each CORE Condition / Impact Area:

Lifelong Learning & Education:

Equitable access to high-quality education and learning opportunities Tier I ($150,001-$500,000)
Agency Program
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County Project Learn
Digital NEST, Inc. Career Pathways
United Way of Santa Cruz County C2CSCC
Ventures Semillitas
Your Future is Our Business YFIOB Foster ED Career Exploration Project Tier II ($25,001-$150,000)
Agency Program
Arts Council Santa Cruz County Mariposa Arts
Coastal Watershed Council Watershed Rangers
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Day Worker Center
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Floreciendo en Comunidad
El Sistema Santa Cruz/Pajaro Valley El Sistema Santa Cruz/Pajaro Valley Santa Cruz Children's Museum of
Discovery
Santa Cruz Children's Museum of Discovery
Science Playdate in the Park/Cita de
Juegos Científicos en el Parque
Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Stewardship Stewardship Corps Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center Save Our Shores Save Our Shores Junior Sanctuary Stewards Program
United Way of Santa Cruz County United Way of Santa Cruz County United 4 Youth Santa Cruz County
Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Early Education Center Tier III ($25,000 and Under)
Agency Program
Senderos Plaza Comunitaria: Aprendiendo a su
proprio ritmo / Learning at your own pace
Homeless Garden Project Educational Workforce Development and Job Search Skills Training for People
Experiencing Homelessness
Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Literacy Program
X Academy X Academy

25.15 Attachment D – List of Agencies Who Submitted CORE Investments Proposals FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Thriving Families:

Increased resilience of children and youth

Tier I ($150,001-$500,000)
Agency Program
Community Bridges Family Resource Collective
Encompass Community Services Youth & Family Partners: Bridging Gaps in Services Awareness, Engagement and
Advocacy
Families In Transition - Santa Cruz Guaranteed Income Pilot: Project Cosecha' Housing Matters Childcare Navigation & Assistance for
Families Experiencing Homelessness
Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student
Assistance
Renforzando Familias-Reinforcing Families
SANTA CRUZ BARRIOS UNIDOS INC Barrios Unidos Youth Program Santa Cruz Community Health Centers Advancing Pediatric Health Equity:

Preparing for School Success
Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz
County
Program Alimenta
United Way of Santa Cruz County United Way’s Santa Cruz County Youth Action Network
Tier II ($25,001-$150,000)
Agency Program
Advocacy-Inc Patient Rights Advocacy
Big Brothers Big Sisters Agency of Santa
Cruz County, Inc
Big Brothers Big Sisters Agency of Santa
Cruz County, Inc
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County SMART Moves: Youth Mental and Behavioral Health Support
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Luna y Sol Familia Center
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Rental Assistance Program
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Youth Homeless Response Team
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc.

Davenport Resource Service Center
Community Health Trust of Pajaro Valley Community Health Trust of Pajaro Valley Court Appointed Special Advocates of
Santa Cruz County
Mentorship and Advocacy for Santa Cruz
County Foster Children
Family Service Agency Central Coast Suicide Prevention Services FoodWhat Incorporated FoodWhat Incorporated
Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support
Services
Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support
Services

25.16 Attachment D – List of Agencies Who Submitted CORE Investments Proposals FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

LATIN ADVOCACY NETWORK-LATINAN LATIN ADVOCACY NETWORK-LATINAN MENtors Driving Change for Boys, Men and
Dads
MENtors Driving Change for Boys, Men and
Dads
Monarch Services-Servicios Monarca Theraupetic Services for Children and Youth
Monarch Services-Servicios Monarca Salud y Monarca
Mountains 2 Sea Inc. Mountains 2 Sea
NAMI Santa Cruz County Mental Health Support for Thriving Youth Parents Center Rooted Support: Thriving Parents Create
Thriving Families
Paws Helping People DBA: UnChained Caines Teaching Compasion Positive Discipline Community Resources Less Stess More Joy with Positive Discipline Safe Families for Children Monterey Bay Safe Families for Children Monterey Bay Salud Para La Gente Health Equity & Resilience for Pajaro Youth Santa Cruz City Schools Family Engagement Initiative
Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Youth Violence Prevention Program Tier III ($25,000 and Under)
Agency Program
Girls Inc. of the Central Coast Embracing Leadership and Educational Goals
Girls Inc. of the Central Coast Making Healthy Choices
Girls Inc. of the Central Coast Education and Leadership Girls Inc. of the Central Coast Communication and Exploration Nourishing Generations Educational
Project
Starlight Elementary School Nutrition and
Culinary Education Program
Senderos Juventud saludable a través de la cultura
y artes / Healthy Youth Through Culture &
Arts

25.17 Attachment D – List of Agencies Who Submitted CORE Investments Proposals FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Thriving Families:

Increased resilience among older and dependent adults

Tier I ($150,001-$500,000)
Agency Program
Community Bridges Elderday
Community Bridges Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County Dientes Community Dental Care Equitable Dental Care for Seniors Dignity Health Dominican Hospital The Senior and Dependent Adult Program Encompass Community Services Health Equity II
Grey Bears Healthy Food Program
Institute on Aging Elder Abuse Prevention Program
Institute on Aging Senior Injury Prevention Program
Institute on Aging Friendship Line
Mental Health Client Action Network Mental Health Client Action Network People First of Santa Cruz County The Village
Senior Legal Services Senior Legal Services
Senior Network Services Aging and Community
Tier II ($25,001-$150,000)
Agency Program
Santa Cruz Art League Ageless Arts Initiative
Senior Citizens Organization of the San
Lorenzo Valley
Highlands Park Senior and Community
Center
Vets4Vets Santa Cruz RESILIENCE BUILDING OF ELDERLY VETERANS Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Family Fortification Project Eat for the Earth Salud en tu Plato/Community Rx
Cabrillo Community College District Stroke & Disability Learning Center Community Action Board of Santa Cruz
County, Inc
Santa Cruz County Immigration Project
New Way Homes Housing Santa Cruz County
Family Service Agency of the Central Coast Family Service Agency of the Central Coast Acupuncturists Without Borders Colectivo CARE - Focus on Elders Program Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Empowered Aging
Teen Kitchen Project Teen Kitchen Project
NAMI Santa Cruz County NAMI Santa Cruz County
Tier III ($25,000 and Under)
Agency Program
Association of Faith Communities of Santa
Cruz County, Inc.

Mobile Shower Program
Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San
Benito Counties
Project SCOUT
Urban Works Santa Cruz Urban Works Santa Cruz
Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired Vision Loss Rehabilitation Program

25.18 Attachment D – List of Agencies Who Submitted CORE Investments Proposals FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Healthy Environments:

Safe, affordable, accessible recreation spaces

Tier II ($25,001-$150,000)
Agency Program
Black Surf Santa Cruz Pop-Up Program (PUP) / Keep PUP and Prepare to Pop-Up Program (P2PUP)
Central Coast YMCA Healthy Family Homes
Coastal Watershed Council River Stewards Program
Farm Discovery at Live Earth Farm Discovery at Live Earth Friends of Santa Cruz County Parks DBA
County Park Friends
ParkRx Santa Cruz County (ParkRx SCC)
O'Neill Sea Odyssey O'Neill Sea Odyssey
Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community
Center
The Diversity Center’s Health and
Wellbeing Initiative
Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County YouthServe

Tier III ($25,000 and Under)
Agency Program
Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Healthy Connections

25.19 Attachment E – CORE Investments Funding Distribution Options FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

CORE Investments Funding Distribution Options
For the FYs 2025-28 CORE Investments funding cycle, $3,790,025 was allocated through an RFP process, to award CORE Investments proposals across approved Tiers, CORE Conditions and Impact Areas. A total of 100 proposals were received, representing $15,301,019 in CORE Investments funding requests.

With funding requests totaling 4 times more than the amount of funding available to awards proposals, County staff are presenting the following options for consideration for available funding distribution.

Option 1: Fund CORE Conditions and Tiers Proportionally by Funding Requested Option 1 would fund approximately 19 to 36 proposals. It would fund CORE Conditions and Tiers at 24.7% of the total amount of funding requested across submitted applications, or the proportion of CORE Funding versus the total amounts requested.

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Total
Lifelong Learning & Education $500,000
1 to 2 apps
$272,947
1 to 5 apps
$25,000
1 app
$797,947
3 to 8 apps
Thriving Families: Children and
Youth
$655,138
1 to 3
$705,259
4 to 9
$25,847
1 to 2
$1,386,245
6 to 14
Thriving Families: Older and
Dependent Adults
$1,075,164
2 to 4
$306,324
2 to 5
$25,000
1 $1,406,488
4 to 10
Healthy Environments n/a $174,321
1 to 3
$25,000
1 $199,321
2 to 4
Total Cost $2,206,051 $1,504,133 $79,816 $3,790,000
# of Potential Proposals to Fund 4 to 9 8 to 22 4 to 5 16 to 36 Methodology

1. Totals all requests for funds in each Tier, CORE Condition, and Impact Area and determines recommended funding by dividing by 24.7% (The amount of available funds divided by requested funds)

2. Adjusts amounts in Tiers with a CORE Condition to ensure at least 1 proposal is funded in each Tier and Impact Area

25.20 Attachment E – CORE Investments Funding Distribution Options FY 2025-28 CORE Investments Procurement

Option 2: Fund CORE Conditions and Tiers Proportionally by Number of Proposals Submitted
Option 2 would fund approximately 22 to 40 proposals. It would fund CORE Conditions more proportionally to the number of proposals submitted in each category.

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Total
Lifelong Learning & Education $500,000
1 to 2 apps
$245,900
1 to 4 apps
$50,000
2 apps
$795,900
4 to 8 apps
Thriving Families: Children and
Youth
$518,500
1 to 2 apps
$947,500
6 to 11 apps
$50,000
2 to 3 apps
$1,516,000
9 to 16 apps
Thriving Families: Older and
Dependent Adults
$594,300
1 to 2 apps
$492,700
3 to 7 apps
$50,000
2 apps
$1,137,000
6 to 11 apps
Healthy Environments n/a $316,100
2 to 4 apps
$25,000
1 app
$341,100
3 to 5 apps
Total Cost $1,612,800 $2,002,200 $175,000 $3,790,000
# of Potential Proposals to Fund 3 to 6 12 to 26 7 to 8 22 to 40 Methodology

1. Totals all proposals in each Tier, CORE Condition, and Impact Area and determines recommended funding by taking the percentage of all proposals in each tier and impact area and multiplying by the total funds ($3.79 million)

2. Within a CORE Condition move money out of Tier 3 into Tier 1 to ensure at least 1 proposal is in each Tier and Impact Area (if necessary)

3. Within a CORE Condition move money out of Tier 2 into Tier 1 to ensure at least 1 proposal is in each Tier and Impact Area (if necessary)

25.21 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/22/2024
AGENDA OF: 09/10/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Ordinance and Resolution Responsive to Incident Involving the City of Hanford Police Department (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance adding Chapter 9.91, the Prohibition of GovernmentSponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance, to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code;
2) Adopt a resolution directing (a) the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) to add a “Prohibition of Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons” policy to the SCPD Policy Manual; and (b) City staff to continue, to the greatest extent practicable, the City’s current practice of reserving City-funded and City-managed shelter resources for persons experiencing homelessness that are currently residing in the City of Santa Cruz; and 3) Approve the CEQA determination contained in this Agenda Report. The Council’s action is not a “project” under CEQA. And, even if it were considered a “project”, it would be categorically exempt under 14 CCR § 15321(b) (law enforcement action) and 14 CCR § 15061(b)(3) (“commonsense” exemption).

BACKGROUND: The City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan prioritizes affordable housing, outreach, engagement, offers for shelter, and connecting individuals with essential services. These priorities do not come without significant investment, but, so far, the results of these investments have been dramatic. The 2023 annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count reflected a 29% decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in the City. The 2024 PIT count reflected another 36% decrease in homelessness in the City. There is much more work to do, but the progress thus far is encouraging.

As discussed in greater detail below, an incident occurred in late June of 2024 that, if allowed to be repeated, puts the City’s continued progress in this area at significant risk.

Two law enforcement officers from the City of Hanford directly transported and dropped-off a disabled houseless person in the City of Santa Cruz. The Hanford Officers had no arrangements in place for this person’s safety or shelter. The purpose of this drop-off appears to have been for Hanford to simply move its homeless problem elsewhere.

26.1 There is reason to believe that the City of Hanford and other jurisdictions may engage in this type of conduct again. Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent Executive Order N-1-24 directed removal of homeless encampments on state properties, and encouraged cities and counties to do the same, without at the same time requiring offers for shelter or housing. Similarly, the US Supreme Court, in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, recently held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, even in the absence of an offer of shelter.

The City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan directs the City to provide shelter and services for homeless people in the City. However, the City does not have the resources available to provide shelter and services to any homeless person who happens to be dropped off in the City by employees of another jurisdiction.

Incidents like the one discussed in this report prevent all cities and counties from responsibly addressing homelessness. If cities and counties can simply drop a homeless person off in another jurisdiction, no jurisdiction will be incentivized to provide shelter, deeply affordable housing, or the outreach services that are critical to actually solving homelessness.

The proposed Ordinance makes this type of irresponsible drop-off incident illegal in the City of Santa Cruz, and the proposed Resolution aligns the SCPD’s policies to make sure that the City itself does not engage in this type of conduct. However, to be clear, the City has no history of improper transportation and drop-off of homeless persons.

The Incident
On June 27th, 2024, two Hanford police officers transported a disabled unhoused person, herein referred to as Person Doe1, with a truck full of their possessions, from the City of Hanford to the Armory homeless shelter’s parking lot, without receiving any authorization to do so from the City or the shelter’s then-operator, the Salvation Army.

Armory staff members directly observed this drop-off and called City staff for assistance. City staff called the Hanford PD and asked the Corporal on duty to send officers back to get Person Doe. The Corporal on duty replied, “They won’t be coming back.” The City staff member expressed to the Corporal that he was disheartened by the inhumane treatment of a disabled, houseless person, and told the Corporal, “That’s not how we do things here.” The Corporal hung up shortly thereafter.

Ultimately, Person Doe was accepted into the Armory, and Salvation Army staff helped Person Doe into their new spot and assisted with paring down their belongings.

Person Doe was later interviewed by City staff and described this incident as follows:
• Person Doe had never been to Santa Cruz before and was unaware of the resources in the County.
• Person Doe described an interaction where a Hanford PD officer outlined a program similar to Homeward Bound, except the transportation offered was not with intention of obtaining 1 To help preserve this person’s privacy, the term “Person Doe” and gender-neutral pronouns are used in this report.

26.2 permanent housing, but rather getting Person Doe out of Hanford. Person Doe asked to be relocated to one of three out-of-state locations. Instead, the Hanford PD officer recommended going to Santa Cruz as he described the community as more, “laid back and tolerant of people experiencing homelessness” and stated “[t]hey are anti-homeless in Hanford.” • Person Doe alleged that the Hanford PD “knew I had no friends or family [in Santa Cruz], and they basically forced me to go to Santa Cruz.”
• Person Doe alleged that Hanford PD asked Person Doe to arrive at their police station between 8 and 9 AM. When Person Doe arrived at the station, the officers were not ready to leave and discussed their desire to change out of their uniforms for the drive. • Eventually Person Doe and a truck full of their belongings were loaded into a Hanford PD truck. Person Doe alleged “My belongings were not secured . . . and some things flew out.” • Once they arrived in Santa Cruz, Person Doe described that the officers were, “Looking for an open field or a WalMart parking lot or anywhere they could drop me off. Then they found the parking lot for Ross.” According to Person Doe, the officers attempted to drive the Hanford PD vehicle up the west levee but there was a pole obstructing their path so they couldn’t make it up. • According to Person Doe, “They were looking for any area to drop me off but didn’t want to go to the beach because they didn’t want to get caught. They tried to drop me off at Ross, but two SCPD officers drove through. They stopped unloading my stuff when they saw them.” • Person Doe reports that Person Doe asked to use Hanford PD’s phone to call the Homeless Garden Project. When Person Doe did, the Homeless Garden Project explained that they didn’t provide shelter, but directed Person Doe to Housing Matters. Person Doe then called Housing Matters, which directed Person Doe to the Armory.
• Person Doe described being terrified during this ordeal. Person Doe is disabled, had no functioning phone, and no community connections.

City staff, including the SCPD Police Chief, have had limited communications with Hanford PD about this incident. While Hanford PD does not deny that they transported and dropped Person Doe off in the City of Santa Cruz, they do allege that Person Doe requested to come to Santa Cruz.

DISCUSSION: From the City’s perspective, whether or not Person Doe requested to come to Santa Cruz is irrelevant. It is indisputable that Person Doe was not pre-approved to be admitted into the Armory Shelter, which is funded by the City of Santa Cruz and designed for people currently residing in the City of Santa Cruz. But for the compassionate response of the Armory Shelter staff, Hanford PD would have cruelly left a disabled homeless person to fend for themselves in a community they were completely unfamiliar with.

It is flagrantly inappropriate that the Hanford Police Department transported a homeless individual to the City of Santa Cruz without a confirmed safety plan or support system.

Unfortunately, it appears that neither current state law nor current City Municipal Code squarely addresses the Hanford PD’s conduct.

After being made aware of the Hanford PD incident, the Mayor worked with the City Attorney’s Office on the enclosed proposed ordinance and resolution, which are intended to: (1) help preserve the City’s limited homelessness-related resources (including shelter and outreach) for individuals residing in the City of Santa Cruz, (2) encourage the appropriate governmental entities to provide shelter, care, outreach, and other homelessness-related resources to the persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictions, rather than simply just transporting

26.3 these individuals to the City of Santa Cruz, and (3) prevent governmental agencies from engaging in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals.

The proposed ordinance adds Chapter 9.91, the Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance, to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.

More specifically, the Ordinance states:
“No law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of a county, of another city, or of any other governmental entity, when acting in their official capacity, shall transport and dropoff an individual to public property, or private property that is accessible to the public, within the City of Santa Cruz, when the person being transported and dropped-off lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” (Proposed SCMC 9.91.020(a).) Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. (Proposed SCMC 9.91.030.) Appropriate clarifications are made in the Proposed SCMC 9.91.020, subdivisions (b) and (c). Subdivision (b) defines what it means for a person to “lack[] a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” within the meaning of subdivision (a). Subdivision (c) clarifies that subdivision (a) is not intended to prohibit certain identified transportation activities that are otherwise authorized and appropriate.

The proposed resolution directs the SCPD to add a “Prohibition of Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons” policy, which tracks the proposed Municipal Code amendments, to the SCPD Policy Manual. It also “directs City staff to continue, to the greatest extent practicable, the City’s current practice of reserving City-funded and City-managed shelter resources for persons experiencing homelessness that are currently residing in the City of Santa Cruz.” CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA. “Project” is defined by CEQA as:
“an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.”(Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.)
Neither the proposed ordinance nor the proposed resolution is a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the ordinance or the resolution represent the type of “activity” described in subdivisions (a) through (c) above.

Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that this proposed Council action is interpreted to be a “project” under CEQA, the Class 21 categorical exemption would be applicable. The exemption applies to “[l]aw enforcement activities by peace officers acting

26.4 under any law that provides a criminal sanction.” (14 CCR § 15321(b).) Here, the proposed ordinance creates a misdemeanor offense. Therefore, the enforcement of the proposed ordinance falls under the Class 21 categorical exemption for enforcement actions by regulatory agencies.

Additionally, this proposed Council action is exempt under the “commonsense” exemption to CEQA. (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).) The commonsense exemption applies “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).) No significant physical change to the environment can be reasonably anticipated by way of this ordinance or resolution.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The proposed ordinance and resolution support the public health and equity principles by protecting the health and welfare of people experiencing homelessness, by prohibiting governmental entities from dropping homeless individuals off in the City of Santa Cruz without a confirmed safety plan or support system, and by prohibiting government agencies from engaging in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals.

FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of adopting the proposed ordinance is unknown. If adopted, the ordinance would impose a misdemeanor penalty for engaging in such activity. As a result, there could be costs associated with enforcement of the ordinance, both in terms of law enforcement staff time, and expenses related to prosecution, which would be conducted by the City Attorney’s Office. Presently, such costs are unknown, but expected to be minimal because it is anticipated that the Ordinance will deter governmental agencies from engaging in the prohibited conduct. We do not currently know how prevalent the prohibited conduct is or would be going forward in the absence of this Council action, but the ordinance is anticipated to help preserve the City’s limited homelessness-related resources, including shelter and outreach, for the benefit of individuals already residing in the City.

Submitted By:

Fred Keeley
Mayor
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE.DOCX

2. RESOLUTION.DOCX

26.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADDING CHAPTER 9.91, THE PROHIBITION OF GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED UNSANCTIONED

TRANSPORT OF HOMELESS PERSONS ORDINANCE, TO THE SANTA CRUZ

MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan prioritizes affordable housing, outreach, engagement, offers for shelter, and connecting individuals with essential services.

WHEREAS, these priorities do not come without significant investment, but, so far, the results of these investments have been dramatic. The 2023 annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count reflected a 29% decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in the City. The 2024 PIT count reflected another 36% decrease in homelessness in the City. There is much more work to do, but the progress thus far is encouraging.

WHEREAS, an incident occurred in late June of 2024 that, if allowed to be repeated, puts the City’s continued progress in this area at significant risk. On June 27th, 2024, two City of Hanford police officers transported and dropped-off a disabled unhoused person, with a truck full of the person’s possessions, from the City of Hanford to the Armory homeless shelter’s parking lot, without receiving any authorization to do so from the City of Santa Cruz or the shelter’s thenoperator, the Salvation Army.

WHEREAS, there is reason to believe that the City of Hanford and other jurisdictions may engage in this type of conduct again. Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent Executive Order N-1-24 directed removal of homeless encampments on state properties, and encouraged cities and counties to do the same, without at the same time requiring offers for shelter or housing. Similarly, the US Supreme Court, in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, recently held that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, even in the absence of an offer of shelter.

WHEREAS, the City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan directs the City to provide shelter and services for homeless people in the City. However, the City does not have the resources available to provide shelter and services to any homeless person who happens to be dropped off in the City by employees of another jurisdiction. Incidents like the one discussed above prevent all cities and counties from responsibly addressing homelessness. If cities and counties can simply drop a homeless person off in another jurisdiction, no jurisdiction will be incentivized to provide shelter, deeply affordable housing, and the outreach services that are critical to actually solving homelessness.

WHEREAS, the Council finds it to be flagrantly inappropriate that the Hanford Police Department transported a homeless individual to the City of Santa Cruz without a confirmed safety plan or support system. But for the compassionate response of the Armory Shelter staff, Hanford

26.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX
2 PD would have cruelly left a disabled homeless person to fend for themselves in a community they were completely unfamiliar with.

WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is of the utmost importance that law be enacted to squarely address this issue and prevent similar events from occurring again in the City of Santa Cruz.

WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to: (1) help preserve the City’s limited homelessness-related resources (including shelter and outreach) for the benefit of individuals residing in the City of Santa Cruz, (2) encourage the appropriate government agencies to provide shelter, care, outreach, and other homelessness-related resources to the persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictions, rather than simply just transporting these individuals to the City of Santa Cruz, and (3) prevent government agencies from engaging, in the City of Santa Cruz, in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals.

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

SECTION 1. Chapter 9.91 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is added as follows:
“Chapter 9.91
Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance

9.91.010 – Purpose and Intent of Chapter
This chapter shall be known as the Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance. The purposes of this chapter are to: (1) help preserve the City’s limited homelessness-related resources (including shelter and outreach) for the benefit of individuals residing in the City of Santa Cruz, (2) encourage the appropriate government agencies to provide shelter, care, outreach, and other homelessness-related resources to the persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictions, rather than simply just transporting these individuals to the City of Santa Cruz, and (3) prevent government agencies from engaging, in the City of Santa Cruz, in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals.

9.91.020 - Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons
(a) No law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of a county, of another city, or of any other governmental entity, when acting in their official capacity, shall transport and drop-off an individual on public property, or private property that is accessible to the public, within the City of Santa Cruz, when the person being transported and droppedoff lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. (b) A person “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” within the meaning of subdivision (a) above when that person:

26.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX
3 (1) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for habitation; or
(2) Lives in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or
(3) Is exiting an institution where they have resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution.
(c) The prohibition contained in subdivision (a) above shall not be interpreted to prohibit the following authorized activities:
(1) Transporting a person to be booked into a County Jail or admitted to a Countydesignated custody alternative facility (e.g., a County-designated sobering center); or
(2) Transporting a person to be treated at a hospital or other medical facility; or (3) Transporting a person to reside at a shelter, temporary housing, or permanent housing, when the officer, agent, or employee has independently verified that the individual being transported has already been accepted to reside at the facility; or (4) Transporting a person to attend a verified appointment with a governmental or nonprofit social service provider; or (5) Transporting a person to attend a verified hearing at the Santa Cruz County Superior Court; or
(6) Any transportation or drop-off activities undertaken by the City of Santa Cruz within the City of Santa Cruz; or
(7) The operations of a governmental provider of public transportation, such as the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.”

9.91.030 – Penalty
A violation of Section 9.91.020(a) is a misdemeanor.”

26.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX
4 SECTION 2. CEQA Determination. The Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA. “Project” is defined by CEQA as:
“an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.”(Pub.

Resources Code, § 21065.)
This ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated by way of this ordinance, nor does the ordinance represent the type of activity described in subdivisions (a) through (c) above.

Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that this ordinance was interpreted to be a “project” under CEQA, the Class 21 categorical exemption would be applicable. The exemption applies to “[l]aw enforcement activities by peace officers acting under any law that provides a criminal sanction.” (14 CCR § 15321(b).) Here, this ordinance creates a misdemeanor offense.

Therefore, the enforcement of the ordinances falls under the Class 21 categorical exemption for enforcement actions by regulatory agencies.

Additionally, this ordinance is exempt under the “commonsense” exemption to CEQA. (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).) The commonsense exemption applies “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3).) No significant physical change to the environment is anticipated by way of this ordinance.

SECTION 3. Health in All Policies (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability.

The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. This ordinance supports public health and equity principles by protecting the health and welfare of people experiencing homelessness, by prohibiting governmental entities from dropping homeless individuals off in the City of Santa Cruz without a confirmed safety plan or support system, and by prohibiting government agencies from engaging in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

26.9 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX
5 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ___________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this XX day of XX, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2024-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

26.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-_________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ DIRECTING:
(1) THE SCPD TO ADD A “PROHIBITION OF UNSANCTIONED TRANSPORT OF HOMELESS PERSONS” POLICY TO THE SCPD POLICY MANUAL, AND (2) CITY STAFF TO CONTINUE THE CITY’S CURRENT PRACTICE OF RESERVING CITYFUNDED AND CITY-MANAGED SHELTER RESOURCES FOR HOMELESS

INDIVIDUALS CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WHEREAS, the City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan prioritizes affordable housing, outreach, engagement, offers for shelter, and connecting individuals with essential services.

WHEREAS, these priorities do not come without significant investment, but, so far, the results of these investments have been dramatic. The 2023 annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count reflected a 29% decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in the City. The 2024 PIT count reflected another 36% decrease in homelessness in the City. There is much more work to do, but the progress thus far is encouraging.

WHEREAS, an incident occurred in late June of 2024 that, if allowed to be repeated, puts the City’s continued progress in this area at significant risk. On June 27th, 2024, two City of Hanford police officers transported and dropped-off a disabled unhoused person, with a truck full of the person’s possessions, from the City of Hanford to the Armory homeless shelter’s parking lot, without receiving any authorization to do so from the City of Santa Cruz or the shelter’s thenoperator, the Salvation Army.

WHEREAS, the Council finds it to be flagrantly inappropriate that the Hanford Police Department transported a homeless individual to the City of Santa Cruz without a confirmed safety plan or support system. But for the compassionate response of the Armory Shelter staff, Hanford PD would have cruelly left a disabled homeless person to fend for themselves in a community they were completely unfamiliar with.

WHEREAS, the City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan directs the City to provide shelter and services for homeless people in the City. However, the City does not have the resources available to provide shelter and services to any homeless person who happens to be dropped off in the City by employees of another jurisdiction. Incidents like the one discussed above prevent all cities and counties from responsibly addressing homelessness. If cities and counties can simply drop a homeless person off in another jurisdiction, no jurisdiction will be incentivized to provide shelter, deeply affordable housing, and the outreach services that are critical to actually solving homelessness.

WHEREAS, the Council is concurrently considering an ordinance to squarely address this issue and prevent these types of events from occurring again in the City of Santa Cruz. At the same time, the Council wishes to align the SCPD’s internal policies to make sure that the City itself does not engage in this type of conduct. However, to be clear, the City has no history of improper transportation and drop-off of homeless persons.

26.11 WHEREAS, Council desires to provide City staff with direction, (1) clearly prohibiting the SCPD from engaging in similar conduct, and (2) to continue, to the greatest extent practicable, the City’s current practice of reserving City-funded and City-managed shelter resources for persons experiencing homelessness that are currently residing in the City of Santa Cruz.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) is directed to add the following language to the SCPD Policy Manual:
“Prohibition of Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons (a) No SCPD officer, when acting in their official capacity, shall transport and drop-off an individual to public property, or private property that is accessible to the public, outside of the City of Santa Cruz, when the person being transported and dropped-off lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
(b) A person “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” within the meaning of subdivision (a) above when that person:
(1) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for habitation; or
(2) Lives in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or
(3) Is exiting an institution where they have resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution.
(c) The prohibition contained in subdivision (a) above shall not be interpreted to prohibit the following authorized activities:
(1) Transporting a person to be booked into a County Jail or admitted to a County-designated custody alternative facility (e.g., a County-designated sobering center); or
(2) Transporting a person to be treated at a hospital or other medical facility; or (3) Transporting a person to reside at a shelter, temporary housing, or permanent housing, when the officer has independently verified that the

26.12 individual being transported has already been accepted to reside at the facility; or
(4) Transporting a person to attend a verified appointment with a governmental or non-profit social service provider; or
(5) Transporting a person to attend a verified hearing at the Santa Cruz County Superior Court.”

3. City staff is directed to continue, to the greatest extent practicable, the City’s current practice of reserving City-funded and City-managed shelter resources for persons experiencing homelessness that are currently residing in the City of Santa Cruz.

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

26.13 From: Garrett
To: City Council
Subject: 9.10.24 Agenda Item #26 Illegal dumping of homeless people Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 12:32:27 PM

9.10.24 Agenda Item #26 Illegal dumping of homeless people Dear Council,
Well, that was quite some read of this agenda item. The Hanford PD quote recommending going to Santa Cruz as he described the community as more, “laid back and tolerant of people experiencing homelessness” isn't exactly false is it?
One can imagine for good reason cities all over believe this and yes, I can see why they would like to direct even dump homeless people here.

I'm kinda more than OK on the ordinance, but f really agree with the idea governments have no business shipping people around to places where they are not welcome and have no control over being transported there..

I think you would, maybe will now, have a case against the Biden/Harris administration for shipping illegals all over the country, some of which are surely here, and will be more so the way it is going. Please charge President Biden and VP Harris with this offense the next time we run into an imported illegal in the city.

Of course, you might want to get rid of the sanctuary city status first, as it is misguided in the extreme and puts citizens at personal risk and great expense. You homeless costs are skyrocketing that I can see, and the more homeless illegals deported the better.

In the news lately we read violent armed gangs of illegal alien Venezuelan gangs are terrorising Aurora, Colo.

I read a Texas-based oil company issued a memo to employees warning them about security concerns from violent migrant gangs. The gangs are allegedly attacking oil workers and attempting to steal oil, fuel, and copper from oil fields in Texas.

We see articles in WSJ and others who have studied the issue saying since 2019 ALL net jobs went to foreign workers (3 million), MINUS 1.4 million jobs to native born Americans. Great replacement indeed. Of course they work for 40% lower wages affecting low income people the most.

Of course what we have seen is
- Kamala/Joe creates the housing crisis with illegal migrants - BlackRock buys all the homes
- BlackRock skyrockets rents
- Illegal immigrants are put on housing vouchers

26.14 We know Joe/Kamal have flown at taxpayers expense and dumped illegals all over the country, I can image a near certainty some are here.

Never mind the drugs, the massive amounts thought to be an extra 14 BILLION the Mexican cartels have received from human trafficking and poisoning our population to 100k deaths a year. OK, change that, you should mind.

We all scream about a housing crisis, but GEE, da ya think adding 10 million illegals and pasing out vouchers might be making that worse?
----------------
So, do me a favor. Pass this ordinance, then put removing sanctuary status on the next agena, start cooperating with ICE, enable deportations, and start charging the Biden/Harris administration with criminal acts you now prohibit when they occur. -----------------
"Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has released a lengthy report detailing how the Biden-Harris immigration allowed a flood of noncitizens to "fundamentally transform" the United States.

The key points of the report are
Over 8.5 million illegal aliens have crossed the U.S. southern border since the Biden-Harris administration took office, exceeding the population of 37 states.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released 5.6 million illegal aliens into the U.S., and 1.9 million "got-aways" have evaded capture.

Border Patrol is overwhelmed, suffering from low morale and recruitment levels, leading to a significant increase in agent suicides.

Fentanyl, primarily produced by Mexican drug cartels using Chinese chemicals, has led to nearly 75,000 American deaths in 2023.

Criminal activities committed by illegal aliens, including murders and assaults, have spiked under the Biden-Harris administration.

At least 169 known or suspected terrorists were arrested at the southern border in FY 2023.

Mexican cartels have increased their profits to over $13 billion a year through human smuggling and drug trafficking operations.

States like Texas have spent billions on border security, citing a lack of federal support.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are facilitating illegal immigration, funded by U.S. taxpayers.

The Biden-Harris administration's catch-and-release policies have contributed to a surge in crime and human trafficking.

There has been a significant rise in illegal aliens from non-Western countries, especially China, with record numbers crossing the border in FY 2024.

The number of illegal aliens involved in crimes has increased, with many committing serious offenses after being released into the U.S.

Thousands of migrant children have been lost by U.S. authorities, with over 320,000 minors unaccounted for as of 2024.

Venezuelan gangs, like Tren de Aragua, are committing crimes in major U.S. cities." - ZH
Thanks,

26.15 Garrett Philipp

26.16 From: Big Joe 77
To: City Council
Subject: Public Correspondence to Agenda Item# 26: Ordinance and Resolution Responsive to Incident Involving the City of Hanford Police Department
Date: Saturday, September 7, 2024 3:44:42 AM
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members,
Regarding the proposed ordinance to resolve the current Hanford PD issue (and possible similar issues) in the future by adopting a municipal ordinance isn’t going to do much to resolve the issue of transients from all over the country flocking to Santa Cruz.

I hear daily Police contact people during their normal course of duty who are from Florida to Maine to Alaska, to New Mexico and all points in between. What you need to focus on is the much larger picture- “Why?” and then the answer becomes obvious.

Santa Cruz no longer feels the need from stopping anyone from doing anything, for any reason, at any time. The city is dying alright. Businesses and citizens have been largely abandoned and left to fend for themselves in favor of a self congratulatory compassion- a phony grace.

If you shout long enough, Santa Cruz will give you what you want. Will abandon a park, an open space, a riparian area, an entire city street, and all the people that live and work there. All of it is theirs for the taking if they shout long enough.

If you want to live somewhere, anywhere, and want to pile up garbage and waste and filth, you can do that too: parks, street corners, neighborhood nooks & crannies... have at it. You think Santa Cruz is gonna stop you?
If you want to kill yourself using drugs- have at it. We’ll even give you needles and crack pipes and tell the cops not to arrest you. Santa Cruz police have through “cite & release” for bailable drug offenses have essentially legalized hard narcotics on our streets and then stand by and watch you kill yourself, because Santa Cruz no longer feels the need from stopping anyone from doing anything for any reason.” Santa Cruz has brought this phenomenon of attracting anti-social parasites upon itself. Magnet to metal. Moth to a flame. Charging a City or police agency with a misdemeanor isn’t going to stem the tide, because this is the message being received by drug addicts and petty thieves across every state in the union.

I would suggest that Santa Cruz government, you- the elected officials, cease enabling criminals with free glass pipes and promises of subsidized housing for life and focus on your primary responsibility: public safety. Arrest those found to have

26.17 committed offenses that have a bail amount attached to them. Holler loudly in the public’s ears when the county releases them with a “promise to appear.” Change the dynamics and stem the flow.

Be well.
--
Big Joe 77
Keepin' it Real

26.18 2
Lindsay Nelson
From: Cristina Lupano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 3:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homeless
Santa Cruz wants to ban other communities from sending
homeless people to the city without authorization

26.19 1
Lindsay Nelson
From: Ian Babcock <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 4:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Homeless drop offs
We do NOT need other towns’ homeless people!! We have more than our share to say the LEAST!! Vote accordingly thank you!
Ian Babcock
50+year resident
Sent from my iPhone

26.20 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/22/2024
AGENDA OF: 09/10/2024
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Industrial Land Preservation Policy. Location: Citywide. CEQA: General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Industrial Land Preservation Policy and acknowledging the action is consistent with the General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz adopted the General Plan 2030 in 2012 to guide the city’s future physical, social, economic, cultural, and environmental character. The general plan includes a wide range of policies that speak to preservation of industrial lands, citing potential benefits for employment and the city’s tax base. The policy considered herein is intended to clarify and support the General Plan 2030.

DISCUSSION: The General Plan 2030 contains, among others, the following two guiding principles (emphasis added) that serve to implement the overarching vision of the general plan:
 Prosperity for all. We will ensure a sustainable economy for the community, actively encouraging the development of employment opportunities for residents of all levels and ages, and actively protecting from elimination our current and potential sources of sustainable employment.
 A dependable municipal tax base. We will encourage diverse technology, visitor serving, industrial, home business and commercial business enterprises, and strategic redevelopment.

For many years, the city has regularly received inquiries from developers who are interested in putting non-industrial land uses on industrially designated lands, particularly residential development. This is due in part to industrial land being easier to develop, with cheaper land costs and fewer neighbors opposing development. Relying on direction from the guiding principles noted above, as well as the land use designation text, goals, and policies of the general plan that are further discussed below, the city has successfully discouraged conversion of industrial lands to residential uses.

27.1 Industrial lands contribute to a vital cycle of success for the city and its residents. The industrial lands represent the potential for high paying, benefited jobs for the city’s working class. They provide potential for people to work in the community where they live, resulting in a) better quality of life, with less time spent commuting, and b) health benefits, both from shorter commute time and the potential for active commutes. Shorter commutes also provide people with more time to be engaged and invested in the community through volunteering or other social activities. At the same time, the city receives positive fiscal benefits from industrial lands, as industrial lands have lower service costs compared to residential and, in some cases, have higher property taxes than residential as well. And some city services are limited in industrial areas, so industrial conversions can result in expanded geographic areas where police, fire, library, and other city services are needed. The fiscal benefits of industrial lands provide revenues that the city can invest in economic development, affordable housing, arts, culture, and social services programs. Thus, the preservation of industrial lands supports a cycle of personal, social, cultural, environmental, and fiscal health.

Preservation of industrial lands is critical for many additional reasons too. The city has a very limited supply of industrial lands, and once lost to housing, those lands are likely to remain residential in perpetuity. Compatibility of uses is a concern for industrial conversion, with potential conflicts between industrial/truck traffic and residential traffic; with livability concerns, such as noise or air quality impacts on residential quality of life; and with potential limitations on industrial businesses viability, such as additional state monitoring and reporting requirements for air emissions or hazardous materials storage. Once some industrial conversion occurs, the “domino effect” is another significant concern, as new applicants will point to other properties where such conversions have already occurred.

The Industrial (IND) land use designation text in the General Plan 2030 states the following:
“Although residential uses are discouraged in lands designated IND, this designation nevertheless allows for limited development of live-work units that accommodate home-based businesses.” As such, the city has consistently conveyed to potential applicants that strictly residential units are not allowed in lands with the IND designation, but “limited” live-work units may be possible. This aligns with the city’s industrial zoning district allowances as well. Multifamily residential uses are listed in the zoning ordinance as needing a special use permit in the industrial zoning districts, which serves as the avenue for “limited” live-work units to be proposed through the discretionary use permit process. Projects that include strictly residential units have not been allowed, except through a planned development permit, which allows for use variations from what is otherwise allowed in a zoning district. The planned development permit approach has been used in limited instances, such as the Delaware Addition, which also happened to include a development agreement. However, an important consideration for the Delaware Addition project is that the initial planned development permit approval occurred under the previous general plan. The General Plan 2030 has stronger industrial land preservation policies, and staff are not aware of planned development permits having been used to allow residential uses in industrial lands since the current general plan took effect. (A use variation was allowed in 2013 through a planned development that allowed for hotel uses on an industrial property. That property was on the periphery of an industrial area, and it maintained the land in an employment-centered use that did not present the same fiscal concerns as a residential conversion. The hotel was also estimated to have a substantial number of business-oriented guests (estimated at 40%), which would serve the industrial and educational uses in the

27.2 immediate area. Even industrial conversions of this nature, with an expansion of allowable employment uses, need to be very carefully considered.) Any time residential uses are proposed on industrial lands, the utmost care must be taken to ensure that the challenges and concerns highlighted herein do not materialize. Sites on the periphery of industrial lands that are separated from other industrial uses and that transition between commercial/industrial and residential areas could potentially be considered for such residential uses through a planned development permit, but only in very limited circumstances, when a broader set of general plan policy objectives would support such uses, and when greater public benefit is provided as part of the planned development permit. The planned development permit process is completely discretionary and does not provide any guarantee that residential uses of any kind will be allowed, other than limited live-work. Both the planned development permit process and special use permit process require a general plan consistency finding. In addition to the information referenced below, the Industrial Land Preservation Policy includes a reference to this planned development permit approach, with strong, cautionary language about use of this approach.

In recent years, state regulations have changed such that subjective standards have limited applicability to residential development proposals. The Industrial Land Preservation Policy provides a response to the state law changes by articulating objective standards for when the city may want to consider residential uses on IND lands in conjunction with other employment generating uses. It also helps ensure that potential developers are aware of the IND general plan land use designation text that precludes residential development and limits live-work. Finally, it provides objective standards as it relates to the recently-adopted General Plan Housing Element Objective 1.2e, which states: “Support a balance of jobs and housing land uses by only considering residential use in industrial land if it is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner and if it does not negatively impact existing or future industrial uses in the area, except in the vicinity of Coral Street on properties where homeless services or affordable housing are identified in the properties’ respective General Plan Land Use Designations as an allowable use. Adopt a Coral Street Overlay that builds off existing services and resources to provide homeless services and related residential use standards for that specific, immediate area.”

In response to the above factors, the proposed Industrial Land Preservation Policy includes the following, with explanations included in italics:

For properties with an industrial land use designation and/or within the IG, IG/PER or IG/PER-2 zone districts, pursuant to the General Plan 2030 industrial land use designation text, various General Plan 2030 goals and policies, and General Plan 2030 Housing Element Policy 1.2e, plans submitted must demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
 Live/work units are the only type of residential use that is allowed. o This reiterates the IND general plan land use designation text.  If less than 95% of the allowable floor area ratio is provided as square footage for commercial/industrial uses allowed by the zoning code, then up to four live/work units may be permitted in total as part of a project which, for purposes of this

27.3 standard, includes four live/work units total across all properties included in a project or across all properties subdivided into multiple properties after this standard has been established. For example, if one property is subdivided into three properties, only up to four live/work units can be provided across the three properties in total, assuming less than 95% of the allowable floor area ratio is provided in commercial/industrial uses.
o This provides an objective standard related to Housing Element Objective

1.2e.
 If 95% or more of the allowable floor area ratio is provided as square footage for commercial/industrial uses allowed by the zoning code, then the additional allowable square footage may be provided as live/work units, including more than four live/work units. For purposes of this standard, if a property is subdivided into multiple properties after this standard has been established, then an individual property that meets 95% or more of the allowable floor area ratio as commercial/industrial square footage may use the remaining 5% of allowable floor area ratio as live/work units for that particular property. However, the other properties that were subdivided must also meet the 95% floor area ratio threshold with commercial/industrial uses before live/work units are provided, unless the proposal adheres to the bullet above that speaks to commercial/industrial square footage that is less than 95%, including the limitation of a maximum of four live/work units across all properties within the subdivision. o This provides an additional objective standard related to Housing Element Objective 1.2e.
 Live/work units shall comply with the R-M District Standards and the standards in Section 24.12.185.13.c of the Zoning Ordinance.
o This reiterates the existing Zoning Ordinance standards.  The construction of the live/work component must proceed concurrently with or after the commercial/industrial component.
o This limits the potential for a developer to only provide live-work units and not complete the commercial/industrial component.

The bullets above have already been incorporated into the planning application submittal requirements, though they have been updated above and in the policy for further clarification.

This agenda item is requesting that the Council formally acknowledge the requirements through adoption of the new policy.

In addition to the previously noted general plan criteria that the proposed Industrial Land Preservation Policy is intended to support, the following general plan goals and policies are supported by the proposed policy:
 LU3.2 Maintain lands currently designated for industrial and office in land use designations that promote job creation and retention.
 LU3.2.1 Pursue the expansion of employment-intensive uses that have long-term economic viability.

27.4  LU3.2.2 Develop land use and economic plans for the Westside Industrial and Harvey West areas.
 LU3.2.3 Encourage light industrial uses and creative industry to locate in the Harvey West Area.
 LU3.2.4 Allow incubator uses in employment-intensive areas such as the Westside Industrial Area. Cf.
 LU3.2.5 In considering new types of uses for the Westside Industrial Area, give priority to those that deliver long-term job creation and retention.  LU3.2.6 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase the number of stories allowed in the Westside Industrial Area within the existing height limitations.  LU3.2.7 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for employment generation in the city’s industrial areas, and to restrict uses that are incompatible with industrial uses.  LU3.2.8 Direct large regional retail uses to, and locate remote parking in, a portion of Harvey West.

The proposed Industrial Land Preservation Policy is intended to clearly articulate existing policy while also providing objective standards to support the important city principles associated with employment land and particularly industrial land protection. Should the Council desire more analysis on this topic, such analysis could be completed as part of future reviews of the general plan, of the subject policy, or both, including through coordination with future Planning Commission recommendations. However, staff strongly encourages the Council to adopt the subject policy at this time as a means to provide additional protection for the city’s industrial lands.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed policy is fully consistent with the provisions in the General Plan 2030, which has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The policy would not result in any additional development or land use changes that were not already anticipated in the General Plan 2030 and its EIR. Therefore, the General Plan 2030 EIR provides the CEQA clearance for the proposed policy.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The proposed amendments are fully supportive of the city’s goals for equity, public health, and sustainability though 1) the preservation of the potential for a broad range of employment options that can support well-paying jobs for many educational levels, thereby supporting equity; 2) the potential for local jobs to allow for active commuting, thereby supporting public health and sustainability; and 3) the fiscal strength that the policy brings, which provide opportunities for the city to invest in a range of equity, public health, and sustainability measures.

27.5 FISCAL IMPACT: The preservation of industrial lands has significant potential for net positive fiscal impacts, particularly over time as properties develop with industrial and commercial uses and particularly because said commercial and industrial uses typically demand substantially fewer city services than residential development. The conversion of industrial land to residential uses poses the potential for substantial net negative fiscal impacts, particularly given residential service demands and property taxes over the long term. Thus, adherence to the proposed policy has the potential for significant positive fiscal benefits.

Prepared and Submitted
By:

Lee Butler, AICP, LEED
AP
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION.DOC

2. EXHIBIT A - INDUSTRIAL LAND PRESERVATION POLICY.DOC

27.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

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

THE INDUSTRIAL LAND PRESERVATION POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz adopted the General Plan 2030 in 2012 to guide the city’s future physical, social, economic, cultural, and environmental character; and WHEREAS, the general plan includes a wide range of policies that speak to preservation of industrial lands, citing potential benefits for employment and the city’s tax base, including but not limited to the General Plan 2030 excerpts cited in the associated September 10, 2024 City Council staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial Land Preservation Policy is intended to clarify and support the General Plan 2030, clearly articulating existing policy while also providing objective standards to support the important city principles associated with preserving and increasing employment opportunities associated with industrial land protection; and WHEREAS, the preservation of industrial land for employment uses promotes a cycle of personal, social, cultural, environmental, and fiscal health, and the conversion of industrial land to non-employment uses can result in a permanent loss of employment capacity, incompatibility of uses, quality of life impacts for residents, limitations on industrial business viability, and the “domino effect” of additional conversions occurring, all as further articulated in the associated September 10, 2024 City Council staff report; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan 2030 land use designation does not allow strictly residential units in lands with the IND designation, but authorizes “limited” live-work units as a component of industrial development; and
WHEREAS, key components of the Industrial Land Preservation Policy are already part of the City’s standard land use permit application, and adoption of the policy is intended to further support, acknowledge, and strengthen those requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed policy is fully consistent with the provisions in the General Plan 2030, which has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in that the policy would not result in any additional development or land use changes that were not already anticipated in the General Plan 2030 and its EIR, and therefore, the General Plan 2030 EIR provides the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance for the proposed policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 10, 2024 considered the Industrial Land Preservation Policy at a regular City Council hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby acknowledges that the environmental impacts of the Industrial Land Preservation Policy were contemplated by the General Plan 2030 EIR and hereby adopts the Industrial Land

27.7 Preservation Policy, as noted in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk

27.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

EXHIBIT A
City Council Industrial Land Use
Preservation Policy
Adopted September 10, 2024
In support of various General Plan 2030 principles, some of which are listed at the bottom of this policy, the following criteria shall be adhered to in development proposals. This policy is intended to be indicative of existing general plan requirements, while also providing some objective standards related to floor area ratios to further clarify the existing requirements.

For properties with an industrial land use designation and/or within the IG, IG/PER or IG/PER-2 zone districts, pursuant to the General Plan 2030 industrial land use designation text, various General Plan 2030 goals and policies, and General Plan 2030 Housing Element Policy 1.2e, plans submitted must demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
 Live/work units are the only type of residential use that is allowed.  If less than 95% of the allowable floor area ratio is provided as square footage for commercial/industrial uses allowed by the zoning code, then up to four live/work units may be permitted in total as part of a project which, for purposes of this standard, includes four live/work units total across all properties included in a project or across all properties subdivided into multiple properties after this standard has been established. For example, if one property is subdivided into three properties, only up to four live/work units can be provided across the three properties in total, assuming less than 95% of the allowable floor area ratio is provided in commercial/industrial uses.  If 95% or more of the allowable floor area ratio is provided as square footage for commercial/industrial uses allowed by the zoning code, then the additional allowable square footage may be provided as live/work units, including more than four live/work units. For purposes of this standard, if a property is subdivided into multiple properties after this standard has been established, then an individual property that meets 95% or more of the allowable floor area ratio as commercial/industrial square footage may use the remaining 5% of allowable floor area ratio as live/work units for that particular property. However, the other properties that were subdivided must also meet the 95% floor area ratio threshold with commercial/industrial uses before live/work units are provided, unless the proposal adheres to the bullet above that speaks to commercial/industrial square footage that is less than 95%, including the limitation of a maximum of four live/work units across all properties within the subdivision.

27.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

EXHIBIT A
 Live/work units shall comply with the R-M District Standards and the standards in Section 24.12.185.13.c of the Zoning Ordinance.
 The construction of the live/work component must proceed concurrently with or after the commercial/industrial component.

In very limited instances, planned development permits have allowed for use variations that authorize residential uses in industrial areas under the previous general plan. As of the drafting of this policy, staff is not aware of such use variation allowances under the current general plan that has been in effect since 2012, which speaks to the rarity of such occurrences. (However, a use variation was allowed in 2013 that allowed for a hotel use on an industrial property. That property was on the periphery of industrial area, and it maintained the land in an employment use that did not present the same fiscal concerns as a residential conversion. The hotel was also estimated to have a substantial number of business-oriented guests (estimated at 40%), which would serve the industrial and educational uses in the immediate area. Even industrial conversions of this nature, with an expansion of allowable employment uses, need to be very carefully considered.) While deviations from this policy may be exercised through planned development permits, the principles contained herein can guide the use of planned development permits that seek to allow for residential uses in industrial lands. Such approach should be extremely rare and only when the utmost care is taken to ensure that the challenges and concerns associated with residential uses on industrial lands do not materialize. (See the September 10, 2024 City Council staff report for more information on some of those challenges.) Sites on the periphery of industrial lands that are separated from other industrial uses and that transition between commercial/industrial and residential areas could potentially be considered for such residential uses through a planned development permit, but only in very limited circumstances, when a broader set of general plan policy objectives would support such uses, and when greater public benefit is provided as part of the planned development permit. The planned development permit process is completely discretionary and does not provide any guarantee that residential uses of any kind will be allowed, since the only allowable residential uses on industrial lands are “limited” live-work, consistent with the general plan land use designation.

This policy is supported by many components of the General Plan 2030 text, including but not limited to the following:

Guiding Principles:
 Prosperity for all. We will ensure a sustainable economy for the community, actively encouraging the development of employment opportunities for residents of all levels and ages, and actively protecting from elimination our current and potential sources of sustainable employment.
 A dependable municipal tax base. We will encourage diverse technology, visitor serving, industrial, home business and commercial business enterprises, and strategic redevelopment.

27.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

EXHIBIT A
Goals, Policies, & Objectives:
 LU3.2 Maintain lands currently designated for industrial and office in land use designations that promote job creation and retention.
 LU3.2.1 Pursue the expansion of employment-intensive uses that have long-term economic viability.
 LU3.2.2 Develop land use and economic plans for the Westside Industrial and Harvey West areas.
 LU3.2.3 Encourage light industrial uses and creative industry to locate in the Harvey West Area.
 LU3.2.4 Allow incubator uses in employment-intensive areas such as the Westside Industrial Area. Cf.
 LU3.2.5 In considering new types of uses for the Westside Industrial Area, give priority to those that deliver long-term job creation and retention.  LU3.2.6 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase the number of stories allowed in the Westside Industrial Area within the existing height limitations.  LU3.2.7 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for employment generation in the city’s industrial areas, and to restrict uses that are incompatible with industrial uses.  LU3.2.8 Direct large regional retail uses to, and locate remote parking in, a portion of Harvey West.
 Housing Element Objective 1.2e Support a balance of jobs and housing land uses by only considering residential use in industrial land if it is ancillary to industrial land’s full employment capacity being achieved in an economically viable manner and if it does not negatively impact existing or future industrial uses in the area, except in the vicinity of Coral Street on properties where homeless services or affordable housing are identified in the properties’ respective General Plan Land Use Designations as an allowable use.

Adopt a Coral Street Overlay that builds off existing services and resources to provide homeless services and related residential use standards for that specific, immediate area.

27.11 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/22/24
AGENDA OF: 09/10/24
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Ministerial Design Review Authority for Affordable Streamlined Ministerial Projects with a Density Bonus. Location: Citywide. CEQA: Not a Project. (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct staff to do the following, which will supersede the direction provided at the September 7, 2021, City Council Meeting:
1) Conduct the objective, ministerial Design Review of revisions to the 831 Water Street Project, including potential revisions to the Density Bonus approval, administratively with the option to refer the project to the Planning Commission; and
2) Any future requests for an affordable housing streamlined ministerial project that include a Density Bonus request shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator at a noticed public hearing with the option to refer review to the Planning Commission. [Environmental Determination: Not a Project]
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 35 (SB35) was approved by Governor Newsom on September 29, 2017, and became effective on January 1, 2018. The bill amends the language in Government Code Section 65913.4 to allow for qualifying housing development proposals to be subject only to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, and not subject to a Use Permit. The wording of SB35 indicated that a Design Review or “Public Oversight” of the development may be conducted by a “local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate.”
SB35 is only applicable in a locality where the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) has determined that the number of units that have been issued building permits is less than the locality’s share of regional housing needs, by income category, for that reporting period. The total number of building permits issued towards qualifying housing is reviewed four years into the Housing Element cycle and at the end of the eight-year cycle. Specifically, projects qualify for SB35 by providing at least 10% of the total units at low-income level in jurisdictions that are not meeting their above moderate housing units or 50% at the low income level in jurisdictions not meeting their low or very low income affordable units.

28.1 In July 2021, the Planning Department received an application for a mixed-use development at 831, 823, and 833 Water Street (“831 Water Street”) to be processed pursuant to SB35. At the time, SB35 was a viable option for streamlining housing development in that full compliance with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation had not yet been achieved at the very low-income level. Based on the city’s housing numbers at the time of application submittal, an SB35 project would need to provide at least 50% of the units at the low-income level to be eligible, which was proposed in the 831 Water Street application.

The City determined that the 831 Water Street project would require a Design Review/Public Oversight meeting, and the City Council served as the hearing body for that meeting, which was allowed pursuant to the language in SB35. The project was ultimately found consistent with objective standards and the Density Bonus granted.

During the review of the 831 Water St. project, a Special Meeting of the City Council was held on September 7, 2021, to familiarize the City Council and community with SB35 legislation. At the special meeting, the City Council provided the following direction to staff for the future processing of other affordable housing streamlined ministerial projects that include a density bonus request:

Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember KalantariJohnson, to confirm that applications involving requests for both Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval and Density Bonus require City Council to make the determination of consistency with objective standards and to consider for approval any associated Density Bonus requests as part of a public oversight meeting to occur within 60 days of receipt of application for a project with 150 or fewer units or 90 days of application receipt for a project with more than 150 units.

On October 11, 2023, Governor Newsom approved Senate Bill 423 (SB 423) which, among other things, amends the language added to Government Code Section 65913.4 by SB35 to eliminate the ability for the City Council to conduct design review for such project. SB 423 made the following changes to the Government Code section:
“Any design review or public oversight of the development may be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review.” And approval of development projects, or the city council or board of supervisors, as appropriate. [Government Code Section 65913.4(d)]
This item seeks to amend the City Council’s direction to clarify direction for review of potential future modifications to the 831 Water Street project and to clarify direction for Design Review of future SB423 (formerly SB35) and other affordable housing streamlined ministerial projects that include a Density Bonus.

DISCUSSION: The applicant for the 831 Water Street project has made the City aware that they intend to submit revisions to the project design to accommodate a 100% affordable housing development. Since the adoption of SB423, the revisions can no longer be considered by the City Council. A formal application for modifications to the 831 Water Street project has not been submitted, therefore, the extent of the final proposed changes is unknown. The Zoning Ordinance

28.2 allows for Minor Modifications to permits to be processed at the staff level and for Major Modifications to be processed by the hearing body that acted on the original permit. While this project is ministerial and would not trigger a Major or Minor Modification as a discretionary permit, staff recommends that the City Council provide direction for staff to review such modifications administratively and without a public hearing, with the option to refer the project to the Planning Commission. The ministerial review would continue to be confirmation of consistency with applicable objective standards.

Regarding future SB423 projects, as of June 3, 2024, the State verified the City’s annual progress report and acknowledged that the City met all RHNA categories; therefore, SB423 does not apply in the City until 2028 at the earliest. However, the direction provided by the City Council at the September 7, 2021, meeting is not specific to SB423 projects and would apply to objective Design Review associated with any affordable housing streamlined ministerial review that includes a Density Bonus request, such as a density bonus project proposed under Assembly Bill 2011 (MultiFamily Residential Projects on Commercially Zoned Land) or Senate Bill 2162 (Affordable Supportive Housing).

In the event that SB423 is triggered based on the City’s RHNA numbers in four years or the City receives an application for any affordable housing streamlined ministerial review process with a Density Bonus request, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to conduct the associated Design Review at a Zoning Administrator public hearing, consistent with Section

24.16.270(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the option to refer projects to the Planning Commission, consistent with Section 24.04.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the Zoning Ordinance currently requires a public hearing for density bonus projects, the City has very little discretion in such decisions and a public hearing is not consistent with the intent of most streamlining legislation that call for ministerial review; therefore, staff anticipates presenting the Council with future proposed amendments to the code that would allow a fully ministerial review process for an affordable housing streamlined ministerial project with a density bonus. Further, those future amendments are expected to be more consistent with the various objectives in the General Plan 2030 Housing Element, such as the following:

2.2g. Adopt an ordinance that allows 100 percent affordable residential development that conforms to applicable objective standards, not including density bonus waivers and concessions/incentives, to be considered a “by-right” use that only requires ministerial Planning approval and Building Permits to be constructed in residential and mixed-use zones.

2.2h. Adopt SB 35 application review processes for eligible projects that meet the requirements established in Government Code Section 65913.41.

2.2i. Create a packet outlining land use and development information that helps to facilitate affordable housing production, particularly low and extremely low income units, on faith-based organization sites, and provide that information, along with staff contact details, to owners and occupants of faith-based sites within the city at least every two years. Assist property owners in the development of housing including assisting with entitlements, outreach and contact with affordable housing

28.3 developers, supporting funding applications, providing technical assistance, and granting incentives such as waiving fees and reducing development standards.

To reiterate, the changes require code amendments and are not proposed at this time. The action before the Council at this meeting is solely to revise the prior, September 7, 2021, Council action directing staff to have the Council act on the Design Review of an Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Review project that includes a Density Bonus. Rather than the Council reviewing such action, the Zoning Administrator would review said action at a public hearing, with the option to refer that action to the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator’s action could be appealed to the Planning Commission. For SB 423 projects (or if precluded by other State legislation), the Planning Commission’s decision cannot be appealed to the City Council, as the Council is expressly excluded from presiding over such determinations of consistency with objective standards.

Any objective Design Review associated with an Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Review project that does not also propose a Density Bonus will continue to be reviewed administratively by staff.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The recommended amended City Council direction is not considered to be a project under the Section 21065 of CEQA in that the direction will not cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The direction is related to process only and each application will be evaluated for CEQA compliance at the time of submittal.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The recommended amended direction supports the pillar of equity in that processing of the 831 Water Street project revisions and other future affordable housing projects will be streamlined consistent with State law and relevant General Plan policies. Such projects will continue to be noticed consistent with the Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects and Design Review will ensure compliance with objective standards which will further ensure that the projects meet the pillars of health and sustainability that are codified in our local ordinance. The recommended City Council direction is consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
Prepared By:

Samantha Haschert
Current Planning
Principal Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENT:

1. September 7, 2021 City Council Special Meeting Minutes

28.4 City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

MINUTES OF A CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 7, 2021
7:30 PM
Call to Order – Mayor Meyers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. via Zoom.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Watkins (via Zoom), Kalantari-Johnson (via Zoom), Brown (via Zoom), Cummings (via Zoom), Golder (via Zoom); Vice Mayor Brunner (via Zoom); Mayor Meyers (via Zoom).

Absent: None.

Staff: Interim City Manager R. Menard (via Zoom), City Attorney T. Condotti (via Zoom), Assistant City Manager L. Schmidt (via Zoom), Deputy City Manager, Director of Planning, Community Development, and Homelessness Response L. Butler (via Zoom), Interim Finance Director B. Magee (via Zoom), Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb (via Zoom), Interim Fire Chief R. Oatey (via Zoom), Senior Planner S.

Neuse (via Zoom), Principal Planner S. Haschert (via Zoom), Transportation N. Nguyen (via Zoom), Housing and Community Development Manager J. de Wit (via Zoom), Deputy City Clerk Administrator J. Wood, City Clerk Administrator B. Bush (via Zoom).

General Business

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) Deputy City Manager, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Homelessness Response L. Butler, Partner with Goldfarb Lipman Barbara Kautz, and Senior Planner S. Neuse gave a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions.

Principal Planner S. Haschert responded to Councilmember questions.

Transportation Manager N. Nguyen responded to Councilmember questions.

28.5 September 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5788 General Business (continued)

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) (continued)
Mayor Meyers opened the public comment period. The following people spoke.

SPEAKING VIA TELECONFERENCE:

Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Unidentified person
Candace Brown
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Janine
Unidentified person
Unidentified person
Robert Orrizzi
Mayor Meyers closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to confirm that applications involving requests for both Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval and Density Bonus require City Council to make the determination of consistency with objective standards and to consider for approval any associated Density Bonus requests as part of a public oversight meeting to occur within 60 days of receipt of application for a project with 150 or fewer units or 90 days of application receipt for a project with more than 150 units.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson requested to add to the motion:
 Direct staff to apply standard conditions of approval for SB 35 applications.
 Direct staff to complete the objective standards project as expeditiously as possible and convert those standards to the zoning code.

28.6 September 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5789 General Business (continued)

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) (continued)
Councilmember Cummings requested to add “based on General Plan allowances” to the friendly amendment. Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson accepted.

After discussion and feedback from staff, the friendly amendment was amended to:
 Direct staff to apply standard objective conditions of approval for SB 35 applications.
 Direct staff to complete the objective standards project as expeditiously as possible and convert those standards to the zoning code based on General Plan allowances.

Councilmember Cummings accepted.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Brunner requested to add: that Council be the oversight until the objective standards project is complete and the General Plan and zoning ordinance have aligned. Vice Mayor Brunner withdrew her friendly amendment.

ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to:

1. Designate the City Council as the approving body for design review and density bonus requests for all SB 35 applications.

2. Direct staff to clarify that an SB 35 application requesting density bonuses as incomplete if all of the required documentation has not been provided.

28.7 September 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5790 General Business (continued)

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) (continued)
MOTION (continued):

3. Direct staff to provide updates to the Council regarding staff time and activities involved in assisting SB 35 project applicants seeking subsidies and other assistance for affordable units and provide an opportunity for the Council to weigh in prior to project application approval.

4. Based on provisions in the Housing and Community Development SB 35 guidelines, require any SB 35 project to meet a 20% inclusionary requirement for the entire project.

Housing and Community Development Manager J. de Wit responded to Councilmember questions.

Director of Economic Development B. Lipscomb responded to Councilmember questions.

MOTION: Councilmember Golder moved to call the question. The motion failed due to lack of a second.

After discussion, Councilmember Cummings withdrew items 1, 2, and 3 from the motion and restated his motion as follows:

MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Brown, , to require any SB 35 project to meet a 20% inclusionary requirement for the entire project, based on provisions in the Housing and Community Development SB 35 Guidelines.

ACTION: The motion carried with the following vote.

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

NOES: Mayor Meyers.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

28.8 September 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5791 General Business (continued)

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) (continued)
MOTION: Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Golder, to direct staff to provide the following information for the September 14th hearing on the 831 Water Street Project:
 All the existing General Plan, zoning, design review, and subdivision review standards that apply to the proposed project and, further, to identify which of these standards staff considers to be objective.  Provide the City Council and the public at least three days prior to the public oversight hearing on the 831 Water Street project financial documentation supporting the project’s density bonus requests.  Recommended conditions of approval for the 831 Water Street project at the public oversight hearing include conditions of approval to require that:
 All project residents be allowed to utilize the rooftop amenities at no cost.
 Council determines whether the 831 Water Street project meets the City’s requirements for a Design Review permit.
 Council considers the location of a bus stop to serve the project.  Council considers relocation of the entrance to the project in order to protect the public health and safety.

After conversation, the motion was restated as follows:

Direct staff to provide the following information for the September 14th hearing on the 831 Water Street project:
 All the existing General Plan, zoning, design review, and subdivision review standards that apply to the proposed project and identify which of these standards staff considers to be objective.
 At least three days prior to the public oversight hearing on the 831 Water Street project, provide the Council and the public financial documentation supporting the project’s density bonus requests.

28.9 September 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 5792 General Business (continued)

1. Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB35) and Density Bonus Study Session, Including Procedural Direction for Such Requests (PL) (continued)
ACTION: The motion carried unanimously with the following vote.

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

Adjournment - The City Council adjourned at 12:21 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Julia Wood, Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Attest:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Approved:

Donna Meyers, Mayor

28.10 From: Rafa Sonnenfeld
To: City Council
Subject: Comment for City Council Agenda Item #28
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 3:43:42 PM
Attachments: City of Santa Cruz - Agenda Item # 28 Comment Letter.pdf Please find Santa Cruz YIMBY's comment letter in support of the staff-recommended council direction proposed under Agenda Item #28 attached.

Thanks,
Rafa

28.11 September 9, 2024
To: Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Via email to [email protected]
RE: City Council Agenda Item #28:

Ministerial Design Review Authority for Affordable Streamlined Ministerial Projects with a Density Bonus.

Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for abundant housing at all levels of affordability to meet the needs of a growing population in Santa Cruz County. Our pillars of policy advocacy include zoning reform, permitting reform, fixing bad incentives, funding affordable housing, and increasing housing stability.

Santa Cruz YIMBY supports the staff-recommended proposal for streamlining modification requests for affordable housing projects and applauds the proposal for ministerial approval hearings of affordable housing projects being conducted by the Zoning Administrator. As noted in the staff report, state law does not allow the city council to hold hearings for projects streamlined under SB 423. Because projects which are ministerially approved are subject only to objective standards and the city is forbidden from adding ad-hoc conditions of approval, there is no longer a need for the city council to be involved in a process for which there is no discretion to act.

Where the city retains its discretion for ministerially approved projects is in ensuring there are clear objective standards for projects to follow. City staff already do the required analysis to determine whether or not a project is consistent with the city’s objective standards. A major benefit to the ministerial approval of housing is to depoliticize the approval process for projects where the city has no discretion; there is no benefit to a politically charged city council hearing process where the council has no legal ability to deny or change a project. By allowing the Zoning Administrator staff to perform the role of determining a housing project’s consistency with objective standards, the city will both more efficiently use the valuable time of city council for activities which require the council’s discretion, and reduce confusion and frustration from community members who assume that when any project comes Santa Cruz YIMBY Comments for Agenda Item 30 Page 1 of 2

28.12 before the council that the council has the legal right to modify or deny the project, which is simply not the case. In fact, when the 831 Water Street project was heard by council in 2021, the council initially made the grave mistake of denying the project, due, in part, to opposition from neighbors who demanded that the council do so.

That mistake caused the California Department of Housing and Community Development to issue a technical assistance letter to the city advising them that their conduct was in violation of the law, and threats of litigation from a pro-housing impact litigation non-profit. While the council did ultimately reverse course and approved that project, which they were required to do under state law, those events highlight the danger of politicizing the ministerial approval process.

As noted in the staff report, the city has already committed to a program in its certified Housing Element to streamline the approval process for 100% affordable projects, in Program 2.2g, which the city has agreed to adopt by December 2025. The direction to staff to proceed with the above-mentioned change in approval processes is consistent with that broader, even more ambitious goal.

Streamlining the approval process for any project is a laudable goal, and we support the city’s efforts in doing so.

Thank you,
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Rafa Sonnenfeld, Volunteer Lead
Santa Cruz YIMBY Comments for Agenda Item 30 Page 2 of 2

28.13 SB35/SB423 Consistency
City Council
September 10, 2024

28.14 2
City Council Direction - September 7, 2021
Councilmember Cummings moved, seconded by Councilmember Kalantari-Johnson, to confirm that applications involving requests for both Affordable Housing Streamlined Ministerial Approval and Density Bonus require City Council to make the determination of consistency with objective standards and to consider for approval any associated Density Bonus requests as part of a public oversight meeting to occur within 60 days of receipt of application for a project with 150 or fewer units or 90 days of application receipt for a project with more than 150 units.

28.15 SB423
3 “Any design review or public oversight of the
development may be conducted by the local
government’s planning commission or any equivalent
board or commission responsible for design review.”
And approval of development projects, or the city
council or board of supervisors, as appropriate.
[Government Code Section 65913.4(d)]

28.16 4
Recommendation
1) Conduct the objective, ministerial Design Review of revisions to the 831 Water Street project, including potential revisions to the Density Bonus approval, administratively with the option to refer the project to the Planning Commission; and
2) Any future requests for an affordable housing streamlined ministerial project that include a Density Bonus request shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator at a noticed public hearing with the option to refer review to the Planning Commission.

28.17 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/22/2024
AGENDA OF: 09/10/2024
DEPARTMENT: Water
SUBJECT: Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Project Approval (WT)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project; 2) Adopt a resolution approving the project entitlements (Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit), based on Planning Commission’s Recommendations; and 3) Adopt a resolution approving Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (Water Department or Department) has completed the environmental review of a project to undertake a comprehensive upgrade of its only surface water treatment plant, the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP). The GHWTP was originally constructed in 1960 and has not been substantially improved since the 1980s. The Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: GHWTP Facility Improvements Project (Proposed Project) will replace and substantially upgrade the majority of the existing water treatment processes at the GHWTP and associated infrastructure with modern facilities.

The Proposed Project would improve the GHWTP to increase the City of Santa Cruz (City)’s treatment reliability to meet current and anticipated future water quality requirements; support the treatment of wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and Securing Our Water Future (SOWF) Policy; improve the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with postwildfire, severe storms, and droughts; and meet current seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements.

Improve Treatment Reliability: The GHWTP faces a number of challenges due to the age of the City’s facility, existing source water quality, water quality changes due to anticipated climate change impacts, the nature and condition of the City’s water distribution network, future expanded treatment of wet season surface water, and anticipated pending and future regulatory

29.1 changes. While water treated at the GHWTP meets and exceeds all state and federal drinking water requirements, the City has identified several source water vulnerabilities. The Proposed Project is needed to improve the treatment process capability at GHWTP, building in flexibility and adaptability to address reasonably anticipated future conditions. The Proposed Project is also needed to improve the ability of the GHWTP to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms and drought conditions.

Facilitate Water Supply Augmentation: The Proposed Project is needed to support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy related to both passive recharge of regional aquifers via water transfers and exchanges and active recharge of regional aquifers via aquifer storage and recovery, as well as the SOWF Policy in order to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable, and environmentally sustainable water supply. Specifically, the Proposed Project will support conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies to improve water supply reliability and support basin sustainability. In general, this involves the storage of water in local aquifers or delivery to regional water agencies during times when water is available, facilitating the return of stored water from the aquifers to the City during droughts or other shortages. To support passive and active recharge strategies, the Proposed Project is needed to treat increased volumes of winter or wet season surface water that have additional treatment requirements, due to higher turbidity and more challenging water quality conditions. Because of this, the Proposed Project has a nexus with other planned future capital improvement efforts throughout the water system, and a reliable and flexible treatment plant is critical for the successful implementation of these efforts.

Ensure Compliance with Current Codes: The Proposed Project is needed to address aging facilities at the GHWTP that have not been substantially improved since the 1980s. While modest improvements have been made over the life of the facility, several of the structures and most of the underground infrastructure at the GHWTP are of original construction from 1960 and need rehabilitation or replacement. The Proposed Project is needed to meet current seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements through either rehabilitation of existing aging infrastructure, where feasible, or construction of new facilities.

Characteristics and elements of the Proposed Project include the following major components:
• Improved treatment reliability: The Proposed Project is designed to reliably produce a maximum of 18.2 million gallons of drinking water per day under a broad range of source water conditions.
• New and upgraded water treatment and related processes to efficiently meet current and future water quality regulations: The Proposed Project is designed to include pretreatment, treatment, solids handling, and chemical feed systems.
• New and upgraded buildings to meet modern seismic code requirements: The Proposed Project design includes new buildings for maintenance, ozone, solids dewatering, and chemical storage and feed as well as upgrades to the existing operations and filter building. • Other infrastructure and site improvements: The Proposed Project design also includes sewer and stormwater improvements, vehicular access improvements, security and fencing improvements, communications improvements (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), installation of solar panels, as well as electrical, lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and landscaping improvements.

29.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance: City staff and consultants have been planning and preparing environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA for the Proposed Project since April 2021. The City contracted with Dudek to complete the environmental review for the Proposed Project under the Master Services Agreement for CEQA Compliance and Environmental Permitting. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was identified as the most appropriate level of environmental review for the Proposed Project. The EIR was based on engineering designs; thus, the EIR constitutes a project-level review for the Proposed Project.

To initiate the CEQA process, the City, as lead agency, released a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in June 2022, initiating a 30-day public review and scoping period. Two virtual public scoping meetings were held on July 19, 2022, from 3:30 to 4:30 PM and from 5:30 to 6:30 PM.

The project team subsequently worked to develop the Draft EIR. On December 7, 2023, the Draft EIR was released for a 60-day public review period, extending through February 5, 2024.

Per the requirements of CEQA, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR was prepared and distributed describing the Proposed Project, Draft EIR, and how to review and comment on the Draft EIR. The NOA was filed with the Santa Cruz County Clerk and submitted to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse. The NOA, Draft EIR, and other required submittals have been posted on CEQAnet, the online database for the State Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was also available online on the Water Department’s website and Santa Cruz Public Library’s website. It was also available, via appointment, at City of Santa Cruz Water Department Engineering Public Counter, and a paper copy of the Draft EIR was available at the Santa Cruz Public Library, Downtown Branch.

The City of Santa Cruz encouraged public agencies, organizations, community groups, and all other interested persons to provide written comments on the Draft EIR prior to the end of the public review period. The NOA was advertised in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the Good Times, and the Press Banner, and posted at the City bulletin boards on Church Street, at the Planning Department, and at the project site (715 Graham Hill Road); the NOA was also mailed to agencies, interested parties, and to residents in areas near the project site. There was also a press release on January 11, 2024, and a news article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on January 12, 2024.

Additionally, the Proposed Project is regularly mentioned in a weekly update that goes out to the neighbors of the GHWTP.

Two public meetings were held to provide information on the Proposed Project and the Draft EIR, as well as to solicit written comments on the Draft EIR. The first meeting was in-person and held on January 17, 2024, at 5:30 PM at the Santa Cruz Police Department Community Room located at 155 Center Street, in Santa Cruz. The second meeting was virtual and held on January 18, 2024, at 3:30 PM. Both meetings presented identical content.

Finally, a Community Guide for the Proposed Project was prepared for release concurrent with the Draft EIR. The guide provides an overview of the project, describes project purpose and need, and presents a summary of the CEQA environmental review process. The Community Guide is posted on the City’s website under the project webpage https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/water/projects-in-yourneighborhood/graham-hill-water-treatment-plant-facilities-improvement-project, and a link to the project webpage is provided on the project environmental documents webpage

29.3 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/235/ 2089.

DISCUSSION: The EIR includes an analysis of the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise and Vibration
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• CEQA-Required Sections: Significant Unavoidable Impacts, Significant Irreversible Changes, Growth Inducement, Cumulative Impacts (incorporated into each technical section above), and Alternatives
Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the EIR related to temporary project and cumulative construction noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI 2 would reduce construction noise level exposures attributed to the Proposed Project. However, it may not be possible to be consistent with the identified construction noise thresholds under all circumstances at the GHWTP parcel during the hours of 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM due to activities such as plant shutdowns and therefore the construction noise impact of the Proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable.

Regarding cumulative construction noise, there is some possibility that the construction periods for the Newell Creek Pipeline Improvement Project (NCP Project) could overlap with construction of the Proposed Project. The EIR indicated the southern end of the NCP Project overlapping with construction of the Proposed Project would result in a potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact to the same sensitive receptors evaluated for the Proposed Project. However, the overlapping southern end of the NCP Project has since been removed from that project’s scope of work and that portion will be constructed at a later future date.

All other impacts were determined to be less than significant or potentially significant with mitigation measures identified to reduce those potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

A total of five letters commenting on the Draft EIR were received during the public review period. The following comment letters were received:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (Erin Chappell) • California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (Abbygayle Britton)

29.4 • Eric and Lilliana Poppen
• Jondi Gumz
• Joshua Drews and Cara Sloman
Responses to comments were sent to commenting public agencies in accordance with CEQA in July 2024. The Final EIR has been prepared including all comment letters received on the Draft EIR and provides responses to individual comments that were submitted. It also summarizes sections of the Draft EIR document that were revised to provide corrected or clarified text, or in response to the public comments. The Final EIR is also available online on the Water Department’s website.

Project Entitlements: Much of the Proposed Project is exempt from local ordinances pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091(e) that indicates local ordinances do not apply to “the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water”, such as tanks, pipelines, and water-treatment equipment, and much of the overall Proposed Project remains exempt from local land use controls. However, the renovation of the operations building, the construction of a new administrative wing onto the operations building, and the construction of a new maintenance building required for the Proposed Project are not exempt from these provisions and therefore require the following discretionary permits/entitlements: Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit. On June 20, 2024, the Planning Commission considered and approved staff recommendations to City Council on these entitlements for the Proposed Project, based on findings and revised Conditions of Approval (attached). Several revisions were made after the staff report prepared on June 12, 2024, was submitted to the Planning Department to reflect additional clarifying information. • Finding 17 was revised to delete a sentence indicating that long-term operational noise represents an unmitigable impact of the Proposed Project, which is not an accurate statement and is not consistent with the EIR impact findings for the Proposed Project. Additional language was added to Finding 17 to clarify that project and cumulative construction noise is not fully mitigable even with the implementation of identified mitigation. • Finding 20 was revised to reflect the final arborist report tree information. • Condition of Approval 43 was revised for consistency with Condition of Approval 35 in terms of timing of implementation.

Next Steps: On August 5, 2024, the Water Commission received information on the Proposed Project and has found the analyses to be sound. With the Water Commission’s comprehensive review of the Proposed Project and support of staff’s recommendation, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the project entitlements, the next step would be for City Council to certify the Final EIR and approve the Proposed Project. It is therefore recommended that City Council, by resolution, (1) certify the Final EIR for the GHWTP Facility Improvements Project, (2) approve the project entitlements, and (3) approve GHWTP Facility Improvements Project and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Should City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) and approve the Proposed Project, additional action by City Council will be sought. The progressive design-build (PDB) delivery model allows the project designer and contractor to be hired as a team at the onset of project development. Having these areas of expertise working together with the City early on allows for the efficient design and construction of a project. There are several approval

29.5 steps for the PDB model including Phase 1 – awarding the design of the project to the PDB team (approved in April 2021) and Phase 2 – awarding the construction of the project to the PDB team once a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) has been negotiated. In winter of 2024, staff will recommend the GMP to the City Council for authorization to proceed to construction. In addition, City Council authorization may be sought for an owner-controlled insurance program for project insurance.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: As described in this staff report, a Final EIR has been prepared for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz:

Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The Proposed Project is consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability in that its core objectives are to provide reliable, high-quality drinking water to all the City’s customers.

FISCAL IMPACT: Certification of the Final EIR and project approval has no direct fiscal implications. However, a future contract related to project construction would be required and will have fiscal impacts. Funds are available to complete the project construction and are included in the Department’s budget through fiscal year 2031. Consistent with the Long-Range Financial Plan, up to 85% of the project is expected to be funded by a combination of loan proceeds from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), as well as tax-exempt revenue bonds. Other funds will be provided by $10 million in loan forgiveness from SRF for improving treatment reliability and any remaining funds will be provided from Water Enterprise cash reserves.

Prepared By:

Isidro Rivera
Deputy Director/ Engineering
Manager
Submitted By:

Heidi Luckenbach
Water Director
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION 1 - CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE GHWTP FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.DOCX

2. RESOLUTION 2 - APPROVING MULTIPLE PERMITS FOR THE GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT.DOCX

3. RESOLUTION 3 - APPROVING THE CLIMATE RESILIENT SANTA CRUZ GHWTP FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.DOCX

4. RESOLUTION 3 EXHIBIT A.DOCX

5. RESOLUTION 3 EXHIBIT B.DOCX

29.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ CERTIFYING

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CLIMATE RESILIENT SANTA CRUZ: GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz (hereinafter “City”), is pursuing the replacement and substantial upgrade of the majority of the existing water treatment processes at the GHWTP and associated infrastructure with modern facilities to: meet current seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements; support the treatment of wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and Securing Our Water Future Policy; increase the City’s treatment reliability to meet current and anticipated future water quality requirements; and improve the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms and droughts.

WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 15000 et seq.) (collectively “CEQA”), has completed the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) [State Clearinghouse No. 2022060566] for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project (the “Proposed Project”) in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City released a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project on June 27, 2022, and received five (5) written comments in response to the NOP: three (3) from individuals and two (2) public agencies, which are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR and Final EIR; and WHEREAS, two (2) EIR public scoping meetings were duly noticed and held on July 19, 2022 to solicit public and agency comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared and the City filed a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse on December 7, 2023, which commenced a 60-day state public agency review period commencing on December 7, 2023 and ending on February 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR with the Santa Cruz County Clerk on December 7, 2023, which commenced a 60-day local public review period commencing on December 7, 2023 and ending on February 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was also posted at the City Water Department and Planning and Community Development Department, and the Draft EIR document was available for review at the City’s website, City Water Department Engineering Counter, and at the downtown branch of the Santa Cruz Public Library; and

29.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, considered and evaluated two (2) comment letters received from public agencies and three (3) comment letters received from individuals on the Draft EIR and subsequently prepared a comprehensive Final EIR, which contains the comment letters and written responses addressing all significant environmental issues in these comment letters; and
WHEREAS, the comprehensive Final EIR consists of the entire EIR document, responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft EIR that are also included in the Final EIR, appendices to the Final EIR, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2024, the City provided the Final EIR to commenting agencies, thereby satisfying the City’s obligations under Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, subdivision (a); and
WHEREAS, the Water Commission held a duly noticed and agendized public meeting on the Proposed Project and the Final EIR on August 5, 2024 and issued recommendations to the City Council to adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project; and, adopt a resolution approving the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final EIR at a duly noticed and agendized public meeting on September 10, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby finds and determines the following:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.

2. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto.

3. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1.

4. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments received prior to approving this resolution.

5. The City Council therefore hereby certifies the Final EIR for the Proposed Project.

29.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
List of Exhibits (Incorporated by Reference):

Exhibit A Draft Environmental Impact Report, available for review online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/23 5/2089
Exhibit B Final Environmental Impact Report, available for review online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/23 5/2089

29.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

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

SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DESIGN PERMIT, NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION

AUTHORIZATION PERMIT, HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AND SLOPE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING,

CONSTRUCT A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE WING ONTO THE OPERATIONS BUILDING,

AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND RELATED SITE

IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT AS PART OF THE CLIMATE RESILIENT SANTA CRUZ: GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (APPLICATION NO. CP23-0146) WHEREAS, On February 26, 2024, the City of Santa Cruz Water Department submitted an application for a Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit to renovate the existing operations building, construct a new administrative wing onto the operations building, and to construct a new maintenance building and related site improvements at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant as part of the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, development on the project site that is not exempt from local ordinances pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091(e) is governed by the standards and guidelines contained in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Title 24, the Zoning Ordinance; Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 pertaining to Preservation of Heritage Trees and Shrubs; and the City of Santa Cruz General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the application has undergone environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, more specifically, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and circulated for a 60-day review period which ended on February 5, 2024, and a Final EIR was prepared and then made available to the public in July 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (“City Council”), by adoption of Resolution No. __________, has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission provided a recommendation on June 20, 2024, to approve the Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 2024 to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a separate resolution to provide for adoption of a

29.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now makes the following findings for which minor revisions were made after the June 12, 2024, Planning Department Staff Report was prepared to reflect additional clarifying information (revisions shown in underline/strikeout):

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.

Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the permit serves to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished.

An historic evaluation (DPR 523) of 2019, prepared by Carey and Co., with concurrence provided by Dudek in the project EIR, evaluates the impacts of the proposed demolition of the affected Operations Building. In that report, the author states that the property located at 715 Graham Hill Road remains unlisted on the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and appears ineligible for listing on any of the registers. As substantiated by the report, the subject is not associated with the history of the era in an individually significant way; lacks association with significant persons or innovations or new technology related to water treatment; does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction and does not represent the work of a master architect; and holds no potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

As such, the facility fails to exhibit sufficient integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship feeling, or association for it to qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The subject property is further determined ineligible for the Santa Cruz Historic Resources Inventory, as the building fails to satisfy City preservation criteria and experienced substantial alterations since the time of its original construction. The proposed redevelopment project requires no mitigation for impact to historic resources pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - Section 15064.5), as the subject property, has been demonstrated to lack historic significance.

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.

A replacement project is proposed for approval concurrently with the approval to demolish the existing commercial/industrial structure.

3. The property owner has been advised of the benefits of listing the property on the city historic

29.11 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
3 building survey and incorporating the preservation of the historic resource into the proposed project.

The above finding remains inapplicable, as the subject 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, the above finding does not apply.

Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

5. 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 General Plan land use designation of “Community Facilities.” The General Plan characterizes the CF land use as follows:
“Designates existing and potential community facilities, including schools, government offices, community buildings such as the Civic Auditorium, sewer and water facilities, and the City landfill. Also applies to land used by State highways.” The proposed project maintains consistency with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:

Goal CD1. A built environment in harmony with its natural setting.  Policy CD1.2. Ensure that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserve important public scenic views and vistas.
 Policy 1.2.1. Develop complimentary siting, scale, landscaping, and other design guidelines to protect important public views and ensure that development is compatible with the character of the area.
 Policy CD1.3. Ensure that development is designed to be in harmony with natural topography and vegetation.

Goal LU3 A complementary balance of diverse land uses
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.1: Foster land use patterns that balance economic, housing, community, and environmental needs, and promote social diversity.

Goal CC2 Comprehensive community facilities and services  CC2.1 Provide community services and facilities in keeping with the needs of a growing and diverse population.
 CC2.1.1 As appropriate, update and replace facilities consistent with the General Plan.

29.12 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
4 Goal CC2 3 Goal CC 3 A safe, reliable, and adequate water supply  CC3.1 Implement the City’s Integrated Water Plan.
 CC3.2 Meet or exceed all regulatory drinking water standards.  CC3.2.1 Regularly and comprehensively evaluate the water system relative to federal and State water quality regulations and standards and develop recommendations and an action plan to address findings.
 CC3.2.2 Develop, maintain, and update sampling and analysis programs, and laboratory procedures for the treated water distribution system and storage facilities.  CC3.2.3 Maintain required federal and State laboratory certification.  CC3.2.5 Regularly sample and analyze finished water in accordance with approved methods and parameters identified by the State, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the City.
 CC3.3.2 Maintain compliance with all applicable drinking water source protectionrelated regulations.  CC3.3.3 Secure and maintain all City water rights to existing and future water supplies to provide certainty and operational flexibility for the water system.  CC3.4 Maintain and improve the integrity of the water system.  CC3.4.1 Maintain and improve water facilities to meet pressure and fire flow requirements and ensure customer delivery.
 CC3.4.2 Modernize City water treatment plants.
 CC3.4.3 Optimize storage, transmission, and distribution capacities and efficiencies.  CC3.4.4 Evaluate and improve the water system so as to minimize water outages due to emergencies and disasters.

Goal NRC5 An enhanced and sustainable urban forest
 NRC5.1 Protect and manage tree resources in the urban environment, with emphasis on significant and heritage trees.

Removal of multiple trees will be necessary as part of the project; however, standard tree replacement measures will be incorporated, as included in the recommended Conditions of Approval.

As a project for upgrade and modernization of the existing Water Treatment Plant, the proposal would support its General Plan designation through continued operation as municipal water treatment facility, in conformance with the envisioned land use of Community Facilities and established zoning designation of Public Facility (PF).

The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone.

6. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
Required construction of a modified or new stormwater management system would effect treatment of runoff at the project site for mitigation of potential impacts to surrounding properties and public rights-of-way for enhanced protection of ground- and surface-water resources.

29.13 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
5 7. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
Since the time of its inception, the proposed project’s design has evolved in response to feedback received through community outreach efforts and iterative revisions intended to maximize efficiency of operations and compatibility with the existing and surrounding site, while minimizing detrimental impacts to adjacent properties and the surrounding environment. The proposed new buildings include single-story design of low profile, compatible with the existing setting and development pattern. An industrial design aesthetic of metal buildings with coordinated program of materiality, roof forms, and fenestration presents a balanced, intentional appearance which offsets bulk and mass. Integration of new landscaping will soften the appearance of the proposed development by including a drought-tolerant, water-efficient plant palette which will enliven the existing site, enhance the area’s ecology, while additionally providing greater vibrancy and durable functionality, enhancing employee and visitor experience, and offering opportunities for usability of outdoor space for passive recreation and alternative transportation.

The proposed project meets all district development standards. Through placement of new buildings at approximately their existing locations, oriented away from surrounding residences and other land uses, avoids impacts to potential loss of privacy through strategic placement to avoid imparting unintended nuisance activities to surrounding land uses associated with production of noise, vibration, glare, and the like. With all such factors considered, including conditions of approval implemented, the proposed uses incorporated into the project will not constitute a nuisance or impose detrimental impacts to the public welfare of the community.

8. 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.

The above finding remains inapplicable, as the project does not include a thrift store use.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

9. 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 project site plan demonstrates consistency with, and will facilitate achievement of, the goals, policies, and actions of General Plan 2030, whose Land Use Map designates the land including the subject parcel as “Community Facilities.” Demolition and renovation of portions of the existing Operations Building, construction of a new Administration Wing to be attached to the modified Operations Building (thereby creating the Administration and Operations Building), construction of a new Maintenance Building to replace existing onsite trailers, and reconfiguration of on-site parking, will provide improved utility of the site and provide for a more uniform, cohesive exterior appearance consistent with the bulk, mass,

29.14 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
6 and architecture of existing, surrounding uses. As proposed, the project will, therefore, 1) attain General Plan Goal CD-1 by promoting “a building environment in harmony with its natural setting;” 2) advance Policy CC2.1 to “provide community services and facilities in keeping with the needs of a growing and diverse population; and 3) support Policy CC2.1.1 to “update and replace facilities consistent with the General Plan Policy”. Consistency with the General Plan, Downtown Plan, and other applicable regulations is further articulated in the project plans, staff reports, website materials for the project, public hearing presentations, and conditions of approval, and elsewhere in these findings.

10. For non-residential 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 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 complies with all applicable objective standards. The proposed project would replace aging water treatment facility buildings and fixtures with upgraded facilities at a site bounded on all sides by existing buildings of similar scale and range of land uses. Demolition of the existing aged structures and replacement with a new development boasting modern architecture will maintain the existing land use and retain compatibility with the nature of surrounding uses of residential character, while avoiding spillover effects inducing detrimental effects to surrounding land uses. The proposed layout will allow for improved use of the site for public facilities use and maintain compatibility in design and utility of surrounding land uses. Building color and texture will complement adjacent topography to blend into the natural environment to the extent possible, in conformance to the appearance of the surroundings to achieve a design aesthetic in keeping with the high standards of the Santa Cruz visual environment and community expectations.

11. For non-residential 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.

Through removal of antiquated, underutilized buildings and parking lot, the proposed project will allow for better use of a property of constrained dimensions and limited area while continuing the significant use of the site and maintaining cohesiveness to surrounding uses.

The design of the project and all landscaping will enhance the aesthetics of the project site and allow for an intensity of use and activity appropriate for the site’s semi-rural location, while site improvements will combine for improved circulation and site access.

12. 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 project presents modifications to an existing underutilized site containing decades-old buildings and inefficient parking configuration, whose removal will eliminate low-performing, aged structures precluding attainment of optimum development potential and use of the subject site; and proposed replacement with new, higher-performing buildings,

29.15 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
7 attractive landscaping, and optimized site layout. Construction of modern buildings with variation in height, consistency in materials and colors and balance in fenestration, would enhance the project site while complementing the local environment, including surrounding land uses of various scales of development intensity, thus advancing compatibility.

The new buildings would correspond generally to the locations of existing buildings and major infrastructure on-site and would remain inconspicuous against the backdrop of the natural environment surroundings. Physical separation of infrastructure by distance, and the presence of ample existing and proposed vegetation, minimizes impacts associated with placement of new structures and the resulting visual departure from existing conditions, in keeping with standards of the General Plan and Municipal Code. Significant new infrastructure will remain separated from residential neighborhoods and maintain compatibility with the scale of adjacent buildings and structures.

13. 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 rights-of-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 proposed project will maintain a balance of scale, form, and proportion with both the existing site and neighboring properties in a variety of ways. Through removal antiquated, underperforming buildings as a component of a larger municipal improvement project, placement of modified and new buildings and site improvements will allow for better use of a property large in area but practically constrained in dimensions and limited in usable area while continuing the public facilities character of the site and maintaining cohesiveness to surrounding uses. The design of the proposed project and all landscaping will enhance the aesthetics of the project site and allow for an intensity of use and activity appropriate for the site’s location, while regrading of the project area and setting of new surface material will combine for improved circulation and site access conducive to an upgraded municipal facilities development.

14. 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.

The proposed project is not expected to generate an increase in traffic as the project will not facilitate the addition of employees at the site and the project’s scope of work would provide for ingress and egress from existing frontages, thereby continuing all existing circulation patterns to minimize impacts, and simultaneously enhancing safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. With placement of the entry from Graham Hill Road at a significant distance from the street, the site design affords ease of ingress and egress while avoiding obstructions to vehicular flow and facilitating safe passage to and from the project site. The scale of the building maintains compatibility with the scale of the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

15. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces, and

29.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
8 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 project has been carefully designed for consistency with applicable requirements relevant to regulation of water storage, distribution, and treatment and of the Building and Fire Codes while minimizing tree removal to the extent feasible. Through iterative design changes, the proposed design ensures preservation of existing trees and prevents adverse impacts to natural resources to the degree possible.

The proposal requires the removal of existing vegetation, including trees; however, recommended mitigation measure requires that all trees be replaced in a minimum 1:1 ratio.

The location and species of the replacement trees will be reviewed and approved by the City Urban Forester. A condition of approval requires the replacement trees to be planted prior to final inspection of the project. A new plant palette will provide a renewed, vibrant appearance through incorporation of native, low-water-use, and drought-tolerant foliage selected for adaptation to local climatic and soil conditions. The project scope incorporates alteration of site topography necessary to accommodate intended operations.

16. 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 site does not have a view of the ocean or scenic coastal areas and is not located in a visually degraded area; therefore, this finding is not applicable.

17. 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.

A temporary increase in noise and vibration will result from project construction and project and cumulative construction noise is not fully mitigable even with the implementation of identified mitigation. Additionally, long-term intensification in noise represents an unmitigable impact stemming from the overall GHWTP project. As a modification to the existing site zoned Public Facilities and flanked by existing development and buffered by surrounding vegetation, the project would not produce detrimental impacts related to loss of privacy, as no alteration to site standards or existing setbacks pertains. Placement of the project’s buildings near the approximate center of the project site, maximizing separation from neighboring residences, diminishes impacts stemming from potential loss of privacy and reduces adverse, potential nuisance activities related to noise, glare, and vibration.

Therefore, the project will not render the environment less desirable, nor will it affect privacy of adjacent residents.

18. Building and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.

The proposed project has been designed to maximize efficiency of usable space and minimize

29.17 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
9 impacts to existing topography while providing ample access to light and air. Integration of building insulation and new glazing of the proposed structures subject to jurisdictional permitting oversight, introduces opportunities for passive heating and cooling, while providing views to the surroundings. The project design accommodates future installation of rooftop photovoltaic arrays, furthering sustainability goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the project’s carbon footprint while offsetting costs associated with provision of electricity while maximizing efficiency of energy use.

The project scope of work includes new landscaping maximizing use of native vegetation and low water-use, drought-tolerant plant varieties. The project will further be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 16.16, Water-Efficient Landscaping related to regulation of landscape design, construction, and maintenance, thereby promoting efficient water use, facilitating management of peak season water demand, and assisting with the preservation of water storage in order to ensure a reliable and adequate public water supply. The application has been conditioned to provide a final landscape plan for review and approval with the building permit plans. Additionally, all new building and plumbing fixtures will be required to comply with Title 24 Energy-Efficiency requirements, including maximum efficiency of resource utilization.

Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Chapter 9.56, City Council Resolution No. NS-23, 710 One or more of the following findings must be made:

19. 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;

20. The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation, warrants alteration or removal;
The arborist report prepared by ISA Certified Arborist Kurt Fouts dated April 23, 2024, confirms that twenty-six two trees, 14 inches diameter (or greater), located within the project work area, will present locational conflicts with proposed building, with the removal of such trees therefore recommended. Additionally, five trees appear in poor condition as demonstrated in the submitted arborist report and are not suitable for retention in the project.

The number of trees recommended for removal because of high construction impacts or poor condition totals thirty-one (31). twenty seven (27).

21. A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or heritage shrubs.

Because many of the operations of the Water Treatment Plan depend on gravity, the siting of new structures has received thoughtful review and strategic placement relative to existing and proposed site topography. Water production requires a specific sequence of operations relying on interactions among functions conducted in various positions throughout the treatment plant site which forms the rationale for placement of buildings in various locations.

This notion, coupled with the desire to avoid the need for addition of pumping equipment reliant on fossil fuel consumption (with attendant implications for climate impacts and the like) has guidance the placement of infrastructure in the proposed site plan.

The project design has elicited mindful review of available options resulting in minimal

29.18 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
10 impacts to existing trees. A condition of approval requires replacement of trees proposed to be removed at a ratio of three, 15-gallon trees, or one, 24-inch-box-sized tree. Given the topography of the lot, challenges related to project design, dispersal of the trees throughout the parcel, and constraints inherent to usable site area, reasonable alteration of the proposed site plan to allow retention of the trees while simultaneously achieving the project's objectives remain limited.

Consistent with the tree removal mitigation requirements of City Resolution No. NS-28,707, the applicant has deposited a bond in the amount into the City’s Tree Trust Fund to ensure that a minimum of 27, 24-inch box-sized replacement trees will be planted on-site near the perimeter of the proposed building.

Slope Development Permit, Section 24.08.820

22. Measures have been included within the design of the project to mitigate impacts on environmental constraint areas identified in the Environmental Quality Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.

Through development of the proposed project site plan, various designs have been considered, intended to minimize environmental impacts. In accordance with project Objective Number 10, the project design minimizes potentially adverse impacts to the existing site to the extent feasible while providing for conformance with the requirements of applicable regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, California Division of Drinking Water, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Construction timing avoids and minimizes impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment, including its biological resources, while allowing for continuous production of drinking water to the City’s population and customers of the water distribution area.

The project scope of work provides development of new buildings to replace existing, aged infrastructure for development of a water treatment facility that meets current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes; protects buildings in the wildland urban interface, as warranted; and meets California Division of Drinking Water (DDW) permitting requirements.

For the proposed project, the presence of steeply sloped areas, buildings, paved roadways, paved parking areas, existing facilities, impermeable soils, and subsurface process-related utilities and tanks, limits the areas available for construction of new buildings while maintaining necessary elevations for gravity-driven water treatment. No unnecessary grading would take place, and development in close proximity to slopes would remain low in profile. Although the project incorporates grading, such alterations to existing topography would take place primarily in previously disturbed areas, rendering potential impacts related to slope stability minimal.

23. Landscaping of an appropriate type, size and quality is proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental effect.

The proposed project would include screening and landscaping improvements using locally native, fire resistant, and drought-tolerant species adjacent to new buildings and in areas of needed screening and erosion control. New tree plantings could count towards the required

29.19 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
11 tree replacements if they comply with the requirements under the ordinance. Specific plants and soil types would be recommended for any bioretention and/or bioswale features that may be necessary to accommodate potentially extended periods of inundation, and resultant higher soil moisture levels associated with the collection and treatment of stormwater.

Placement of new landscaping remains sympathetic to existing scenic views.

24. Usable open space is proposed in an amount equal to that normally required.

The project site is characterized by a mix of industrial development for the purpose of water treatment, open space, and vegetation. The site is located within the City’s Public Facilities zone district, which includes no minimum requirement for provision of open space.

A registered civil engineer or other qualified professional will design streets, buildings, and other man-made structures to conform with existing landforms and topography. The plans were developed by a registered civil engineer and other qualified professionals pursuant to recommendations from the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department.

25. Adequate fire safety measures as required by the city fire department have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development, when located in a designated fire hazard area.

The proposed project is located within a moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; it is also within a Wildland Urban interface (WUI), and within 2 miles of a high Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Construction activities would temporarily increase the number of people on the project site but, following construction, the number of staff is not expected to increase compared to existing conditions. During construction, the proposed project would implement standard practices to mitigate potential impacts to fire. Per standard construction practices, spark arrestors would be required for equipment reliant on internal combustion, while firesuppression equipment would be required on the project site during use of such mechanical equipment, and construction activities would not be conducted during high fire hazard periods (i.e., red flag warnings) without implementation of adequate fire protection measures in compliance with federal, state, and local fire prevention and protection regulations and guidance. Safety measures as incorporated in an approved Fire Safety Program will support safe operations and project construction, thereby avoiding exposures of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, nor exacerbate wildfire risks. The City’s Fire Department has reviewed and approved the proposed project design.

26. The proposed project employs architectural and design elements which in total serve to reduce the mass and bulk of structures. Such elements may include:
a. Multiple floor levels which follow natural slopes;
b. Multiple roof lines to provide visual interest and break up the visual impact of the building;;
c. Decks and balconies to provide building articulation; d. Foundation types such as poles, piles, or stepped levels which minimize cut and fill and need for retaining walls;

29.20 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
12 e. Fence lines, walls, and other features which blend with the terrain rather than strike off at an angle against it.

The designs of proposed buildings provide functionality while achieving aesthetic compatibility to the existing locations and surrounding environment. New buildings will complement adjacent surfaces to blend into the natural environment as practicable. Physical separation of infrastructure by distance, and the presence of ample existing and proposed vegetation, minimizes impacts associated with placement of new structures and the resulting visual departure from existing conditions, in keeping with standards of the General Plan and Municipal Code. Design of all new infrastructure incorporates environmentally-sensitive exterior treatments to reduce visual intrusion and provide for overall consistency with the present municipal facilities theme.

27. If a project proposed for construction is in a landslide area identified in a site-specific geological report prepared pursuant to Section 24.14.030(1)(d), findings must be made that mitigation measures necessary to fulfill the purpose of this part have been incorporated into project design, based on the project’s environmental review and geotechnical reports.

Although the project site features sloped terrain, with documentation of historic landslide activity within the southwestern portion of the subject site, such activity has been previously mitigated with earthwork or infilled with riprap, minimizing risk. Additionally, the proposed upgrade and addition to the facilities would avoid significant alteration to existing drainage, as the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements project, including the limited scope of work subject to municipal permitting, would adhere to the City’s Tier 4 Mandatory Requirements in the City’s Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, which requires that peak flow discharges off-site not exceed the pre-project runoff flowrate.

The project site remains outside designated landslide areas; however, the plans have been developed by a registered civil engineer in conjunction with a geotechnical engineer and will incorporate all recommendations from the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department.

29.21 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby approves the Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit to renovate the existing operations building, construct a new administrative wing onto the operations building, and to construct a new maintenance building and related site improvements at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant as part of the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project subject to the Findings listed above and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
List of Exhibits (Incorporated by Reference):

Exhibit A Conditions of Approval

29.22 EXHIBIT "A"

REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT 715 Graham Hill Road - Water Treatment Plant (CP23-0146) Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit to 1) recognize the use of the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP) and to 2) consider proposed modifications to the existing site and facilities, including demolition of the existing operations building and construction of new and/or modified administration, operations, and maintenance buildings and addition of related site improvements at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, as part of the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements project, on land located at 715 Graham Hill Road, in the P-F (Public Facilities) zone district.
*The following conditions of approval are recommended to be incorporated into the final list of conditions of approval approved by the City Council.

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 City Council 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. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer in conjunction with a soils engineer to minimize erosion and risks of construction on sloping topography.

8. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall comply with all recommendations of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, including all technical memoranda, as approved by the City Council.

9. Prior to building permit issuance or any ground disturbance on the lot, a site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be prepared and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

29.23 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Exhibit “A”)
For Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan (715 Graham Hill Road)

10. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval.

11. 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 of Santa Cruz.

12. 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

13. All requirements of the Building Division, Green Building Division, Fire Department, Public Works Department (including Stormwater Division, and Bicycle Coordinator) and Water Department (including Water Conservation and Water Engineering) and the County Department of Environmental Health and Safety, shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Exterior site lighting shall be provided along pedestrian pathways and in the vehicle parking area. Security lighting shall be motion sensor only.

18. Landscape 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 plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit.

29.24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Exhibit “A”)
For Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan (715 Graham Hill Road)

19. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits of the final building of the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project.

20. All Heritage-sized trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, of three 15-gallon-sized trees installed for each tree removed; or minimally a 1:1 ratio of at least one 24-inch boxsized tree installed for each tree removed.

21. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

22. All utilities and transformer boxes shall be placed underground in accordance with the provisions of Section 24.12.700 through 24.12.740 of the Zoning Ordinance.

23. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.

24. 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. The plan for erosion control approved as part of this application shall be submitted and all work installed by November 1, or a later date as allowed by the Director of Public Works consistent with all applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

26. 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.

27. Prior to site grading or any disturbance all trees and/or tree stands indicated for preservation or approved plans shall be protected through fencing or other approved barricade. Such fencing shall protect vegetation during construction and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

28. Handicap access shall be provided in accordance with California Building Code.

29. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. visible from the public way and from

29.25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Exhibit “A”)
For Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan (715 Graham Hill Road) 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.

30. Final colors shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for building permits.

31. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more, or less than one acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (2022-0057-DWQ Permit). Construction activity includes clearing, grading, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal and replacement. Construction activity does not include routine maintenance such as maintenance of original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.

32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay all required impact fees pursuant to relevant provisions of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

33. Asbestos/Lead-Based Paint: Prior to demolition, testing shall be performed for presence of asbestos and lead based paint by EPA or CA state certified health inspectors. An application shall be submitted, and approval shall then be obtained from Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) for the hazardous or other regulated material removal. An ASB application number through MBARD or release in the form of an email from MBARD shall be provided to the City of Santa Cruz Building and Safety Division prior to plan approval and permit issuance.

34. Construction Waste Management Plan: Prior to commencement of on-site construction associated with the project scope of work, a fully completed Construction Waste Management Plan for 65% minimum diversion rate must be submitted and shall include diversion rates and methods for individual waste streams. The document is available at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=58142.

35. Stormwater Management. Prior to commencement of on-site construction associated with the project scope of work, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted. Each residential unit will require compliance with Santa Cruz Green Building Program for Residential New Construction and Residential Mandatory Measures Chapter 4 of 2019 CALGreen using a Residential Green Building Checklist. Note: The city green building program points required scale with unit floor area. For the purposes of determining EV Charging Space compliance, the plans must clearly allocate parking spaces between residential and commercial use.

36. Outdoor Lighting: Outdoor lighting must demonstrate compliance with BUG rating limits in 2019 CALGreen 5.106.8 for Lighting Zone 3 for this development in the Outdoor Lighting Schedule in the building permit submission. All outdoor lighting shall be downward facing and shielded to minimize off-site glare.

37. Bicycle Parking: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, details of proposed bicycle parking facilities, including identification of vendor and specification of dimensions and arrangement of interior layout with spacing for all bike parking proposed, must be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works or authorized designee.

29.26 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Exhibit “A”)
For Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan (715 Graham Hill Road)

38. Utility Locations – Illustration of locations of all existing and proposed underground utilities and points of connection for sewer lateral, gas, and water lines on the plans.

39. Utility Undergrounding - When providing new electrical service to a parcel, it shall be undergrounded. Indicate the location and the point of connection to the nearest Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) facility for the underground power to the property.

40. Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan): A final O&M Plan shall be submitted as part of the Building Permit application. The O&M Plan shall include at a minimum: 1) site plan showing the location of drainage structures and structural control measures; 2) O&M procedures, timing, and maintenance frequency for the LID features and drainage systems, and include applicable BMPs from Chapter 6B of the City's Storm Water BMPs for Development Projects; 3) cost estimates for maintenance; and 4) BMPs for any Special Site Conditions (see pages 30-31), e.g. trash enclosure, parking, etc.

41. The O&M Plan shall be submitted in an 8 ½ x 11 inch report format and can be included as a SWCP appendix. The signed Maintenance Agreement shall be included in the O&M Plan as an attachment.

42. Construction Dewatering Operations: Plans submitted must indicate whether dewatering or groundwater discharges are expected either during construction or post-construction/longterm for any of the below ground project components. If so, please inform the project planner and submit plans indicating whether there are any current or past site contamination issues.

43. State Construction General Permit: A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) prior to commencing work. The applicant is responsible for filing a Notice of Intent and for developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit Prior to commencement of on-site construction associated with the project scope of work, the applicant shall provide the City with proof of coverage under the State Construction General Permit, including a copy of the letter of receipt and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number issued by the SWRCB that acknowledges the property owner’s submittal of a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) package. Please submit an electronic copy of the site’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) submitted to the State. For information on the Construction General Permit, please see the State Water Board website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml

44. Acoustic Evaluation. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, an acoustic analysis (noise report) must be prepared, demonstrating consistency of the proposed project design with General Plan Policy HZ3.2.3, and compliance with recommendations of the acoustic evaluation to ensure ongoing conformance with that General Plan Policy must be maintained at all times.

45. County Health Services Agency – Environmental Health: Compliance with all requirements of the County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, Department of Environmental Health, shall be fulfilled.

46. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, compliance with all requirements of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, shall be fulfilled,

29.27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Exhibit “A”)
For Graham Hill Water Treatment Plan (715 Graham Hill Road) including coordination regarding retention or relocation of existing infrastructure, including, but not limited to, existing bus stop(s).

47. Compliance with all project conditions of approval shall be ensured prior to granting of the final certificate of occupancy for the final building to be constructed on-site as part of the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development.

29.28 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ APPROVING THE CLIMATE RESILIENT SANTA CRUZ: GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF

FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz (“City Council”), by adoption of Resolution No. __________, has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, prior to approving any proposed project for which an EIR has identified significant environmental effects, the City Council, as the decision-making body, is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, to adopt findings demonstrating that the City Council has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant project-related environmental effects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to these provisions, proposed CEQA findings have been prepared for the Project, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A regarding the significant environmental effects of the Project, proposed mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and the feasibility of alternatives set forth in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to those provisions, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is included within Exhibit A attached hereto, has been prepared for the Project setting forth the benefits that the City Council concludes outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the Project, therefore justifying approval of the Project despite such effects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council are carried out; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this provision, staff has prepared the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein, that incorporates the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required for approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all elements of the Project are necessary for the City to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable and environmentally sustainable water supply to residents, other customers and members of the public who use water from the City’s water system; and

29.29 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX
WHEREAS, while the City historically has relied on surface-water storage as a large part of its dry-year supplies, the history of dry years have demonstrated the need for the City to augment its storage capacity through groundwater storage; and WHEREAS, the City continues to grapple with a history of dry years even though the City’s long-term success in reducing water consumption through conservation and demand management efforts has driven down demand to a statewide low; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the City Council appointed the 14-member Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC) to assess and make recommendations about approaches to improving the reliability of the City’s water supply; and
WHEREAS, the WSAC’s recommendations acknowledged that a key factor affecting water supply reliability is the lack of local storage and that pursuing storage of available water during the winter in local groundwater aquifers through passive and active recharge should be explored and pursued; and
WHEREAS, climate change, which is already being experienced in Santa Cruz, is resulting in increasingly variable annual supply, which further emphasizes the need for increased storage of water in years when it is available; and
WHEREAS, reliable treatment of increased volumes of winter or wet season surface that have additional treatment requirements is critical to allow for the storage of available water during the winter in local groundwater aquifers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby finds and determines the following:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.

2. The City Council has considered the Final EIR, all information provided by City staff and consultants pertaining to the Project, and all other pertinent documents relating to the Project.

3. The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, that the proposed mitigation measures as set forth in Exhibits A and B are feasible, and will therefore become binding on the City when the Project is approved. The City Council further finds that, for the reasons set forth in Exhibit A, none of the alternatives to the Project, as set forth in the Final EIR, are feasible. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

29.30 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

4. The City Council adopts, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during implementation of the Project, all other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

5. The City Council approves the Project, as described in Resolutions No. NS-xx,xxx and No. NS-xx,xxx, and therefore authorizes and directs the City to take the actions necessary to construct and implement the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project, as described in the Final EIR’s Project Description.

6. The City Council directs City Staff to file with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research in Sacramento a Notice of Determination commencing the 30- day statute of limitations for any legal challenge to the Project based on alleged noncompliance with CEQA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10TH day of 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk Administrator
List of Exhibits (Incorporated by Reference):

Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

29.31 Exhibit A

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
City Council of the City of Santa Cruz
Climate Resilient Santa Cruz:

Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
Facility Improvements Project
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2022060566
JULY 2024

29.32 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

29.33 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 i
Table of Contents
Section Page No.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................................III 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Project Location and Setting................................................................................................................3

2.2 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................3

2.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................4 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.......................................................................................................9 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................................................................11 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA........................................................................................................13 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM..................................................................15 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................17

7.1 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant............................................................................17

7.1.1 Impacts Not Found to be Significant ..................................................................................17

7.1.2 Aesthetics ...............................................................................................................................18

7.1.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................18

7.1.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................18

7.1.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources..........................................................19

7.1.6 Energy.....................................................................................................................................19

7.1.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................19

7.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................20

7.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire..............................................................20

7.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................................20

7.1.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................21

7.1.12 Noise and Vibration...............................................................................................................21

7.1.13 Transportation........................................................................................................................22

7.1.14 Utilities and Service Systems ..............................................................................................22

7.1.15 Wildfire ....................................................................................................................................23

7.2 Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level...........................23

7.2.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................23

7.2.2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................26

7.2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .....................................................................................27

29.34 Table of Contents
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 ii

7.2.4 Noise and Vibration...............................................................................................................28

7.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................................................29

7.3.1 Noise .......................................................................................................................................29 8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................................34

8.1 Basis for Alternatives-Feasibility Analysis.......................................................................................34

8.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative...................................................................................35

8.1.2 Alternative 2: Alternate Pretreatment Technology Alternative .......................................37

8.1.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Capacity Alternative.....................................................................40

8.1.4 Alternative 4: No Solids Dewatering Alternative...............................................................42 9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................46

9.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...............................................................................................46

9.2 Overriding Considerations .................................................................................................................46

29.35 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CEC contaminants of emerging concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Santa Cruz
County County of Santa Cruz
DBP Disinfection biproducts
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GAC granular activated carbon
GHWTP Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
HiAP Health in All Policies
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
MM Mitigation Measure
MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s
NCP Newell Creek Pipeline
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program Proposed Project Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SMP soil management plan
SOWF Policy Securing Our Water Future Policy
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
TOC Total organic carbon
UV ultraviolet
WWTF Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility

29.36 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 iv

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.37 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 1
1 Introduction
The City of Santa Cruz (City), as lead agency, prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP) Facility Improvements Project (Proposed Project). In its entirety, the EIR consists of the December 2023 Draft EIR (Draft EIR) and the July 2024 Final EIR (Final EIR). The EIR is a project-level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.).

Having been constructed in the 1960s, the GHWTP has not been substantially improved since the 1980s and is in need of improvements. These improvements would address deficiencies related to the age of the facility and associated design limitations of the GHWTP to respond to stressors posed by a changing climate and new regulations. Therefore, the underlying purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide for a modernized treatment plant that: meets contemporary building, electrical, and fire code requirements; improves the ability to treat wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and the City’s Securing Our Water Future Policy (SOWF Policy); increases the City’s treatment reliability; and improves the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms, and drought conditions.

These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations in Section 0, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). Specifically, the findings are prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision (a). The statement of overriding considerations has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

29.38 0 – 1 Introduction
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.39 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 3
2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
The Proposed Project is primarily located at the City’s existing GHWTP, within City limits; however, the parcel is noncontiguous to the City and hence constitutes an “island annexation” surrounded by parcels of residential property in the unincorporated County of Santa Cruz (County). Additionally, the Proposed Project is anticipated to involve activities outside of the GHWTP for the purposes of temporary construction staging and potential utility and traffic safety improvements. The Proposed Project is anticipated to be located at four sublocations of the primary project site, and construction would be supported using two staging areas, which together constitute the project site. The primary project site consists of the GHWTP parcel, a utility corridor between the GHWTP parcel and the San Lorenzo River via Ocean Street Extension, a portion of the Graham Hill Road right-of-way near the GHWTP entrance, and an alternate sanitary sewer lateral replacement area along a portion of Ocean Street Extension. The Mt. Hermon Road staging area is located the northern intersection of Graham Hill Road and Mt. Hermon Road, in Felton; the Ocean Street Extension staging area is located on Ocean Street Extension. The project location and vicinity is shown in Figure 3-1 of the Final EIR.

Single-family residential land uses surround the GHWTP parcel on the northern, eastern, and southern perimeters.

Dense tree canopy and vegetation, and scattered residential dwellings are located beyond the western perimeter on a hillside that slopes down to the San Lorenzo River, approximately 0.3 miles to the west of the primary project site. The existing GHWTP site layout and primary project site components are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3, respectively, of the Final EIR.

2.2 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide for a modernized water treatment plant that: meets contemporary building, electrical, and fire code requirements; improves the ability to treat wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City of Santa Cruz’s (City) Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and Securing Our Water Future (SOWF) Policy; increases the City’s treatment reliability; and improves the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms and drought conditions. The objectives for the Proposed Project are as follows:

1. Provide an adaptable water treatment facility, that can readily recover from and/or adjust to changing water quality or other potentially disruptive events by using multiple process tools, operational changes, switching between supply sources, or adjusting flow rates.

2. Provide treatment facilities and equipment that reliably and efficiently produce potable water in full compliance with local, state, and federal regulations over the range of source water quality conditions expected of the City’s source waters (e.g., wet season water, Loch Lomond Reservoir water with higher levels of naturally occurring TOC).

3. Provide treatment facilities and equipment that reliably meet the City’s updated treatment goals, provide for treatment of currently unregulated contaminants (e.g., CECs), provide for efficient operations and maintenance, and that can adapt to future regulations, source water quality changes, and flow conditions.

29.40 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 4

4. Provide flexibility for installation of additional treatment equipment, if warranted, to adapt to future regulations, source water quality and flow conditions.

5. Support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy related to passive recharge of regional aquifers via water transfers and exchanges and active recharge of regional aquifers via aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), and SOWF Policy in order to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable and environmentally sustainable water supply.

6. Rehabilitate existing aging infrastructure to allow reusing and extending its useful life, to the extent feasible, or decommissioning and replacing it.

7. Provide a cost-effective project that optimizes the benefits and total cost of ownership (i.e., life cycle cost) for the City and complete construction at or below the Proposed Project budget.

8. Support the City’s effort and policy to apply Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach and equity practices to City decision-making. The HiAP approach includes three pillars: sustainability, equity, and public health. The Santa Cruz Water Department goals under these pillars include:
a. Sustainability: Support the health of the surrounding environment, implement environmentally superior building materials and designs, reduce energy and water use in municipal buildings, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support the development of renewable energy sources. b. Equity: Create and foster maximum organizational effectiveness, such as providing responsible financial stewardship, and identifying and engaging a diverse set of potential stakeholders. c. Public Health: Preserve and secure reliable water supplies, considering future impacts of climate change and natural hazards to water service reliability and meeting current and foreseeable drinking water standards.

9. Throughout the construction process, maintain production of potable water delivery throughout the City distribution system, without incurring emergency plant shutdowns, permit violations, or exceedances of drinking water standards, due to construction activities.

10. Provide a water treatment facility that meets current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes; protects buildings in the wildland urban interface, as warranted; and meets DDW permitting requirements. (Final EIR pp. 3-18 and 3-19.)

2.3 Project Description
The Proposed Project would replace and substantially upgrade the majority of the existing water treatment processes at the GHWTP and associated infrastructure with modern facilities. The Proposed Project would improve the GHWTP to: meet current seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements; support the treatment of wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy; increase the City’s treatment reliability to meet current and anticipated future water quality requirements; and improve the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms, and droughts. Numerous water quality regulations would be addressed by the Proposed Project, which are summarized in the Final EIR under Chapter 3, Project Description (see Section 3.2.4, Water Quality and Water Treatment Challenges). Existing and proposed treatment processes are shown in Figure 3-5 of the Final EIR; the Proposed Project site layout is shown on Figure 3-6 of the Final EIR. Characteristics and elements of the Proposed Project are summarized in Section 3.4.1, Project Overview (Final EIR pp. 3-19 through 3- 22) and include the following:

29.41 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 5
 Reliable Water Treatment Plant Capacity. The Proposed Project would be designed to reliably produce a maximum of 18.2 million gallons per day, under a broad range of source water conditions.  New and Upgraded Water Treatment and Related Processes. The Proposed Project includes the following process upgrades:
o Pretreatment. Replacement of the existing conventional pretreatment process at the GHWTP with highrate clarification with plate settlers.1 This process would allow for enhanced coagulation to remove higher levels of TOC and turbidity associated with winter water supplies and increased use of the Newell Creek supply.
o Treatment. After the new pretreatment processes, water would be treated with a combination of existing processes (to be retained) and new processes that would be designed to meet all applicable regulatory requirements and industry best practices. Proposed new and upgraded treatment processes include:
- Ozonation (with hydrogen peroxide) via ozone contact. Ozonation/peroxide would provide reliable Stage 1 DBP and Stage 2 DBP rule compliance by oxidizing organic compounds making it less reactive with chlorine and increasing TOC removal in the biologically active filter. Other benefits include increased pathogen inactivation, CEC removal, and taste and odor control. - Biological filtration (via conversion of the existing filtration basins). Biological filtration would increase TOC removal and provide biologically stable water to the distribution system. - Future granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption or similar technology (a potential process that could be installed in the future, if needed). Removes additional TOC during extreme events such as a wildfire in the watershed and removes CECs including PFAS, if needed. - Post-chlorination (via relocation of the chlorination point after GAC adsorption, if added in the future). Reduces distribution system DBP concentrations and provides reliable Stage 1 DBP and Stage 2 DBP rule compliance.
- Future ultraviolet (UV) disinfection (a potential process that could be installed in the future, if needed due to higher levels of Cryptosporidium in the water supply). - New wash water storage tanks to replace the existing wash water storage tank. o Solids Handling System. The Proposed Project would include improvements for processing water treatment residuals, which are the by-products of water treatment and contain sediment and other contaminants, collectively referred to as solids or residuals. Proposed Project improvements to handle such residuals include a new solids handling system consisting of:
- Expanding the number of existing reclaimed water clarifiers (lamella clarifiers) from two up to four - Installing new solids dewatering facilities including:
- Centrifuge dewatering.
- Drive-through unloading operation to loadout dewatered solids onto haul trucks. - Thickened solids equalization tank that would be repurposed from an existing concrete bulk storage tank.
- Dewatering feed pump station.
1 Pretreatment refers to the processes of coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation and is designed to clarify water and remove turbidity and organic compounds.

29.42 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 6
- Sewer discharge improvements to support solids handling system (see below under Infrastructure and Site Improvements).
o Chemical Feed System Upgrades. Chemical feed system upgrades would be installed to support the new and upgraded treatment and solids handling processes.  New and Upgraded Buildings. The Proposed Project would include new and upgraded buildings including:
o Upgraded Operations and Filter Building. An upgraded approximately 19,600-square foot Operations and Filter Building, including a new administration wing, to support the operations and maintenance, administration, and filtration functions of the GHWTP.
o New Maintenance Building. A new approximately 2,400-square foot Maintenance Building with workshop and storage space and welding, painting, and sandblasting areas to reduce the number of temporary structures currently at the GHWTP.
o New Ozone Building. A new approximately 3,600-square foot Ozone Building to house the chemicals and equipment for the ozone treatment.
o New Solids Dewatering Building. A new approximately 2,700-square foot Solids Dewatering Building to house the solids dewatering facilities.
o New Chemical Storage and Feed Building. A new approximately 3,000-square foot Chemical Storage and Feed Building would house chemicals and pumps and metering equipment for the GHWTP.  Infrastructure and Site Improvements. Proposed Project infrastructure and site improvements would include:
o Sewer Improvements. Sewer improvements to support the new solids handling system involve either discharge to the County sewer line in Graham Hill Road, which may require a new sanitary lift pump station to connect to the County’s line, or discharge to a City sewer line in Ocean Street Extension, which would require replacement.
o Stormwater Management Improvements. Stormwater management improvements include updating the existing stormwater collection system to accommodate collection of runoff from new impervious surfaces consistent with City’s Storm Water Management Program and potentially replacing or rehabilitating some or all of the existing dedicated storm drain line that discharges directly to the San Lorenzo River.
o Electrical; Lighting; Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC); Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA); and Alarm Improvements. These improvements would include:
- The electrical distribution system would be expanded with local distribution to serve the various components of the Proposed Project.
- Solar photovoltaic panels would be installed on one or more of the new and/or existing building rooftops and/or on the adjacent concrete tanks currently under construction as part of the Concrete Tanks Replacement Project (Concrete Tanks Project). - Existing natural gas infrastructure would be removed and replaced with electrical infrastructure. - Exterior safety lighting that meets Title 24 of the California Energy Code requirements and is Dark Sky-compliant may be installed, similar to existing lighting at GHWTP. - New HVAC equipment would be installed in new buildings. - A new SCADA system and fiber optic conduits and cables would be installed to provide for the operations and monitoring of the new processes.

29.43 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 7
o Vehicular Access Improvements. Vehicle access improvements would include:
- Internal vehicular access improvements to improve traffic circulation through the GHWTP, including for chemical delivery trucks, hauling trucks, and other delivery trucks. - New parking to address inadequate parking for existing staff, visitors, maintenance, and fleet vehicles. - Electrical vehicle charging stations.
- Secure vehicle access gates and internal signage.
- Traffic calming measures on Graham Hill Road (e.g., warning signs at entrance). o Screening and Landscaping Improvements. The Proposed Project would include screening and landscaping improvements using locally native, fire resistant, and drought-tolerant species. o Fencing and Site Security Improvements. Proposed Project site security improvements could include improvements to perimeter fencing, interior fencing around the pretreatment process, and closed-circuit television surveillance.

Under the Proposed Project, operation and maintenance of the upgraded GHWTP would include many activities largely consistent with current activities, as well as new activities related to the new treatment process and solids dewatering equipment.

The project construction is anticipated to commence in phases over a four-year period (from 2025 through 2029) while maintaining ongoing operations and continuous production of drinking water at GHWTP. The City has identified 22 standard construction practices that would be implemented by the City and/or its contractors, which are described in Section 3.4.4.4 of the Final EIR, to provide erosion and air quality controls, water quality and habitat protection, inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, construction noise practices, and fire safety measures. (Final EIR pp. 3-45 through 3-52.) Additionally, the Proposed Project would implement the applicable avoidance and minimization measures from the City’s Low Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Incidental Take Permit under Section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, which are presented in Section 3.4.4.5 of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 3-52 through 3-54.)

29.44 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 8

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.45 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 9
3 Environmental Review Process
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR on June 27, 2022. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15023, subdivision (c), and 15087, subdivision (f), the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research was responsible for distributing environmental documents to state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment. The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution of the appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse made that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. The NOP was circulated for a 30-day review period from June 27, 2022, to July 26, 2022.

Additionally, two public scoping meetings for the EIR were held July 19, 2022, from 3:30 to 4:30 PM and from 5:30 to 6:30 PM; the corresponding presentation about the Proposed Project was posted on the City’s website. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Final EIR and summarized in Chapter 2, Introduction, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 2-4 and 2-5.) The EIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise and Vibration
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
 CEQA-Required Sections: Significant Unavoidable Impacts, Significant Irreversible Changes, Growth Inducement, Cumulative Impacts (incorporated into each technical section above), and Alternatives On December 7, 2023, the City released the Draft EIR to public agencies, other interested parties, the general public, and the State Clearinghouse for a 60-day public review period that ended on February 5, 2024. (Final EIR p. 2-5.) The Final EIR was published on July 22, 2024.

The Planning Commission considered a number of entitlements for the Proposed Project and made a recommendation to City Council on June 20, 2024. The entitlements include a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit for the portions of the Proposed Project that are not exempt from local ordinances pursuant to California

29.46 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 10
Government Code Section 53091(e),2 including the renovation of an operations building, the construction of a new administrative wing onto the operations building, and the construction of a new maintenance building. The Water Commission considered the Final EIR and the Proposed Project at a public meeting held on August 5, 2024, and made a recommendation to City Council. The City Council considered the Final EIR and Proposed Project at a regularly scheduled public meeting on September 10, 2024, and then certified the Final EIR and approved the Proposed Project.
2 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091(e), local ordinances do not apply to “the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water”, such as tanks, pipelines, and watertreatment equipment, and much of the overall modernization project remains exempt from local land use controls.

29.47 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 11
4 Record of Proceedings
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Proposed Project includes the following documents:
 The NOP (June 2022), including related comments from agencies, organizations, and individuals, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Proposed Project;  The Draft EIR for the Proposed Project (December 2023) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
 The Final EIR for the Proposed Project (July 2024) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
 Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions and public meetings held by the City in connection with the Proposed Project;
 Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions and public meetings;  Any and all resolutions adopted by the City Council regarding the Proposed Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
 Any documents expressly cited in the Draft and Final EIRs and these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
 Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Proposed Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members by appointment at the City of Santa Cruz Water Department Engineering Counter, located at 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz, California 95060.

29.48 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.49 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 13
5 Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must adopt a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) Under CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); see also Cal. Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001–1002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-than-significant level. CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable project and cumulative construction noise impacts, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure

29.50 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 14
(MM) NOI-2 that would reduce construction noise level exposures attributed to the Proposed Project. These impacts are described in Impact NOI-2 and Impact NOI-4 in Final EIR Section 4.10, Noise.

29.51 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 15
6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Proposed Project and is included in the Final EIR Chapter 8. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that adopts these findings. The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

29.52 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.53 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 17
7 Environmental Effects and Mitigation
Measures
The Final EIR identified significant environmental effects (or impacts) resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Specifically, significant environmental effects were identified during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project. Most of these construction effects, and all of the operational effects, can be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. However, construction effects specifically related to temporary construction noise and cumulative construction noise, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and thus will be significant and unavoidable. While Alternatives 3 and 4 would lessen the severity of the significant unavoidable impacts related to temporary construction noise and cumulative construction noise, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Moreover, for reasons discussed in Section 8 below of these findings, none of the alternatives that reduce significant unavoidable impacts are feasible in the judgment of the City Council. In addition, for reasons set forth in Section 9 of this document, the City Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh these significant, unavoidable effects which would occur during construction of the Proposed Project.

The City’s findings with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth below for each significant impact. The following statement of findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the City, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. Full explanations of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR. These findings hereby incorporate those explanations by reference. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

7.1 Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant
The following impacts were evaluated in the EIR and determined to be below a level of significance due to the design, location, and scope of the Proposed Project and/or through adherence with existing laws, codes, and statutes. Based on the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, substantial evidence indicates that, even in the absence of mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental categories listed below. Support for the environmental impact conclusions listed below is provided throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of the Final EIR.

7.1.1 Impacts Not Found to be Significant
Issues related to agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation were found not to be significant.

29.54 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 18

7.1.2 Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: Scenic Vistas. The Proposed Project’s construction and operational activities would not eliminate or substantially adversely affect, modify, or obstruct a visually prominent or significant public scenic vista, public viewing area, or public view corridor.

Impact AES-2: Scenic Quality. The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the surrounding area (i.e., be incompatible with the scale or visual character of the surrounding area, or substantially detract from the integrity, character, and/or aesthetic character of the neighborhood.

Impact AES-3: Light and Glare. The Proposed Project components, including new sources of lighting, new structures, and new materials, would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views or activities in the area or pose a nuisance.

Impact AES-4: Cumulative Impacts Related to Aesthetics. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.

7.1.3 Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Conflict with Air Quality Plan. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants but would not exceed adopted thresholds of significance and therefore would not conflict with the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

Impact AIR-2: Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants, but would not exceed adopted thresholds of significance, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Impact AIR-3: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. The Proposed Project would not potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during short-term construction or during long-term operations.

Impact AIR-4: Other Emissions Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Impact AIR-5: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

7.1.4 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-2: Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.

29.55 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 19
Impact BIO 4: Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The Proposed Project would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites by removing or causing abandonment of active native bird nests or bat maternity roosts.

Impact BIO-5: Fish or Wildlife Species Habitat or Population Levels. The Proposed Project would not substantially reduce fish or wildlife species habitat or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels.

Impact BIO-6: Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources, but the Proposed Project’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

7.1.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Historical (Built Environment) Resources. The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical built environment resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Impact CUL-2: Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources (pursuant to Section 15064.5) or historical resources of an archaeological nature, and/or disturb human remains.

Impact CUL-3: Tribal Cultural Resources: The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Impact CUL-4: Cumulative Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

7.1.6 Energy
Impact ENE-1: Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources. The Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Impact ENE-2: Conflict with an Applicable Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with or otherwise obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Impact ENE-3: Cumulative Energy Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy.

7.1.7 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Seismic Hazards. The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Impact GEO-2: Landslides. The Proposed Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides, including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

29.56 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 20
Impact GEO 3: Unstable Geologic Unit or Soils. The Proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, slope failure/instability, subsidence, or collapse.

Impact GEO-4: Expansive Soils. The Proposed Project would potentially be located on expansive soil, as defined in the 2022 California Building Code, but would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Impact GEO-6: Cumulative Geologic Hazards. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

Impact GEO-7: Cumulative Paleontological Resources Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to paleontological resources.

7.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact GHG 2: Conflict with an Applicable GHG Reduction Plan. The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Impact GHG 3: Cumulative GHG Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.

However, the Proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

7.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Impact HAZ-2: Reasonably Foreseeable Upset or Accident Conditions. The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Impact HAZ-3: Interfere with Emergency Response Plans. The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with existing emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Impact HAZ-4: Cumulative Hazard Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials.

7.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Surface Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. In addition, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan related to surface water.

29.57 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 21
Impact HYD 2: Decrease Groundwater Supplies, Interfere with Groundwater Recharge, or Conflict with Groundwater Plan. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded or such that conflict or obstruction of a sustainable groundwater management plan would occur.

Impact HYD 3: Alteration to the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site Area. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (c) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (d) impede or redirect flood flows.

Impact HYD 4: Flood, Tsunamis, and Seiche Zones. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Impact HYD-5: Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to surface water hydrology and water quality.

7.1.11 Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Impact LU-2: Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

7.1.12 Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI 3: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Levels. Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the potential generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Impact NOI 4: Cumulative Noise and Vibration Impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, construction vibration would not result in significant cumulative impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would also not result in a significant cumulative impact related to noise. [Note: The significant unavoidable construction noise impact is discussed in Section 7.3 of this document.]

29.58 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 22

7.1.13 Transportation
Impact TRA-1: Conflict with Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Impact TRA-2: Vehicle Miles Traveled. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) or cause an increase in VMT that exceeds City and County thresholds (greater than 15% below the regional average VMT).

Impact TRA-3: Geometric Design. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial increases in hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.

Impact TRA-4: Emergency Access. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access or impair implementation of or interfere with an emergency evacuation plan.

Impact TRA-5: Cumulative Transportation Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

7.1.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-1: New or Expanded Facilities. The Proposed Project would not result in new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities beyond those proposed as part of the Proposed Project and evaluated throughout the EIR.

Impact UTL-2: Water Supplies. Operation of the Proposed Project would provide sufficient water supplies to serve the Proposed Project and would support the provision of sufficient water supplies for reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Impact UTL-3: Solid Waste Generation. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess or state or local standards, or of the capacity of local infrastructure, or impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Impact UTL-4: Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Impact UTL-5: Cumulative Water and Wastewater Impacts. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to water supply and wastewater treatment.

Impact UTL-6: Cumulative Landfill Impacts. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to landfill capacity or related to compliance with solid waste regulations.

29.59 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 23

7.1.15 Wildfire
Impact WIL-1: Wildland Fire Exposure. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Impact WIL-2: Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. The Proposed Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Proposed Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Impact WIL-3: Installation or Maintenance of Infrastructure. The Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Impact WIL-4: Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Impact WIL-5: Cumulative Wildfire Impacts. The Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

7.2 Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to a LessThan-Significant Level The following summary describes impacts of the Project that, without mitigation, will result in significant adverse impacts. However, upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, these impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

7.2.1 Biological Resources
Potential Effects. Potentially significant effects were identified for the Proposed Project in the following categories for biological resources:
 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Species. The Proposed Project would have no impact on special-status plants but could have a substantial adverse effect on some special-status wildlife species during construction.
 Impact BIO-3: State or Federally Protected Wetlands or Waters. The Proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands or waters.

Support for these environmental impact conclusions is fully discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 4.4-41 – 4.4-50.)
Mitigation Measures. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts related to special-status plant species and jurisdictional wetlands or waters were developed for the Proposed Project and are listed below.

29.60 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 24
MM BIO-1: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Species Survey and Monitoring (applies only to the Utility Corridor, if stormwater improvements are implemented). A pre-construction survey for Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to the initiation of ground disturbance in suitable habitat for these species (i.e., damp upland areas near/adjacent to San Lorenzo River). The survey area shall include all suitable habitat within the work areas, plus a 50-foot buffer. Following the survey, the contractor, under the direction of a qualified biologist, shall install wildlife exclusion fencing along the boundary of the work area containing suitable habitat to prevent special-status amphibians and reptiles from entering the work area. The wildlife exclusion fencing must be trenched into the soil at least 4 inches in depth, with the soil compacted against both sides of the fence for its entire length and must have intermittent exit points. Turnarounds shall be installed at access points to direct amphibians and reptiles away from gaps in the fencing.

MM BIO-2: Biological Construction Monitoring (applies to entire project site and staging areas). A qualified biologist shall monitor vegetation removal and initial ground disturbing activities during all work hours for off-pavement work where special-status wildlife species are likely to occur. The frequency and characteristics of monitoring will be determined by the qualified biologist during the implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-4. The monitor shall check any wildlife exclusion fencing installed at the utility corridor along the San Lorenzo River and any avoidance buffers for nesting birds once a week and verify when birds have fledged if found present before construction. The biologist shall have stop-work authority in the event that a listed species is found within the active construction footprint. During construction, the biological monitor shall keep a daily observation log and a photo log to describe monitoring activities, remedial actions, non-compliance, and other issues and actions taken. These logs shall be kept on-site and made available for inspection by agency personnel.

MM BIO-3: Species Relocation (applies to entire project site and staging areas). If special-status wildlife species are observed within the construction area prior to or during construction activities, the biologist shall capture and relocate such individuals out of the area affected by construction activities to nearby habitat that has equivalent value to support the species. The biologist shall identify suitable habitats as potential release sites prior to start of construction activities. If the special-status species is a federally or state-listed as threatened or endangered, the biologist shall notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, prior to capture and relocation to obtain approval, if not already covered by an existing incidental take permit.

MM BIO-4: Surveys for San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat (applies to entire project site and staging areas).

A pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat middens shall be conducted within 14 days of the start of construction. During the survey, a qualified biologist shall identify any middens in the work area and contiguous habitat within 10 feet and determine if they are active using peer-accepted methods (e.g., mimicking woodrat “tail rattle” and listening for a response). If the biologist determines that the middens are unoccupied, no further action is required. If the biologist determines that the middens are occupied or potentially occupied and that project activities could result in woodrat mortality, the following measures shall be implemented:

29.61 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 25
A. The contractor, under direction of the biologist, shall install a 10-foot-radius exclusion zone around each midden using pin flags, orange safety cones, wood lathe, or similar material in which no activity would occur until project construction is complete.

B. If middens cannot be avoided by this buffer, the contractor, under direction of the biologist, shall dismantle the middens by hand or using small machinery and move the woody materials to similar habitat outside the project footprint. The midden dismantling activities shall only occur in the early morning during the non-breeding season (October to February), however, so that any adults or non-dependent young can escape into adjacent habitat during the dismantling activity.

MM BIO-5: Aquatic Resource Delineation and Mitigation (applies only to the Utility Corridor, if stormwater improvements are implemented). To clarify the extent of state and federally protected wetlands and waters regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife within the utility corridor area along the San Lorenzo River, a qualified aquatic resource delineator shall conduct a formal jurisdictional delineation within the impact area. The results of the delineation would be used to calculate temporary and permanent impacts for reporting to the above agencies in respective permitting applications and determine the appropriate amount of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. All jurisdictional aquatic resources not directly affected by construction activities shall be avoided and protected by establishing staking, flagging or fencing between the identified construction areas and aquatic resources to be avoided/preserved. For unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, a project-specific mitigation plan shall be developed, approved by the above agencies, as appropriate, through their respective regulatory permitting processes, and implemented. The mitigation plan shall specify the criteria and standards by which the mitigation will compensate for impacts of the Proposed Project and include discussion of the following:

A. The mitigation objectives and type and amount of mitigation to be implemented (in-kind mitigation at a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1);
B. The location of the proposed mitigation site(s) (within the San Lorenzo River watershed, if possible);
C. The methods to be employed for mitigation implementation (jurisdictional aquatic resource establishment, re-establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation); D. Success criteria and a monitoring program to ensure mitigation success; and E. Adaptive management and remedial measures in the event that performance stands are not achieved.

Finding. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant biological resources impacts of the Proposed Project to less-than-significant levels.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid the potentially significant biological resources impacts of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR.

29.62 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 26

7.2.2 Geology and Soils
Potential Effects. A potentially significant effect was identified for the Proposed Project in the following category for geology and soils:
 Impact GEO-5: Paleontological Resources. The Proposed Project could potentially directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site during construction. However, the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique geological feature.

Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 4.6-40 – 4.6-41.)
Mitigation Measures. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse impacts related to paleontological resources was developed for the Proposed Project and is listed below.

MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring (applies to the GHWTP Parcel and the Alternate Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Area). Prior to commencement of any ground disturbance below artificial fill and Holocene alluvial or colluvial deposits with the potential to impact Pleistocene terrace deposits or the Santa Margarita Formation sandstone within the project site, the City shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Proposed Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010 or most current version) guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; paleontological monitoring as required based on geological mapping, construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment; paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils); reporting; and collections management. A qualified paleontologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting and a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during ground-disturbing activities below fill and Holocene alluvial and/or colluvial deposits. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer or an appropriately sized buffer as determined by the qualified paleontologist. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Finding. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant paleontological resource impact of the Proposed Project to a less-than-significant level.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid the potentially significant paleontological resource impact of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR.

29.63 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 27

7.2.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Effects. A potentially significant effect was identified for the Proposed Project in the following category for hazards and hazardous materials:
 Impact HAZ-1: Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would require routine use and transportation of hazardous materials but would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment. Demolition, construction, and excavation activities have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment due to the improper handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous building materials and impacted soils.

Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 4.9-25 – 4.8-30.) Mitigation Measures. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials were developed for the Proposed Project and are listed below.

MM HAZ-1: Evaluation and Treatment of Concrete Mortar (Applies to Existing Storm Drain Line within the Utility Corridor). Prior to removal or modification of the existing onsite steel stormwater piping, the concrete mortar will be evaluated for the presence of asbestos. The evaluation will include a survey of the pipeline and appurtenances for the potential presence of asbestos in concrete mortar; this survey will be conducted by a California-licensed asbestos contractor. If necessary, bulk samples will be collected of suspect material for further analysis at a California-licensed analytical laboratory. Any concrete mortar that contain asbestos above applicable regulatory levels will be either be properly abated in accordance with rules and regulations applicable for asbestos removal and disposal, or maintained in place with protections that limit potential exposure to asbestos piping. Asbestos containing materials are defined under federal and state regulations as 1.0% by volume.

MM HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan (Applies to the GHWTP Parcel). A soil management plan (SMP) will be prepared and implemented for management of arsenic-impacted soils that are encountered during construction and excavation activities of the Proposed Project. The SMP will outline soil handling, testing, and disposal requirements, and will follow recommendations outlined in the Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Technical Memorandum. The SMP will also include health and safety procedures for onsite workers, transportation requirements, dust control techniques, and monitoring and reporting requirements. The SMP and subsequent soil removal work will be overseen by an environmental remediation professional with experience in contaminated soil removal and disposal. Records of removal and final disposition of soil, including but not limited to analytical reports, trucking logs, onsite monitoring and field logs, and dump receipts, will be maintained by the City. Soils that are not disturbed during construction and are located beneath buildings or asphalt are not required to be removed.

Finding. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impact of the Proposed Project to less-than-significant

29.64 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 28
levels. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid the potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impact of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR.

7.2.4 Noise and Vibration
Potential Effects. A potentially significant effect was identified for the Proposed Project in the following category for noise and vibration:
 Impact NOI 1: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. The Proposed Project could result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above ambient levels without the project.

Support for these environmental impact conclusions is fully discussed in Section 4.12, Noise and Vibration, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 4.12-29 – 4.12-34.)
Mitigation Measures. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse impacts related to operational noise was developed for the Proposed Project and is listed below.

MM NOI-1: Operational Mechanical and Process Noise (applies only to the GHWTP). The Proposed Project shall implement the following measures to minimize operational, mechanical and process noise levels through project site design; selection of low noise generating equipment; and use of silencers/mufflers, localized barriers, extended parapets, mechanical screens, and acoustical absorption, as outlined below. One or more of the following measures shall be incorporated into project site design to yield aggregate Proposed Project operational noise levels that are consistent with quantified County absolute and relative thresholds (see Table 4.12-9), as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor:
 As consistent with manufacturer performance requirements or guidance, all operating mechanical equipment with the potential to contribute to the generation of excessive offsite noise exposure levels shall be fitted with intake and exhaust silencers, gas vent silencers, shrouds, or acoustical enclosures.
 To exploit interior-to-exterior sound transmission losses associated with a building exterior shell (and its inherent material assemblies and penetrations for access, natural lighting, and ventilation or exhaust), mechanical equipment shall be located within the associated building. Building penetrations such as fresh air intakes and exhausts shall be fitted with acoustical louvers.
 Noise generating equipment not located within a building or within adjacent service yards incorporating acoustical barriers shall be shielded from direct line-of-site to nearby noisesensitive uses through the use of localized noise barriers, rooftop parapets, sound rated mechanical screens or intervening structures.
 Mechanical equipment not located within a building or an acoustically rated enclosure capable of reducing exterior noise level exposures consistent with applicable thresholds,

29.65 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 29
as specified above, shall be located at a sufficient distance from nearby noise-sensitive receptors, so that mechanical equipment would be reduced to be consistent with the applicable thresholds.
 A noise level monitoring program shall be developed and implemented by the City to verify that noise levels produced by equipment associated with on-going operations of the facility achieve consistency with applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

The monitoring program shall be conducted initially after full operations are underway and subsequently, if noise complaints are received and directly attributable to the new equipment. If monitored noise levels exceed the applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, potential additional treatments shall be implemented including but not limited to adding additional mass to building shells, installing acoustic absorption within a building, and/or installing enclosures around specific pieces of equipment, such that consistency with applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses is achieved.

Finding. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant operational noise impact of the Proposed Project to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid the potentially significant operational noise impact of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR.

7.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued by the City Council, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 if the Proposed Project is approved. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impact has been determined to be significant and unavoidable:

7.3.1 Noise
Potential Effects. Potentially significant effects were identified for the Proposed Project in the following categories for noise:
 Impact NOI-2: Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards. The Proposed Project would result in substantial noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. [Note: The significant unavoidable impact relates only to temporary project construction noise.]  Impact NOI-4: Cumulative Noise and Vibration Impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, construction vibration would not result in significant cumulative impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would also not result in a significant cumulative impact related to noise. [Note: The significant unavoidable impact relates only to cumulative construction noise.]

29.66 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 30
Support for these environmental impact conclusions is fully discussed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Final EIR. (Final EIR pp. 4.12-34 – 4.12-40 and 4.12-41 – 4.12-42).

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of MM NOI-2 identified in the EIR will reduce the project and cumulative construction noise impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level; therefore, these impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.

MM NOI-2: Construction Noise (applies to the entire project site and staging areas). The Proposed Project shall implement the following measures related to construction noise:
 Restrict construction activities and use of equipment that have the potential to generate significant noise levels (e.g., use of a concrete saw, mounted impact hammer, jackhammer, rock drill, etc.) to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, unless specifically identified work outside these hours is authorized by the City’s Water Director as necessary to allow for safe access to a construction site, safe construction operations, efficient construction progress, and/or to account for prior construction delays outside of a contractor’s control (e.g., weather delays).
 Construction activities requiring operations to continue outside of the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM shall locate noise generating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors, and/or within an acoustically rated enclosure (meeting or exceeding Sound Transmission Class [STC] 27), shroud or temporary barrier as needed to yield construction noise exposure levels that are at or below either the 60 dBA nighttime (10:00 PM to 8:00 AM) or 75 dBA daytime (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) County code standards at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors. Noisy construction equipment, such as temporary pumps that are not submerged, aboveground conveyor systems, concrete saws, and impact tools will likely require location within such an acoustically rated enclosure, shroud, or barrier to meet these above criteria. Impact tools in particular, shall have the working area/impact area shrouded or shielded whenever possible, with intake and exhaust ports on power equipment muffled or suppressed.  Portable and stationary site support equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, and cement mixers) shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.  Construction equipment and vehicles shall be fitted with efficient, well-maintained mufflers that reduce equipment noise emission levels at the project site. Internal-combustion-powered equipment shall be equipped with properly operating noise suppression devices (e.g., mufflers, silencers, wraps) that meet or exceed the manufacturer’s specifications. Mufflers and noise suppressors shall be properly maintained and tuned to allow proper fit, function, and minimization of noise.
 Construction equipment shall not be idled for extended periods of time (i.e., 5 minutes or longer) in the immediate vicinity of noise-sensitive receptors.  In conjunction with the implementation of standard construction practice #17, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall manage complaints resulting from construction noise by instituting modifications to the construction operations, construction equipment or work plan to ensure consistency with the County Code standards that apply from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM, where complaints are verified and substantive. Recurring disturbances shall be evaluated by a

29.67 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 31
qualified acoustical consultant retained by the City to provide for consistency with applicable standards.

Finding. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant project and cumulative construction noise impacts of the Proposed Project.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid the significant construction noise impacts of the Proposed Project identified in the EIR. In other words, the significant impacts of the Proposed Project related to construction noise cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level despite the imposition of MM NOI-2, which has been required or incorporated into the Proposed Project. Given the planned shutdowns of the GHWTP during construction it may not be possible to remain at or below the construction noise thresholds that apply between 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM under all circumstances. However, these impacts are temporary and will cease upon completion of construction. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures, or the project alternatives identified in the EIR that will avoid or reduce the significant impacts related to project and cumulative construction noise to a less-than-significant level. See Section 0, 8 Project Alternatives, of these findings and Section 0,

29.68 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 32
9 Statement of Overriding Considerations, of this document for additional information.

29.69 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 33

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.70 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 34
8 Project Alternatives

8.1 Basis for Alternatives-Feasibility Analysis
As noted earlier, Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body (here, the City Council) may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (Cal. Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 981, 999.) As explained earlier, grounds for such a conclusion might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000–1003; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [“‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on project objectives]; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 296 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; and In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) [“feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].) Alternatives may also be determined to be economically infeasible and can be rejected on that ground. (The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 621–623.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a Proposed Project as mitigated, the decisionmakers may reject the alternative as infeasible for such reasons.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]” For this reason, the objectives described above in Section 0, 2.2 Project Objectives, of these findings provided the framework for defining possible alternatives.

Based on the objectives, the City developed four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, that were addressed in detail in the Final EIR.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and the project’s objectives, the following alternatives to the Proposed Project were identified:
 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
 Alternative 2: Alternate Pretreatment Technology Alternative  Alternative 3: Reduced Capacity Alternative
 Alternative 4: No Solids Dewatering Alternative

29.71 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 35
The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Proposed Project’s objectives and might be more costly.

8.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative, along with its impact. As stated in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving the Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) generally provides that “[t]he ‘no project’ analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, … as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” Section 15126(e)(3)(B) provides that, where, as here, a Project is something “other than a land use or regulatory plan,” the “No Project” Alternative is “the circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” “[W]here failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][3][B]).

The underlying purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide for a modernized water treatment plant, as described in Section 2.2, Project Objectives, of these findings. To accomplish these objectives, the Proposed Project includes the replacement and substantial upgrade of the majority of the existing water treatment processes at the GHWTP and associated infrastructure with modern facilities.

Under the No Project Alternative, all conditions are generally based on those existing in 2022 and include existing facilities and infrastructure at the GHWTP. None of the components of the Proposed Project would be implemented, under the No Project Alternative. Also, under the No Project Alternative, the Concrete Tanks Project, a separate project already under construction on the GHWTP parcel will be completed. Under the No Project Alternative, the main development area on the GHWTP parcel would not be integrated with the new infrastructure in place at the completion of the Concrete Tanks Project, as provided for under the Proposed Project. If the No Project Alternative is selected, the City would likely need to pursue a separate project to provide for such integration of the main development area with the Concrete Tanks Project. As part of such integration, this separate project would likely include the pursuit of post-chlorination. If such a separate project is pursued due to the selection of the No Project Alternative, subsequent CEQA review would be required to implement such a project.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would not support conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies to improve water supply. In general, this involves the storage of water in local aquifers or delivery to regional water agencies during times when water is available, facilitating the return of stored water from the Mid-County Groundwater Basin and/or the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin to the City during droughts or other shortages. Given the local climate patterns, this strategy would involve treating increased volumes of wet season surface water. These wet season waters have additional treatment requirements, due to higher turbidity and more challenging water quality conditions, which the Proposed Project would be able to treat. The No Project Alternative would not provide for the additional treatment requirements involved in treating increased volumes of wet season surface water and therefore would not support the City’s effort to expand its

29.72 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 36
storage capacity to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable, and environmentally sustainable water supply. As a result, the No Project Alternative would require the City to prioritize and immediately pursue other options (i.e., recycled water or seawater desalination), which are currently considered as back-up or longer-term water sources, if passive and active recharge solutions are not sufficient. If another water supply option is pursued due to the selection of the No Project Alternative, subsequent CEQA review would be required to implement such a project.

Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not provide treatment facilities and equipment that can reliably treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions. As a result, the No Project Alternative would reduce the City’s ability to treat source water impacted by post-wildfire runoff and increased CECs, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), should they exceed concentrations currently observed in the source water supplies. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not address deficiencies at the GHWTP caused by the aging infrastructure.

Environmental Effects. Under the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Project would not be implemented.

Therefore, the potentially significant impacts associated with constructing and/or operating new or upgraded infrastructure facilities and processes identified in this EIR would not occur, such as those related to biological resources (Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-3), paleontological resources (Impact GEO-5), hazardous materials transport, use, or disposal (Impact HAZ-1), and operational noise (Impact NOI-1). The significant unavoidable construction noise impact due to temporary increase in noise in excess of standards between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM (Impact NOI-2) would not occur with the No Project Alternative; also, the significant unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact would not occur with the No Project Alternative (Impact NOI-4).

However, the No Project Alternative would not realize the water supply benefit of the Proposed Project. As indicated in Impact UTL-2, the upgraded GHWTP would benefit water supply reliability by treating increased volumes of wet season surface water and water transfers and exchanges. In contrast to the beneficial impact (Impact UTL-2) of the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative water supply impact would be potentially significant and unavoidable until an alternative source of water supply is developed. Given that the City’s water supply objectives would not be met with the No Project Alternative, the City’s likely prioritization and pursuit of recycled water or seawater desalination under the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy could result in some additional impacts that would not result from the Proposed Project. For example, if seawater desalination were selected, marine biological and hydrological impacts offshore in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary would likely result, as documented in the Proposed SCWD2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (URS 2013). The impacts of various recycled water options would be evaluated if and when one or more of the recycled water options are pursued by the City, as part of the Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy.

Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible, despite the fact that it would avoid the two significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project: Impact NOI-2, which involves temporary constructionrelated noise and Impact NOI-4, which involves cumulative construction noise. Measured against the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative represents an undesirable policy outcome that would not meet any of the identified project objectives. In particular, the No Project Alternative would not provide an adaptable water treatment facility (Objective #1), would not provide treatment facilities and equipment that reliably and efficiently produce potable water in full compliance with local, state, and federal regulations over the range of source water quality conditions expected of the City’s source waters (Objective #2), would not provide treatment facilities and equipment that reliably meet the City’s updated treatment goals, provide for efficient operations and maintenance, and that can adapt to future regulations, source water quality, and flow conditions (Objectives #3 and #4), and would not support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy (Objective

29.73 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 37
#5). Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not rehabilitate existing aging infrastructure to allow reusing and extending the useful life of the GHWTP, as no improvements would be implemented (Objective #6). The objective to provide a cost-effective project and complete construction at or below the Proposed Project budget (Objective #7), would not be met as the No Project Alternative would require the City to prioritize and immediately pursue other water supply options that might be more expensive. The No Project Alternative would not facilitate securing reliable water supplies, consider future impacts of climate change and natural hazards to water service reliability, and meet current and foreseeable drinking water standards (Objective 8). Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives related to providing a water treatment facility that meets current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes (Objective #10). (Final EIR pp. 6-11 – 6-12.)

8.1.2 Alternative 2: Alternate Pretreatment Technology Alternative Alternative 2 involves a similar comprehensive upgrade to the GHWTP using an alternative pretreatment3 technology called high-rate clarification with ballasted flocculation (also called ballasted clarification), in contrast to high-rate clarification with plate settlers being considered for the Proposed Project. Ballasted clarification also relies on gravity settling and inclined plates or tubes but includes the use of microsand as a ballast (with the assistance of polymer to promote adherence of floc to the microsand) to accelerate settling rates and produce clarified water. Solids (also called water treatment residuals) and microsand are collected at the bottom of a settling tank and the sand-solids mixture is then pumped to a hydrocyclone to separate the solids from the higher density microsand. The separated microsand is recirculated from the bottom of the hydrocyclone and re-injected back to the ballasted clarification process to be reused as a ballasting agent. At the GHWTP, downstream processes such as ozone, biological filtration, future GAC, or a similar technology (and possibly UV in the future) would follow the pretreatment process, similar to the Proposed Project.

The following distinctions between ballasted clarification (Alternative 2) and high-rate clarification with plate settlers (Proposed Project) were identified by the City during the review of these pretreatment technologies:
 Footprint. Ballasted clarification treatment facility would have a much smaller footprint than a treatment facility using high-rate clarification with plate settlers, as it requires a short detention time.  Energy Use. Ballasted clarification requires 3% less power usage than plate settlers.  Chemical Use. Ballasted clarification requires a much higher overall consumption of chemicals and requires microsand, which is not required for high-rate clarification with plate settlers.  Construction and Operational Noise Generation. Construction noise would be somewhat greater with the longer construction schedule (see below). While both technologies have above-ground motors that will contribute to the ambient noise environment, ballasted clarification requires hydrocyclones/sprayers in the clarification process, which are exposed to the environment and will produce more long-term operation noise than the plate settlers process. The noise can be partially mitigated with enclosures if desired; however, this would result in one more area requiring maintenance.  Operational Traffic. Given that ballasted clarification requires a much higher overall consumption of chemicals and requires microsand, it would also generate more truck trips and vehicle miles traveled related to chemical deliveries.
3 Pretreatment refers to the processes of coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation and is designed to clarify water and remove turbidity and total organic carbon.

29.74 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 38
 Construction Traffic. The plate settlers process of the Proposed Project reuses more of the existing pretreatment area at the GHWTP, resulting in reduced levels of demolition and imported backfill. This translates to reduced construction waste and fewer material deliveries (i.e., reduced construction truck traffic). Therefore, ballasted clarification would have greater construction waste and material deliveries (i.e., greater construction truck traffic).
 Water Quality and Technical Performance. Ballasted clarification did not perform as well as high-rate clarification with plate settlers in terms of most water quality and technical performance parameters considered.  Operations and Maintenance. Ballasted clarification did not perform as well as high-rate clarification with plate settlers in terms of operations and maintenance.
 Construction. Ballasted clarification would require a longer overall construction schedule and would involve greater complexity of operations during construction.
 Cost. Ballasted clarification did not perform as well as high-rate clarification with plate settlers in terms of cost with the total life cycle cost for ballasted clarification being higher than for high-rate clarification with plate settlers.

Alternative 2 would include other elements of the Proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 2 would include the potential repair or replacement of the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River, potential replacement of the existing sewer line in Ocean Street Extension, and traffic calming measures along Graham Hill Road near the entrance to the GHWTP. Alternative 2 would also use the Mt. Hermon Road staging area and the Ocean Street Extension staging area during construction. Additionally, the City’s standard construction practices and the applicable avoidance and minimization measures from the City’s Low Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (LEHCP) and associated Incidental Take Permit under Section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act would apply to Alternative 2. (Final EIR pp. 6-12 – 6-13.)
Environmental Effects. Under Alternative 2, the potentially significant impact related to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would be reduced (Impact BIO-1), as the footprint of the facility at the GHWTP would be smaller resulting in less disturbance. Potentially significant impact related to Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle (Impact BIO-1) and related to protected wetlands or waters (Impact BIO-3) would be the same as with the Proposed Project, as Alternative 2 would also include the potential to repair or replace the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River. Under Alternative 2, the potentially significant impact related to paleontological resources would also be somewhat reduced given the smaller footprint of the facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site (Impact GEO-5). The potentially significant impact related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with hazardous building materials and impacted soils (Impact HAZ-1) would be somewhat reduced impacts under Alternative 2 given the smaller footprint of the GHWTP facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site. Alternative 2 would require the same mitigation measures identified as the Proposed Project to reduce the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources (special-status species and wetlands/waters) (MM BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5), paleontological resources (MM GEO-1), and hazards materials (MM HAZ-1 and HAZ-2) to less-than-significant levels.

Alternative 2 would have somewhat increased impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise from operations (Impact NOI-1) compared to the Proposed Project. While Alternative 2 would have a smaller facility footprint, this alternative with ballasted clarification requires hydrocyclones/sprayers in the clarification process, which are exposed to the environment and would produce more long-term operation noise than the plate settlers process of the Proposed Project. This impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce the impact to less than significant. While the GHWTP facility footprint would be smaller for Alternative 2, the construction period would be longer and more complex, resulting in an overall increase in temporary noise impacts (Impact NOI29.75 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 39
2) compared to the Proposed Project. The impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI-2 to reduce the impact, but similar to the Proposed Project, both the project and cumulative construction noise impact (Impact NOI-2 and Impact NOI-4) would be significant and unavoidable. Alternative 2 impacts related to construction vibration and groundborne noise (Impact NOI-3) would also be somewhat increased compared to the Proposed Project due to the longer construction period but would continue to be less than significant. Overall, the impacts of Alternative 2 related to operational, construction, and cumulative noise would be greater compared to the Proposed Project.

The impact of Alternative 2 related to water supply would also be beneficial (Impact UTL-2), similar to the Proposed Project, as this alternative would also allow for treating increased volumes of wet season surface water for ASR and water transfers and exchanges. Most less-than-significant impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar or reduced compared to the Proposed Project, given the smaller facility footprint. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not result in any new potentially significant impacts, compared to the Proposed Project. While Alternative 2 construction and operational transportation impacts would be somewhat greater than the Proposed Project, as it would have greater construction and operational traffic, the impacts would remain less than significant. (Final EIR pp. 6-13 - 6-15).

Finding. The City Council rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts in some categories and reduced impacts in other categories, compared to the Proposed Project. In particular, Alternative 2 would increase the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative construction noise impacts (Impact NOI-2 and Impact NOI-4), as compared to the Proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not fully meet the identified project objectives. While Alternative 2 would provide an adaptable water treatment facility (Objective #1), it would only partially meet objectives related to providing: treatment facilities and equipment that reliably and efficiently produce potable water in full compliance with local, state, and federal regulations over the range of source water quality conditions expected of the City’s source waters (e.g., wet season water, Loch Lomond Reservoir water with higher levels of naturally occurring TOC) (Objective #2) and treatment facilities and equipment that reliably meet the City’s updated treatment goals, providing for efficient operations and maintenance, and that can adapt to future regulations, source water quality, and flow conditions (Objectives #3 and #4). This is because this alternative would not perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of most of the water quality and technical performance parameters considered.

Alternative 2 would support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy (Objective #5), as it would benefit water supply reliability by treating increased volumes of wet season surface water for ASR and water transfers and exchanges. Additionally, Alternative 2 would extend the useful life of the GHWTP as comprehensive upgrades would be implemented (Objective #6). The objective to provide a cost-effective project and complete construction at or below the Proposed Project budget (Objective #7), would be partially met with Alternative 2, as this alternative would be more expensive to construct and operate.

Alternative 2 would partially meet Objective #8, which applies the HiAP approach and equity practices to City decision-making, as this alternative would facilitate securing reliable water supplies, consider future impacts of climate change and natural hazards to water service reliability, and meet current and foreseeable drinking water standards; however, as indicated above, this alternative would not perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of most of the water quality and technical performance parameters considered. Objective #9 regarding the construction process would be partially met by Alternative 2, as it would require a longer overall construction schedule and would involve greater complexity of operations during construction. Additionally, Alternative 2 would meet the objectives related to providing a water treatment facility that meets current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes (Objective #10). (Final EIR p. 6-15 – 6-16).

29.76 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 40
In the City Council’s policy judgment, Alternative 2 is not feasible due to increased costs, inability to fully meet project objectives, and potentially greater environmental impacts resulting from Alternative 2 including greater significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts. Therefore, the City Council finds that, when taking into account the economic and environmental factors considered for this alternative, Alternative 2 is not feasible.

8.1.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Capacity Alternative
Alternative 3 involves a comprehensive upgrade of the GHWTP but with a smaller capacity. The capacity of the GHWTP with Alternative 3 would be reduced to 15 mgd, as compared to 18.2 mgd with the Proposed Project. This reduced capacity would be adequately served by the existing reclaimed water clarifiers (lamella clarifiers) and would not require expansion of the lamella clarifiers from two to four, as would be required with the Proposed Project. The capacity to meet the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy would be reduced at times when the treatment plant is experiencing peak winter/spring water demand and would not fully meet the identified water supply capacity of the Proposed Project.

The following distinctions between Alternative 3 and the Proposed Project were identified:
 Footprint. Alternative 3 would have a smaller footprint than the Proposed Project given the reduced capacity under this alternative.
 Energy Use. Alternative 3 would use less energy than the Proposed Project given the reduced capacity under this alternative.
 Chemical Use. Alternative 3 would use less chemicals than the Proposed Project given the reduced capacity under this alternative.
 Construction and Operational Noise Generation. Construction and operational noise would be somewhat reduced with Alternative 3 due to the reduced capacity and shorter construction period (see below).  Construction and Operational Traffic. Given that Alternative 3 would have a shorter construction period and would have a smaller capacity and use less chemicals during operations, it would have reduced construction and operational truck trips and vehicle miles traveled.  Water Quality and Technical Performance. Alternative 3 would perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of most water quality and technical performance parameters considered, as it would involve the same pretreatment and treatment technologies as the Proposed Project.  Operations and Maintenance. Alternative 3 would perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of operations and maintenance, as it would involve the same pretreatment and treatment technologies as the Proposed Project.
 Construction. Alternative 3 would require a shorter construction schedule given the reduced capacity under this alternative.
 Cost. Alternative 3 would have a reduced total life cycle cost compared to the Proposed Project given the reduced capacity and shorter construction period under this alternative. However, it may not be as cost-effective in the long-term as the smaller capacity plant may not meet the long-term needs of the City.

Alternative 3 would include other elements of the Proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would include the potential repair or replacement of the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River, potential replacement of the existing sewer line in Ocean Street Extension, and traffic calming measures along Graham Hill Road near the entrance to the GHWTP. Alternative 3 would also use the Mt. Hermon Road staging area and the Ocean Street Extension staging area during construction. Additionally, the City’s standard construction practices and the

29.77 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 41
applicable avoidance and minimization measures from the City’s LEHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit under Section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act would apply to Alternative 3. (Final EIR pp. 6-16 – 6-17.) Environmental Effects. Under Alternative 3, the potentially significant impact related to related to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would be reduced (Impact BIO-1), as the footprint of the facility at the GHWTP would be smaller resulting in less disturbance. Potentially significant impacts related to Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle (Impact BIO-1) and related to protected wetlands or waters (Impact BIO-3) would be the same as with the Proposed Project, as Alternative 3 would also include the potential to repair or replace the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River. Under Alternative 3, the potentially significant impact related to paleontological resources would also be somewhat reduced given the smaller footprint of the facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site (Impact GEO-5). The potentially significant impact related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with hazardous building materials and impacted soils (Impact HAZ-1) would be somewhat reduced impacts under Alternative 3 given the smaller footprint of the GHWTP facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site. Alternative 3 would require the same mitigation measures identified as the Proposed Project to reduce the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources (special-status species and wetlands/waters) (MM BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5), paleontological resources (MM GEO-1), and hazards materials (MM HAZ-1 and HAZ-2) to less-than-significant levels.

Alternative 3 would have somewhat reduced impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise from operations (Impact NOI-1) due to the reduced capacity and footprint of the facility compared to the Proposed Project.

The impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would also have somewhat reduced construction noise impacts compared to the Proposed Project due to the smaller facility footprint and shorter construction period. This impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI 2 to reduce the impact, but similar to the Proposed Project, both the project and cumulative construction noise impact (Impact NOI-2 and Impact NOI-4) would be significant and unavoidable.

Overall, impacts of Alternative 3 related to operational, construction, and cumulative noise would be lesser compared to the Proposed Project.

The impact of Alternative 3 related to water supply would also be beneficial (Impact UTL-1), similar to the Proposed Project, as this alternative would also allow for treating increased volumes of wet season surface water for ASR and water transfers and exchanges; however, the capacity of this alternative to meet water supply augmentation needs would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. All less-than-significant impacts that would result from construction of the Proposed Project are expected to be somewhat reduced under Alternative 3 due to the smaller footprint and capacity of the GHWTP facility.

Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts in all categories, compared to the Proposed Project, but would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative construction noise impact. (Final EIR pp. 6-17 – 6-19).

Finding. The City Council rejects Alternative 3 as infeasible; despite the fact that it would reduce but not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project: Impact NOI-2, which involves temporary construction-related noise and Impact NOI-4, which involves cumulative construction noise. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not fully meet the identified project objectives. Alternative 3 would provide: an adaptable water treatment facility (Objective #1), treatment facilities and equipment that reliably and efficiently produce potable water in full compliance with local, state, and federal regulations over the range of source water quality conditions expected of the City’s source waters (Objective #2), and treatment facilities and equipment that reliably meet the

29.78 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 42
City’s updated treatment goals, provide for efficient operations and maintenance, and that can adapt to future regulations, source water quality, and flow conditions (Objectives #3 and #4), as this alternative includes the same pretreatment and treatment technologies as the Proposed Project.

Alternative 3 would partially support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy (Objective #5), as it would benefit water supply reliability by treating increased volumes of wet season surface water for ASR and water transfers and exchanges but not to the same extent as the Proposed Project because it would not be capable of producing as much treated water. Alternative 3 would partially meet the objective to provide a cost-effective project and complete construction at or below the Proposed Project budget (Objective #7), as this alternative would be less expensive to construct and operate but may not be as cost effective in the long term as the smaller capacity plant may not meet the long-term needs of the City.

Alternative 3 would extend the useful life of the GHWTP as comprehensive upgrades would be implemented (Objective #6). It would meet Objective #8, which applies the HiAP approach and equity practices to City decision making, as this alternative would facilitate securing reliable water supplies, consider future impacts of climate change and natural hazards to water service reliability, and meet current and foreseeable drinking water standards.

Objective #9 regarding the construction process would be met by Alternative 3, as it would require a shorter overall construction schedule and therefore would have fewer operational challenges during construction. Additionally, Alternative 3 would meet the objectives related to providing a water treatment facility that meets current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes (Objective #10). (Final EIR p. 6-19).

In the City Council’s policy judgment, Alternative 3 is not feasible due to long-term cost effectiveness, inability to fully meet project objectives, and inability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the City Council finds that, when taking into account the economic and environmental factors considered for this alternative, Alternative 3 is not feasible.

8.1.4 Alternative 4: No Solids Dewatering Alternative
Alternative 4 involves a comprehensive upgrade of the GHWTP with the same capacity as the Proposed Project but with fewer components. Specifically, Alternative 4 would not install the new approximately 2,100-square foot Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids dewatering equipment including centrifuge, drive-through unloading operation and equipment, thickened solids equalization tank, and dewatering feed pump station. Given that the thickened solids equalization tank would be repurposed from an existing concrete bulk storage tank for the Proposed Project, this tank would either be retained, repurposed, abandoned in place, or demolished, with Alternative 4.

This alternative would retain the sewer discharge improvements of the Proposed Project to support sending treatment residuals to the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility. The sewer discharge improvements involve either discharge to the Santa Cruz County (County) sewer line in Graham Hill Road to connect to the County’s line, and/or discharge to a City sewer line in Ocean Street Extension. Alternative 4 assumes that the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) would be able to receive and process all the treatment residuals, which may not be feasible under all circumstances.

For Alternative 4 to be feasible, the GHWTP effluent must meet the Santa Cruz WWTF’s current and future local limits for both the discharge point at the existing GHWTP sewer lateral and at the proposed new discharge point to the County sewer line in Graham Hill Road. Local limits are applicable to all connections to the sanitary sewer

29.79 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 43
system and address the WWTF’s need to satisfy the wastewater treatment system effluent limits established by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the protection of receiving water quality and may change and become more stringent over time. Specifically, the GHWTP discharges would need to comply with Santa Cruz Municipal Code 16.08.110 and the wastewater discharge permit for GHWTP regarding limitations on wastewater discharges and the maximum concentrations of pollutants allowable in wastewater discharges to the wastewater treatment system. Additionally, there would need to be no capacity or infrastructure limitations in the City’s sewer system that would receive GHWTP effluent from either discharge options presented above: from the County sewer line in Graham Hill Road or from the City sewer line in Ocean Street Extension.

The following distinctions between Alternative 4 and the Proposed Project were identified:
 Footprint. Alternative 4 would have a smaller footprint than the Proposed Project given the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment under this alternative.  Energy Use. Alternative 4 would use less energy than the Proposed Project given the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment under this alternative.  Chemical Use. Alternative 4 would use less chemicals than the Proposed Project given the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment and processes under this alternative.  Construction and Operational Noise Generation. Construction and operational noise would be reduced with Alternative 4 due to the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment and shorter construction period (see below).
 Construction and Operational Traffic. Given that Alternative 4 would have a shorter construction period and would use less chemicals during operations, it would have reduced construction and operational truck trips and vehicle miles traveled.
 Water Quality and Technical Performance. Alternative 4 would perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of most water quality and technical performance parameters considered, as it would involve the same pretreatment and treatment technologies as the Proposed Project.  Operations and Maintenance. Alternative 4 would perform as well as the Proposed Project in terms of operations and maintenance. However, the need for operations and maintenance activities related to the Solids Dewatering Building and related solids handling process would be reduced with this alternative.  Construction. Alternative 4 would require a shorter construction schedule given the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment under this alternative.  Cost. Alternative 4 would have a reduce total life cycle cost compared to the Proposed Project given the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and associated solids handling equipment and shorter construction period under this alternative.

Alternative 4 would include other elements of the Proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 4 would include the potential repair or replacement of the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River, potential replacement of the existing sewer line in Ocean Street Extension, and traffic calming measures along Graham Hill Road near the entrance to the GHWTP. Alternative 4 would also use the Mt. Hermon Road staging area and the Ocean Street Extension staging area during construction. Additionally, the City’s standard construction practices and the applicable avoidance and minimization measures from the City’s LEHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit under Section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act would apply to Alternative 4.

Environmental Effects. Under Alternative 4, the potentially significant impact related to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat would be reduced (Impact BIO-1), as the footprint of the facility at the GHWTP would be smaller resulting in less disturbance. Potentially significant impacts related to Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant

29.80 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 44
salamander, and western pond turtle (Impact BIO-1) and related to protected wetlands or waters (Impact BIO-3) would be the same as with the Proposed Project, as Alternative 4 would also include the potential to repair or replace the storm drain line down to the San Lorenzo River. Under Alternative 4, the potentially significant impact related to paleontological resources would also be somewhat reduced given the smaller footprint of the facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site (Impact GEO-5). The potentially significant impact related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with hazardous building materials and impacted soils (Impact HAZ-1) would be somewhat reduced impacts under Alternative 4 given the smaller footprint of the facility and the reduced ground disturbance at the site. Alternative 4 would require the same mitigation measures identified as the Proposed Project to reduce the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources (special-status species and wetlands/waters) (MM BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5), paleontological resources (MM GEO-1), and hazards materials (MM HAZ-1 and HAZ-2) to less-than-significant levels.

Alternative 4 would have reduced impacts compared to the Proposed Project related to a permanent increase in ambient noise from operations (Impact NOI-1) due to the smaller footprint of the facility and the elimination of the Solids Dewatering Building and related solids handling processes. The impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI-1 to reduce the impact to less than significant. Additionally, Alternative 4 would also have somewhat reduced construction noise impacts compared to the Proposed Project due to the smaller facility footprint and shorter construction period. This impact would also require the implementation of MM NOI 2 to reduce the impact, but similar to the Proposed Project, both the project and cumulative construction noise impact (Impact NOI-2 and Impact NOI-4) would be significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts of Alternative 4 related to operational, construction, and cumulative noise would be lesser compared to the Proposed Project. (Final EIR p. 6- 22).

The impact of Alternative 4 related to water supply would be equally beneficial (Impact UTL-1), as this alternative would also allow for treating increased volumes of wet season surface water for ASR and water transfers and exchanges at the same capacity as the Proposed Project. All less-than-significant impacts that would result from construction of the Proposed Project are expected to be somewhat reduced under Alternative 4 due to the smaller footprint and capacity of the GHWTP facility. (Final EIR pp. 6-21 – 6-23).

Overall, Alternative 4 would result in reduced impacts in all categories, compared to the Proposed Project, but would not avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and operational noise that require mitigation, and would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative construction noise impacts. Alternative 4 would reduce impacts of the Proposed Project to a greater extent than would Alternative 3. However, neither Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 would avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative construction noise impact.

While Alternative 4 would be environmentally superior to the Proposed Project it may also result in transferring some impacts of the Proposed Project to the WWTF, which may offset some of the environmental benefits of Alternative 4. For example, the marginally less operational energy use associated with Alternative 4, would result in increased energy use at the WWTF to process the Proposed Project’s solids. However, as described in the Findings below, Alternative 4 would not be feasible, as this alternative may not be able to feasibly meet both current and potential future limits on wastewater discharges and the maximum concentrations of pollutants allowable in wastewater discharges to the wastewater treatment system, and would not address capacity or infrastructure limitations in the City’s sewer system that would receive GHWTP effluent. (Final EIR p. 6-24.)

29.81 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 45
Finding. The City Council rejects Alternative 4 as infeasible; despite the fact that it would reduce but not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project: Impact NOI-2, which involves temporary construction-related noise and Impact NOI-4, which involves cumulative construction noise. While Alternative 4 would meet some of the identified project objectives, the City Council has determined that the alternative is infeasible, as (1) it is reasonable to anticipate that it will not be able to feasibly meet potential future limits on wastewater discharges and the maximum concentrations of pollutants allowable in wastewater discharges to the wastewater treatment system, and (2) it is reasonable to anticipate that there will be capacity or infrastructure limitations in the City’s sewer system that would receive GHWTP effluent. Based on these two factors there would be unacceptable risk in relying on this alternative and hence the alternative is determined to be infeasible.

Additionally, Alternative 4 would not meet Objectives #3 and #4 to provide flexibility for installation of additional treatment equipment, if warranted, to adapt to future regulations, source water quality and flow conditions, as it would not provide for the inclusion of the Solids Dewatering Building and related dewatering processes. Even if the Solids Dewatering Building and related dewatering processes were not constructed immediately, these facilities would be critical for providing for adequate processing of solids, if needed, to meet potential future limits on wastewater discharges and the maximum concentrations of pollutants allowable in wastewater discharges to the wastewater treatment system, and to address any capacity or infrastructure limitations in the City’s sewer system that would receive GHWTP effluent.

In the City Council’s policy judgment, this alternative is not feasible due to the inability to fully meet project objectives, the inability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts of the Proposed Project, and due to technical infeasibility related to meeting potential future limits on wastewater discharges and the maximum concentrations of pollutants allowable in wastewater discharges and due to capacity or infrastructure limitations in the City’s sewer system that would receive GHWTP effluent, which are unacceptable risks. Therefore, the City Council finds that, when taking into account the technological and environmental factors considered for this alternative, Alternative 4 is not feasible.

29.82 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 46
9 Statement of Overriding Considerations
As set forth in the preceding sections, the Santa Cruz City Council’s approval of the Proposed Project will result in significant and adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures; and there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen all of these impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, chooses to approve the Proposed Project because, in the Council’s considered judgment, the economic, social, environmental, and other benefits that the Project will render the significant effects acceptable.

9.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As described above in Section 3, 7.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of these findings, the Proposed Project will result in the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with temporary construction noise impacts, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
 Impact NOI-2: Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards. The Proposed Project would result in substantial noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. [Note: The significant unavoidable impact relates only to temporary project construction noise.]  Impact NOI-4: Cumulative Noise and Vibration Impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, construction vibration would not result in significant cumulative impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would also not result in a significant cumulative impact related to noise. [Note: The significant unavoidable impact relates only to cumulative construction noise.] Notably, these impacts are temporary; the effects of Impact NOI-2 would result from construction occurring between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM. The cumulative effects of Impact NOI-4 may occur if the construction period for the Newell Creek Pipeline (NCP) Project overlaps with construction of the Proposed Project; this may potentially cause a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact to the same sensitive receptors evaluated for the Proposed Project

9.2 Overriding Considerations
In the City Council’s judgment, the Proposed Project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects due to temporary construction-related noise. The following statement identifies the specific reasons why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the Proposed Project as approved outweigh these unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Proposed Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings.

29.83 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 47

1. The Proposed Project will improve the ability to treat wet season water to facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy and SOWF Policy.

The Proposed Project will support the implementation of the City’s Water Supply Augmentation Strategy related to passive recharge of regional aquifers via water transfers and exchanges and active recharge of regional aquifers via aquifer storage and recovery), and the SOWF Policy in order to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable and environmentally sustainable water supply. Specifically, the Proposed Project will support conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies to improve water supply. In general, this involves the storage of water in local aquifers or delivery to regional water agencies during times when water is available, facilitating the return of stored water from the aquifer to the City during droughts or other shortages. To support passive and active recharge strategies, the Proposed Project will be able to treat increased volumes of winter or wet season surface water that have additional treatment requirements, due to higher turbidity and more challenging water quality conditions. As such, the Proposed Project has a nexus with other planned future capital improvement efforts throughout the water system, and a reliable and flexible treatment plant is critical for their successful implementation.

2. The Proposed Project will increase the City’s treatment reliability; and improve the ability to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms and drought conditions.

Across the Country underinvestment in critical infrastructure has resulted in aging and inadequate facilities, that are underprepared to respond to the stressors posed by a changing climate and new regulations. The Proposed Project will improve the treatment process capability at GHWTP, building in flexibility and adaptability to address reasonably anticipated future conditions. The GHWTP faces a number of challenges due to the age of the City’s facility, existing water quality, water quality changes due to anticipated climate change impacts, the nature of the City’s water distribution network, future expanded treatment of wet season surface water, and anticipated pending and future regulatory changes. While water treated at the GHWTP continues to meet treatment technique requirements and meet maximum contaminant levels, the City has identified several source water vulnerabilities. Treatment vulnerabilities include potential future regulations of contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) and contaminants for which EPA has collected information under several Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule cycles, and requirements from the City’s water supply permit. Specific treatment challenges include: disinfection byproducts control; taste and odor control; treatment of microbial contaminants, CECs, and turbidity; and proper disposal of solids. The Proposed Project will also improve the ability of the GHWTP to treat variable and degraded source water quality conditions, such as those associated with post-wildfire, severe storms and drought conditions.

3. The Proposed Project will provide for a modernized water treatment plant that meets contemporary seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements.

The Proposed Project will address aging and inadequate facilities at the GHWTP, that have not been substantially improved since the 1980’s and need improvement. While modest improvements have been made over the life of the facility, several of the structures and most of the underground infrastructure at the GHWTP are of original construction (1960) and as such are aging and in need of rehabilitation or replacement.

The Proposed Project will meet contemporary seismic, building, electrical, and fire code requirements through rehabilitation of existing aging infrastructure, where feasible, or through construction of new facilities.

29.84 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 48

4. The Proposed Project will help implement the City’s General Plan 2030 objectives and policies regarding the City’s water system.

The Proposed Project will upgrade aging infrastructure and help maintain and improve the integrity of the City’s water system as set forth in the City’s General Plan 2030 Objective CC3.4. In doing so, the Proposed Project would modernize the City’s primary water treatment plant, as set forth in General Plan Policy CC3.4.2.

29.85 Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations JULY 2024 49

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.86 Exhibit B
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-1
8 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (MMRP) to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented.

This MMRP for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP) Facility Improvements Project (Proposed Project) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097). This is a new chapter that was not included in the Draft EIR. This MMRP is intended to be used by City of Santa Cruz Water Department staff, its contractors and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project construction and implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMRP were developed during the preparation of the EIR prepared for the Proposed Project. A master copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the City of Santa Cruz Water Department’s office and shall be available for viewing upon request.

The EIR for the Proposed Project presents a detailed set of mitigation measures required for implementation. As noted above, the intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP includes all mitigation measures identified in the EIR and, for each measure, the party responsible for implementation and implementation timing (see Table 8-1). The MMRP also includes the City’s standard construction practices, which are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and would be implemented by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department and its contractors during project operations and construction activities.

29.87 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-2
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Species Survey and Monitoring (applies only to the Utility Corridor, if stormwater improvements are implemented). A pre-construction survey for Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to the initiation of ground disturbance in suitable habitat for these species (i.e., damp upland areas near/adjacent to San Lorenzo River). The survey area shall include all suitable habitat within the work areas, plus a 50-foot buffer.

Following the survey, the contractor, under the direction of a qualified biologist, shall install wildlife exclusion fencing along the boundary of the work area containing suitable habitat to prevent special-status amphibians and reptiles from entering the work area. The wildlife exclusion fencing must be trenched into the soil at least 4 inches in depth, with the soil compacted against both sides of the fence for its entire length and must have intermittent exit points. Turnarounds shall be installed at access points to direct amphibians and reptiles away from gaps in the fencing.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct survey.

Contractor responsible
for installation of wildlife
exclusion fencing, under
the direction of the
qualified biologist.

Pre-construction survey: 48
hours prior to initial ground
disturbing activities.

MM BIO-2: Biological Construction Monitoring (applies to entire project site and staging areas). A qualified biologist shall monitor vegetation removal and initial ground disturbing activities during all work hours for off-pavement work where special-status wildlife species are likely to occur. The frequency and characteristics of monitoring will be determined by the qualified biologist during the implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-4. The monitor shall check any wildlife exclusion fencing installed at the utility corridor along the San Lorenzo River and any avoidance buffers for nesting birds once a week and verify when birds have fledged if found present before construction. The biologist shall have stop-work authority in the event that a listed species is found within the active construction footprint. During construction, the biological monitor shall keep a daily observation log and a photo log to describe monitoring activities, remedial actions, non-compliance, and other issues and actions taken. These logs shall be kept on-site and made available for inspection by agency personnel.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct construction
monitoring.

Conduct construction
monitoring: During
construction.

MM BIO-3: Species Relocation (applies to entire project site and staging areas). If specialstatus wildlife species are observed within the construction area prior to or during construction activities, the biologist shall capture and relocate such individuals out of the area affected by construction activities to nearby habitat that has equivalent value to support the species. The biologist shall identify suitable habitats as potential release sites prior to start of construction activities. If the special-status species is a federally or state-listed as City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct surveys, identify
potential release sites,
monitor project activities,
relocate individuals, and
Surveys and identification
of potential release sites:

Prior to construction.

29.88 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-3
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
threatened or endangered, the biologist shall notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, prior to capture and relocation to obtain approval, if not already covered by an existing incidental take permit.
notify noted resource
agencies if a specialstatus species is
identified prior to
relocation.

Monitoring and species
relocation: During
construction.

MM BIO-4: Surveys for San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat (applies to entire project site and staging areas). A pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat middens shall be conducted within 14 days of the start of construction. During the survey, a qualified biologist shall identify any middens in the work area and contiguous habitat within 10 feet and determine if they are active using peer-accepted methods (e.g., mimicking woodrat “tail rattle” and listening for a response). If the biologist determines that the middens are unoccupied, no further action is required. If the biologist determines that the middens are occupied or potentially occupied and that project activities could result in woodrat mortality, the following measures shall be implemented:

A. The contractor, under direction of the biologist, shall install a 10-foot-radius exclusion zone around each midden using pin flags, orange safety cones, wood lathe, or similar material in which no activity would occur until project construction is complete.

B. If middens cannot be avoided by this buffer, the contractor, under direction of the biologist, shall dismantle the middens by hand or using small machinery and move the woody materials to similar habitat outside the project footprint. The midden dismantling activities shall only occur in the early morning during the non-breeding season (October to February), however, so that any adults or non-dependent young can escape into adjacent habitat during the dismantling activity.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct survey.

Contractor responsible
for installation exclusion
zone and proper midden
dismantling activities,
under the direction of the
qualified biologist.

Pre-construction survey: 14
days prior to initiation of
construction activities.

Midden dismantling
activities, if required, to
occur in early mornings
during the non-breeding
season (October to
February)
MM BIO-5: Aquatic Resource Delineation and Mitigation (applies only to the Utility Corridor, if stormwater improvements are implemented). To clarify the extent of state and federally protected wetlands and waters regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife within the utility corridor area along the San Lorenzo River, a qualified aquatic resource delineator shall conduct a formal jurisdictional delineation within the impact area. The results of the delineation would be used to calculate temporary and permanent impacts for reporting to the above agencies in respective permitting applications and determine the appropriate amount of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. All jurisdictional aquatic resources not directly affected by construction activities shall be avoided and protected by establishing staking, flagging or City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
perform jurisdictional
delineation.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
prepare project-specific
mitigation plan.

City responsible for
implementing plan.

Conduct delineation: Prior
to construction.

Plan preparation: Prior to
construction.

Plan implementation: After
completion of construction
activities, or as specified in
the plan.

29.89 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-4
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
fencing between the identified construction areas and aquatic resources to be avoided/preserved.

For unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, a project-specific mitigation plan shall be developed, approved by the above agencies, as appropriate, through their respective regulatory permitting processes, and implemented. The mitigation plan shall specify the criteria and standards by which the mitigation will compensate for impacts of the Proposed Project and include discussion of the following:

A. The mitigation objectives and type and amount of mitigation to be implemented (in-kind mitigation at a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1);
B. The location of the proposed mitigation site(s) (within the San Lorenzo River watershed, if possible);
C. The methods to be employed for mitigation implementation (jurisdictional aquatic resource establishment, re-establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation); D. Success criteria and a monitoring program to ensure mitigation success; and E. Adaptive management and remedial measures in the event that performance stands are not achieved.

Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring (applies to the GHWTP Parcel and the Alternate Sanitary Sewer Lateral Replacement Area). Prior to commencement of any ground disturbance below artificial fill and Holocene alluvial or colluvial deposits with the potential to impact Pleistocene terrace deposits or the Santa Margarita Formation sandstone within the project site, the City shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Proposed Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010 or most current version) guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; paleontological monitoring as required based on geological mapping, construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment; paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils); reporting; and collections management. A qualified paleontologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting and a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during ground-disturbing activities below fill and Holocene alluvial and/or colluvial City responsible for hiring
qualified paleontologist
to prepare the PRIMP
and conduct worker
training and monitoring.

Identifying potential
paleontological resources:

Prior to construction.

PRIMP preparation and
worker training: Prior to
site grading or excavation.

Monitoring: During grading
and ground disturbance as
specified in the PRIMP.

29.90 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-5
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
deposits. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer or an appropriately sized buffer as determined by the qualified paleontologist.

Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Evaluation and Treatment of Concrete Mortar (Applies to Existing Storm Drain Line within the Utility Corridor). Prior to removal or modification of the existing onsite steel stormwater piping, the concrete mortar will be evaluated for the presence of asbestos. The evaluation will include a survey of the pipeline and appurtenances for the potential presence of asbestos in concrete mortar; this survey will be conducted by a California-licensed asbestos contractor. If necessary, bulk samples will be collected of suspect material for further analysis at a California-licensed analytical laboratory. Any concrete mortar that contain asbestos above applicable regulatory levels will be either be properly abated in accordance with rules and regulations applicable for asbestos removal and disposal, or maintained in place with protections that limit potential exposure to asbestos piping. Asbestos containing materials are defined under federal and state regulations as 1.0% by volume.

City responsible for hiring
a qualified asbestos
contractor to evaluate
concrete mortar.

City’s contractor
responsible for abating or
maintaining material in
accordance with rules
and regulations.

Prior to removal or
modification of existing
onsite stormwater piping.

MM HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan (Applies to the GHWTP Parcel). A soil management plan (SMP) will be prepared and implemented for management of arsenic-impacted soils that are encountered during construction and excavation activities of the Proposed Project. The SMP will outline soil handling, testing, and disposal requirements, and will follow recommendations outlined in the Contaminated Soils and Groundwater Technical Memorandum. The SMP will also include health and safety procedures for onsite workers, transportation requirements, dust control techniques, and monitoring and reporting requirements. The SMP and subsequent soil removal work will be overseen by an environmental remediation professional with experience in contaminated soil removal and disposal. Records of removal and final disposition of soil, including but not limited to analytical reports, trucking logs, onsite monitoring and field logs, and dump receipts, will be maintained by the City. Soils that are not disturbed during construction and are located beneath buildings or asphalt are not required to be removed.

City responsible for
overseeing the
preparation of a SMP and
for overseeing the
implementation of
measures outlined in
that plan.

Prior to site grading or
excavation.

Noise and Vibration

29.91 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-6
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
MM NOI-1: Operational Mechanical and Process Noise (applies only to the GHWTP). The Proposed Project shall implement the following measures to minimize operational, mechanical and process noise levels through project site design; selection of low noise generating equipment; and use of silencers/mufflers, localized barriers, extended parapets, mechanical screens, and acoustical absorption, as outlined below. One or more of the following measures shall be incorporated into project site design, to yield aggregate Proposed Project operational noise levels that are consistent with quantified County absolute and relative thresholds (see Table 4.12-9), as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor:
 As consistent with manufacturer performance requirements or guidance, all operating mechanical equipment with the potential to contribute to the generation of excessive offsite noise exposure levels shall be fitted with intake and exhaust silencers, gas vent silencers, shrouds, or acoustical enclosures.
 To exploit interior-to-exterior sound transmission losses associated with a building exterior shell (and its inherent material assemblies and penetrations for access, natural lighting, and ventilation or exhaust), mechanical equipment shall be located within the associated building. Building penetrations such as fresh air intakes and exhausts shall be fitted with acoustical louvers.
 Noise generating equipment not located within a building or within adjacent service yards incorporating acoustical barriers shall be shielded from direct line-of-site to nearby noisesensitive uses through the use of localized noise barriers, rooftop parapets, sound rated mechanical screens or intervening structures.
 Mechanical equipment not located within a building or an acoustically rated enclosure capable of reducing exterior noise level exposures consistent with applicable thresholds, as specified above, shall be located at a sufficient distance from nearby noise-sensitive receptors, so that mechanical equipment would be reduced to be consistent with the applicable thresholds.

A noise level monitoring program shall be developed and implemented by the City to verify that noise levels produced by equipment associated with on-going operations of the facility achieve consistency with applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. The monitoring program shall be conducted initially after full operations are underway and subsequently, if noise complaints are received and directly attributable to the new equipment.

If monitored noise levels exceed the applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, potential additional treatments shall be implemented including but not limited to adding additional mass to building shells, installing acoustic absorption within a building, and/or City responsible for
inclusion of operational
noise requirements in
design and construction
specifications and
contracts.

City responsible for
implementing a noise
level monitoring program.

Include measure in design
and construction
specifications and
contracts: Prior to
construction.

Monitoring program: During
operation of the Proposed
Project.

29.92 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-7
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
installing enclosures around specific pieces of equipment, such that consistency with applicable threshold levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses is achieved.

MM NOI-2: Construction Noise (applies to the entire project site and staging areas). The Proposed Project shall implement the following measures related to construction noise:
 Restrict construction activities and use of equipment that have the potential to generate significant noise levels (e.g., use of a concrete saw, mounted impact hammer, jackhammer, rock drill, etc.) to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, unless specifically identified work outside these hours is authorized by the City’s Water Director as necessary to allow for safe access to a construction site, safe construction operations, efficient construction progress, and/or to account for prior construction delays outside of a contractor’s control (e.g., weather delays).
 Construction activities requiring operations to continue outside of the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM shall locate noise generating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors, and/or within an acoustically rated enclosure (meeting or exceeding Sound Transmission Class [STC] 27), shroud or temporary barrier as needed to yield construction noise exposure levels that are at or below either the 60 dBA nighttime (10:00 PM to 8:00 AM) or 75 dBA daytime (5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) County code standards at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors. Noisy construction equipment, such as temporary pumps that are not submerged, aboveground conveyor systems, concrete saws, and impact tools will likely require location within such an acoustically rated enclosure, shroud, or barrier to meet these above criteria. Impact tools in particular, shall have the working area/impact area shrouded or shielded whenever possible, with intake and exhaust ports on power equipment muffled or suppressed.
 Portable and stationary site support equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, and cement mixers) shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.  Construction equipment and vehicles shall be fitted with efficient, well-maintained mufflers that reduce equipment noise emission levels at the project site. Internalcombustion-powered equipment shall be equipped with properly operating noise suppression devices (e.g., mufflers, silencers, wraps) that meet or exceed the manufacturer’s specifications. Mufflers and noise suppressors shall be properly maintained and tuned to allow proper fit, function, and minimization of noise.  Construction equipment shall not be idled for extended periods of time (i.e., 5 minutes or longer).

City responsible for
inclusion of construction
noise requirements in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

Contractor responsible
for implementation
during construction.

Include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts: Prior to
construction.

Implementation of
measure: During
construction.

29.93 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-8
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
 In conjunction with the implementation of standard construction practice #17, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall manage complaints resulting from construction noise by instituting modifications to the construction operations, construction equipment or work plan to ensure consistency with the County Code standards that apply from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM, where complaints are verified and substantive. Recurring disturbances shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant retained by the City to provide for consistency with applicable standards.

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

1. Erosion Control. Implement and maintain effective erosion and sediment control measures at all times of the year. Measures may include:
a. Install silt fencing, fiber rolls or straw wattles, and/or rice straw bales on slopes and along limits of work/construction areas to break up and filter surface runoff. b. Utilize additional erosion control including native duff, jute netting, etc. c. Utilize additional sediment control including fencing, dams, barriers, berms, traps, and associated basins.
d. Cover of stockpiled spoils.
e. Install rolling dips and revegetation on temporary accessways. f. Physical stabilization/revegetation of disturbed or graded areas including staging areas, prioritizing the use of native species for revegetation where appropriate. g. Install sediment containment measures for all active and inactive stockpiles, spoil disposal sites, concrete wash sites, stabilization structures, and other debris areas, such as Visqueen plastic sheeting, fiber or straw wattles, gravel bags, and hydroseed.
h. Locate construction storage areas outside of any stream channel, and a minimum distance of 65 feet away from any jurisdictional aquatic resource. i. All erosion and sediment control materials shall avoid the use of plastic mesh. j. Prior to forecasted and following all rain events, all erosion and sediment control devices shall be inspected for their performance and repaired or replaced immediately if they are found to be deficient.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts and periodic
inspection.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

29.94 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-9
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

2. Restoration. Implement post-construction restoration on temporarily disturbed areas such as staging, new access routes, or work areas. Post-construction restoration may include:
a. De-compact soils if necessary.
b. Restore disturbed natural communities by replanting native species appropriate for the site, such as from native riparian, wetland, or upland communities. Planted material may include native seed mixes, pole cuttings, and/or container stock as appropriate.

City responsible for
restoration activities.

Upon completion of
construction.

3. Wind Erosion Control. Implement wind erosion control measures as necessary to prevent construction-related dust generation. Measures may include:
a. Water active construction areas to control fugitive dust. b. Apply hydroseed and/or non-toxic soil binders to exposed cut and fill areas after cut and fill operations.
c. Cover inactive storage piles.
d. Cover trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials off site. e. Install appropriately effective track-out capture methods at the construction site for all exiting vehicles.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

4. Trash Control. Implement housekeeping measures to manage trash and debris pollution. These measures may include:
a. Use covered trash containers.
b. Clean up trash from the work site daily and before an extended period of no construction activity, including weekends.
c. Ensure all trash and debris is removed from the work area at the end of construction activities.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

5. Containment of Work Area (Spill Prevention). Implement hazardous materials containment measures to prevent fuel, oil, or any other substances from polluting aquatic or terrestrial habitats. Measures may include:
a. Prepare a spill response plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

29.95 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-10
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
b. Inform all workers of the importance of preventing spills and the appropriate measures to take in the event of a spill.
c. Ensure emergency spill kits are available on site at all times. d. Locate refueling, maintenance, and staging a minimum distance of 65 feet away from any jurisdictional aquatic resource.
e. Store hazardous materials within an established containment area and store all gas, oil, or other substance that could be considered hazardous in water-tight containers within secondary containment.
f. Implement appropriate containment measures to minimize the potential for hazardous spills from heavy equipment such as external grease and oil or from leaking hydraulic fluid, fuel, or oil.
g. Check all equipment daily for leaks.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

6. Worker Training. Provide a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP), prior to the onset of any mobilization-construction activities within the project work area. All construction personnel shall take the in-person or video training prior to on-site work, and any additional personnel joining the work crew shall receive the same training before beginning work. All personnel shall sign a sign-in sheet showing that they received the training. A qualified person shall be available after the training to answer any questions the crew may have. At a minimum the training or presentation, by a qualified biologist, shall include:
a. Description of project boundaries.
b. General provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Code, federal and state Endangered Species Acts, local ordinances and code, and any permits covering the work area.
c. The necessity for adhering to the provision of these regulations. d. General measures for the protection of special-status species, including breeding birds and their nests.
e. Basic identification and importance of special-status species that may occur on or near the project site.
f. The special-status species habitat and how they may be encountered in the work area.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist or
trained designee to
conduct training.

Training: Prior to
construction and prior to
new work crews coming onto
the site.

29.96 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-11
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
g. Procedures to follow when they are encountered.

7. Construction Monitoring. Conduct pre-construction clearance surveys, construction monitoring, and delineate work areas as required by species-specific measures in the City’s Operations and Maintenance HCP, Anadromous Salmonid HCP, and LEHCP for MHJB for all sites covered by a respective HCP when there is potential for impact to subject species.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct construction
monitoring.

Conduct construction
monitoring: During
construction.

8. Vegetation Protection (Trees). To protect on-site vegetation, implement the following measures:
a. Minimize the potential for pathogen spread by sanitizing tools and equipment used in vegetation clearing including tree removal operations. b. If soil is collected on equipment, rinse equipment on site to remove soil-borne pathogens and prevent transport to new sites. Alternatively, debris can be cleaned from tools/equipment via brushing, sweeping, or blowing with compressed air. c. If importing vegetative material for restoration purposes, ensure that material that has been produced in conformance with the latest horticultural standards in pest and disease avoidance and sanitation.
d. Where applicable implement project specific tree protection recommendations from an ISA Certified Arborist or a Registered Professional Forester.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

9. Vegetation Protection (Riparian). Minimize impacts to riparian vegetation when working in or adjacent to an active stream channel by implementing avoidance and minimization measures. These measures may include:
a. Avoid disturbance to and limit pruning of existing vegetation whenever possible. b. Minimize removal of overstory trees that provide shade to the stream channel or banks through marking trees that are not to be removed. c. Trim vegetation using hand tools and maintain canopy, downed trees, and snags to the extent possible.
d. Limit management of vegetation that is stabilizing the stream banks to trimming and pruning.
e. Demarcate temporary access routes to limit extent of impacts. f. Restore impacted riparian vegetation with native species appropriate for the site.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

29.97 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-12
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

10. In-Channel Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Implement streambed and bank protection measures for construction activities that are in or adjacent to streams and drainages. These measures may include:
a. Avoid activities in any active flowing channels when possible. b. Time work during the low flow season (June–October) when possible, to avoid work in a wetted channel.
c. Utilize equipment or methods that do not require access in the channel. d. If work within a wetted channel cannot be avoided, isolate and temporarily bypass flowing water around work area before beginning work.
e. Select appropriate equipment to minimize disturbances such as tracked or wheeled vehicles depending on site conditions.
f. Use “floating” platforms to distribute the weight of heavy equipment during mobilization in saturated soils.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts and periodic
inspection.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

11. In-Channel Fish Species Protection. Decontaminate tools and equipment prior to entering waterways.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts, and periodic
inspections.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

12. In-Channel Dewatering Measures. Implement dewatering measures for projects that cannot avoid working in a flowing stream. Measures may include:
a. Isolate the work area from the stream by diverting the entire streamflow around or through the work area by a pipe or open channel.
b. The work area shall remain isolated from flowing water until any necessary erosion protection is in place.
c. Where feasible, techniques shall be used to allow stream flow by gravity. d. All diversions shall maintain ambient flows.
e. All water shall be discharged in a non-erosive manner using energy dissipators such as on:

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts and periodic
inspection during
implementation.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction when work in
flowing stream is
unavoidable.

Periodic inspection during
construction.

29.98 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-13
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
i. Gravel or vegetated bars.
ii. Haybales, plastic, concrete.
iii. In storm drains when equipped with filtering devices. f. All discharged water below the work area shall not be diminished or degraded by the diversion.
g. Dirt, dust, or potential discharge material in the work area will be contained and prevented from entering the flowing channel.
h. Removal of all foreign materials and temporary diversion structures such as, temporary fills, access ramps, diversion structures, or coffer dams shall be removed:
i. When the work is complete.
ii. As soon as reasonably possible, but no more than 72 hours after work is complete.
i. Normal flows shall be restored to the affected stream as soon as is feasible or safe after completion.
j. If water must be pumped around the work area, as gravity flow is not feasible:
i. Pumps and hoses shall be screened to prevent vertebrate intake. ii. Sumps or basins may be used where appropriate to collect water (e.g., in channel with low flows).
k. If a bypass diversion will be open channel design, the berm confining the channel may be constructed of material from the channel.
l. Suitable site-specific conditions for a coffer dam installation up and downstream include:
i. Proximity to the construction zone.
ii. Type of construction activities to be conducted.
m. If coffer dams installation is determined to be suitable for the site, construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from the work area to the maximum extent feasible.

29.99 8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-14
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

13. In-Channel Species Capture and Relocation. Implement aquatic species capture and relocation during temporary water diversion to the extent feasible to minimize the potential for killing or harming native aquatic vertebrates in the work area. If the safety of the biologist conducting the capture may be compromised or if the equipment or gear is not reasonably effective for the operation, relocation is not required. Measures may include:
a. Work area may be isolated using fine mesh or block nets. b. Methods of removal will be determined based on the site conditions but may include electrofishing, dipnet, or seine.
c. Relocation shall be done by a qualified biologist.
d. Relocation shall be located in a nearby suitable habitat. e. Handling and holding time will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. f. As the work site is de-watered, the remaining pools will be inspected for presence of aquatic species suitable for relocation.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to be
present during
dewatering and to
implement capture and
relocation plan if needed.
(Coordinate with the
provisions of MM BIO-3.)
Biologist to be present
during installation of coffer
dam and dewatering.
(Coordinate with the
provisions of MM BIO-3.)

14. In-Channel Restoration. Implement post-construction streambed and bank measures unless the pre-existing condition was detrimental to the channel condition as determined by a qualified biologist or hydrologist. Measures may include:
a. Return streambed to as close to pre-project condition as possible. b. Return stream contours to original condition.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

City responsible for postconstruction inspection.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction when work in
flowing stream is
unavoidable.

Post-construction
inspection.

15. Archaeological Resources. Any unrecorded archaeological resources (sites, features, and/or artifacts) exposed during construction are subject to protection and consideration under CEQA and the California Public Resources Code as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) specifically addresses provisions the City of Santa Cruz will make regarding accidental discovery of historical or unique archaeological resources during construction. The responsibilities of the lead federal agency to avoid, minimize or City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

City responsible for hiring
the qualified
Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

29.100
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-15
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
mitigate adverse effects to a “historic property” (36 CFR Section 800.16) are detailed in 36 CFR Section 800.13(b) and would be applicable for a project with federal involvement by way of funding, permitting, approval authority, or other means. In general, the implementation procedures under CEQA and the NHPA in the case of an inadvertent archaeological discovery during construction are similar and are as follows:
a. If archaeological resources are exposed immediately stop any construction work occurring within 100 feet which may further disturb the find. NOTE – This is a general guideline for the initial response, the exclusion zone may be contracted or expanded depending on the nature of discovery and type of construction activity proposed in the vicinity of the find. The duration of the exclusion zone will be determined by the City and any federal lead agency and is contingent on the approved course of action in response to the discovery. b. Immediately notify the City Project Manager who shall immediately notify the Water Department Deputy Director/Engineering Manager.
c. A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards will evaluate the state and federal significance of the find for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in coordination with City staff. d. The City will notify the lead federal agency within 24 hours of discovery. The notification shall describe the assessment of the NRHP eligibility of the resource, specify the NRHP criteria used to evaluate the property’s eligibility, and propose actions to resolve any adverse effects.
e. The federal lead agency will contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and any interested locally affiliated Native American tribes. The SHPO, ACHP, and Native American tribes will respond within 48 hours of the notification. The federal lead agency shall consider any recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility and proposed actions and notify the City of the appropriate actions. The federal lead agency official shall provide the SHPO and the ACHP a report of the actions when they are completed. f. Avoidance and/or minimization of impacts/effects is the preferred course of actions under both state and federal guidelines. If preservation in place is not feasible, additional study will likely be required. In coordination with the lead archaeologist if here is a
discovery.

City responsible for
implementation of the
measure.

Contractor responsible
for cooperating with the
City in implementation of
the measure.

29.101
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-16
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
federal agency, the City will prepare a data recovery/treatment plan for retrieving important archaeological data relevant to the site’s significance. The data recovery/treatment plan will be submitted to participating tribes and agencies for review and comment prior to implementation.
g. If the inadvertent discovery location cannot be avoided, and continuing work would have an adverse effect on the site, the federal agency, in coordination with the City, SHPO, and Native American tribes as appropriate, will need to draft and finalize a Memorandum of Agreement for the treatment of the historic property before work can proceed.
h. Implementation of the data recovery/treatment plan may include archaeological excavations, technical and laboratory analysis, and further consultation and coordination with Native American tribal representatives. i. A full written report will be prepared to include the results of all technical analyses and special studies will be provided to participating tribes and agencies for review and comment. The report will be filed with the Northwest Information Center and will also provide for the permanent curation of recovered materials.

16. Archaeological Resources (Human Remains). In California, the illegal possession of human remains is a felony, punishable by imprisonment (California Penal Code Section 1170[h]; Public Resources Code 5097.99[a] and [b]). Inadvertent discoveries of human remains exposed during construction on non-federal lands are subject to protection under CEQA and the NHPA. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and the NHPA, if potential human remains are found, immediately notify the City, the lead federal agency, and the Santa Cruz County Coroner of the discovery. The Santa Cruz County Coroner will provide a determination within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made.
a. If human remains are exposed immediately stop any construction work occurring within 100 feet which may further disturb the find. NOTE – This is a general guideline for the initial response, the exclusion zone may be contracted or expanded depending on the nature of discovery and type of construction activity proposed in the vicinity of the find. The duration of the exclusion zone is contingent on the course of action mandated by the City and lead federal agency.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

City responsible for
implementation of the
measure.

Contractor responsible
for cooperating with the
City in implementation of
the measure.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

29.102
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-17
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
b. If the Santa Cruz County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours and all the actions described in these Standard Construction Practices regarding Inadvertent Archaeological Discoveries shall be followed.
c. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98 and Section 106 of the NHPA, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. d. Within 48 hours of this notification, the MLD will recommend to the City and lead federal agency her/his preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
e. The ultimate disposition of the remains will be coordinated between the City, the federal agency, the MLD, the landowner, and the NAHC (if necessary). f. The lead federal agency will have additional government-to-government consultation requirements per the requirements of Section 106 [36 CFR § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)] which cannot be delegated to non-federal entities.

17. Nighttime Construction. For nighttime construction between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM, notice of the dates and times nighttime tasks will be undertaken shall be provided to all residents, tenants and property owners who occupy or own property within 300 feet of the construction site at which such tasks will be performed. A Construction Noise Coordinator will be identified and the contact number for the Coordinator will be included on notices distributed to neighbors regarding planned nighttime construction activities. The Construction Noise Coordinator will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall notify the City within 48 hours of the complaint, determine the cause of the noise complaint, and implement as possible reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. For construction in City limits, construction activities will comply with the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 9.36.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

29.103
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-18
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

18. Fire Suppression. For construction in wildlands or in the wildland–urban interface,1 internal combustion engine equipment shall include spark arrestors, fire suppression equipment (e.g. fire extinguishers and shovels) shall be stored on site during use of such mechanical equipment, and construction activities shall not be conducted during red flag warnings issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) unless adequate fire protection measures are implemented in compliance with federal, state, and local fire prevention and protection regulations and guidance.

Fire safety measures will be detailed in a Fire Safety Program on a project-by-project basis. Red flag warnings and fire weather watches are issued by CAL FIRE based on weather patterns (low humidity, strong winds, dry fuels, etc.) and listed on their website (https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/red-flag-warnings-fire-weatherwatches/).

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

19. Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys. Vegetation removal activities shall be conducted outside the bird nesting season (January 15 to September 15) as possible to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. For construction and vegetation removal activities occurring during the nesting season, a qualified biologist with demonstrated nest searching and monitoring experience shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work areas for active bird nests no more than seven days prior to the start of vegetation removal or construction activities. A final survey shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to activities. Surveys shall be conducted at appropriate times of day when the likelihood of detecting nesting behavior is highest. Once construction has started, if there is a break in activities that exceeds seven days, another survey shall be conducted. If at any time during construction or vegetation removal activities an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and the biologist shall determine an appropriate no-disturbance buffer based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance.

The buffer shall be avoided until the qualified biologist determines that the nest is vacated or the young have fledged. The qualified biologist shall regularly monitor the nest during construction to inform this determination. The size of the no-disturbance buffer shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing as determined appropriate by the biologist. If construction and vegetation removal activities do occur during the nesting season, the City may consider the use City responsible for hiring
qualified biologist to
conduct surveys.

Contractor to install
flagging of nodisturbance buffer at the
direction of the qualified
biologist.

Contractor to avoid buffer
area until qualified
biologist determines the
nest is vacated.

City or contractor may
implement the use of
decoys.

Nesting bird preconstruction survey: Within
14 days prior to initiation of
construction activities. A
final survey shall be
conducted within 48 hours
prior to activities.
1 Given that the primary project site and staging areas are either within or immediately adjacent to the wildland–urban interface, this practice would apply to all elements of the Proposed Project.

29.104
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-19
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
of decoys (e.g., owls or raptors) or noise makers at the beginning of the nesting season to limit or avoid nesting activities in proximity to construction sites.

20. Cultural Resources Training. Provide a cultural resource sensitivity training for workers prior to conducting earth disturbance in the vicinity of a documented culturalresource-sensitive area. Prior to site mobilization or construction activities, a qualified archaeologist (as defined in SCP#15[c]) with training and experience in California prehistory and historical-period archaeology shall conduct the cultural resources awareness training for all construction personnel. The training format may be in person, virtual, or a video recording. The training shall address the identification of buried cultural deposits, including Native American and historical-period archaeological deposits and potential tribal cultural resources, and cover identification of typical prehistoric archaeological site components including midden soil, lithic debris, and dietary remains as well as typical historical-period remains such as glass and ceramics. The training will also explain procedures for stopping work if suspected resources are encountered. Any personnel joining the work crew subsequent to the training shall also receive the same training before beginning work.

City responsible for hiring
a qualified archaeologist
to conduct cultural
resource sensitivity
training for workers.

Prior to construction and
prior to new work crews
coming onto the site.

21. Construction Equipment Exhaust Control. For projects utilizing off-road diesel-fueled equipment within 750 feet of sensitive receptors for more than one-year, all dieselfueled 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 Tier 3 compliant engines can be used if CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled equipment. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City of Santa Cruz, at the Water Director’s discretion, when equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and when corresponding reductions in diesel particulate matter are achieved from other construction equipment on the project. An exemption may only be granted if total estimated project-generated construction emissions will not exceed applicable Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) risk thresholds as verified using industry-standard emission estimation methodologies. This measure does not apply to linear projects (e.g., pipelines) as sensitive receptors would not be exposed for long durations.

City responsible for
inclusion of measure in
construction
specifications and
contracts.

Contractor responsible
for implementation.

Prior to construction,
include measure in
construction specifications
and contracts.

Implement measure during
construction.

29.105
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-20
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing

22. Roosting Bat Protections. Prior to any tree removal or demolition of structures with cave-like spaces and/or crevices for roosting bats, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment. The qualified biologist shall have attended a multi-day bat ecology and survey techniques workshop and at least one year of experience conducting or assisting with bat. The habitat assessment shall be conducted no more than 90 days prior to tree removal or demolition. Trees and structures proposed for removal shall be inspected for foliage, exfoliating bark, cavities, and crevices suitable for roosting bats and indicators of active roosts such as urine staining and guano.

If active roost indicators are detected during the habitat assessment, the tree removal or building demolition shall not proceed unless: 1) tree removal or building demolition occurs only during the following periods: March 1 to April 15 and September 1 to October 15, or 2) a qualified biologist establishes the absence of roosting bats by conducting visual examination of roost features and evening emergence surveys of the source feature(s) from 0.5 hour before to 1–2 hours after sunset for a minimum of two nights, using night-vision goggles and/or full-spectrum acoustic detectors to determine approximate colony size and the species present.

Acoustic surveys shall only be conducted by biologists with appropriate training and at least one year of experience planning, implementing, and analyzing data from acoustic surveys.

Trees identified with active roost indicators shall be removed using a two-step process over two consecutive days, with all activities supervised by the qualified biologist. On the afternoon of the first day, workers shall remove limbs and branches with chainsaws only; limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided. On the second day, the entire tree shall be removed.

In addition, if the active roosts indicators in trees to be removed or structures to be demolished are from bats designated as California Species of Special Concern, the qualified biologist shall develop a bat roost habitat replacement plan that identifies roost replacement options with the same physical parameters as the occupied roost.

The bat roost habitat replacement plan shall be implemented in the same year that the existing roost is impacted, and post-construction monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of one year following best available science (e.g., Johnston et al.

City responsible for hiring
qualified biologists to
conduct assessments.

No more than 90 days and
no less than 30 days prior
to any tree removal
activities.

29.106
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-21
Table 8-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures and Standard Practices
Party Responsible for
Implementation Implementation Timing
20192). If the impacted roost tree is in riparian habitat under California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, the biologist shall submit the plan to CDFW for review and approval.
2 Johnston, D.S., K. Briones, and C. Pincetich. 2019. Caltrans Bat Mitigation: A Guide to Developing Feasible and Effective Solutions. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. Los Gatos, California: H.T. Harvey & Associates. July 2019, updated September 2019.

29.107
8 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
GRAHAM HILL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12287.06 JULY 2024 8-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

29.108
1 Lindsay Nelson
From: Poppen, Eric <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 12:47 PM
To: Sarah Easley Perez; City Council; Chris Coburn
Subject: RE: Final EIR: Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: GHWTP Facility Improvements Project We have been neighbors of the water treatment plant for the past 10 years and have aways appreciated their transparency and engagement with the neighbors as upgrades occur. The water treatment plant has always been a terrific neighbor. Our intent here is to provide constructive input.

As we saw demonstrated in the 2018 Camp fire in Paradise, wildfire is a significant hazard in California, any notion that it could not happen here were dispelled during the Lightning Complex fires of 2020. We prepared and evacuated during the Lightning Complex Fires but fortunately they did not reach our neighborhood.

In review of the Environmental Impact Report and with my experience investigating wildfire losses I wanted to share both how a wildfire scenario could play out here in our neighborhood and suggest improvements that will limit our vulnerability.

Wildfire Scenario:
- A regional wildfire draws firefighting resources from multiple agencies. - An ember or other ignition source ignites a wildfire starting on Ocean Street Extension. - Dense undergrowth and sloping terrain results in extended flame lengths running up towards Graham Hill Road.
- Water treatment plant evacuated.
- Upon reaching Graham Hill Road the fire involves power poles resulting in a loss of utility power to the water treatment plant.
- Water treatment plant switches to diesel generator.
- Refueling of the diesel tank is encumbered by ongoing evacuation and abandon vehicles on Graham Hill Road.
- Loss of water treatment services results in additional downstream impacts.

Evacuating Paradise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amUW2NrA9S8

29.109
2 Down Power Lines & Abandon Vehicle from Camp Fire (Paradise) https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/wildfires/power-lines-and-the-camp-fire-what-we-know/103- 615078016
I have the following input:
- Include fuel load reduction of the water treatment property as part of the project. o Though the EIR mentions live oaks, redwoods, black cottonwood, and grasses as part of the landscape (page 569) is fails to mention non-native acacia and scotch broom that represent significant ground fuels.
o Develop a plan to eliminate this fuel loading in favor of native alternatives that do not present the same level of exposure.
- Include provisions to allow the development of a ground mount solar array to offset the utility power demands.
o The current EIR indicates that such arrangements are “not precluded” by the new project (page 299), that is distinct from the inclusion of measures that will facilitate its installation. o Address questions of “unknown interconnection feasibility” (page 299) as part of the project development.
- Specify that any upgrades required for PG&E to supply additional power to the treatment plant be accompanied with the underground routing of vulnerable power feeds on Graham Hill Road. o Beyond its potential to be an ignition source. overhead power infrastructure is vulnerable to wildfire impact, treated power poles burn particularly well.
o Harden conduit that transitions from underground to above ground services to limit its vulnerability to wildfire.
- Improve resiliency with the provision of Battery Storage and a ground mount Solar Array to offset the proposed 3x increase in electrical demand and supplement the power available from the diesel emergency generator from a local and sustainable resource.
o A solar array will provide a resilient local source of power. o Battery storage will provide backup power as well as allow continued operation of the solar array in a power outage.

29.110
3 o A ground mount solar array will “increase the noncombustible area on the GHWTP parcel” even more significant than that presented by proposed “increase in impervious surfaces” (page 571).

Again, the treatment plant has been a terrific neighbor. Our feedback is intended be constructive and limit the impact a wildfire could have on the treatment plant and surrounding neighbors. With wildfire becoming a more common and impacting our ability to obtain insurance its impact is best included in the scope of any significant project.

Regards,
Eric & Liliana Poppen
161 Mosswood Court
From: Sarah Easley Perez <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Sarah Easley Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Final EIR: Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: GHWTP Facility Improvements Project Hello, The City of Sant a Cruz Water Department has complet ed the Final Environme ntal Impact Report (EIR) for the Climat e Resilie nt Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Wat er Treatment Plant (GHWTP) Facility Improveme nts Project. T he Fi nal EIR is availabl e Hello,
The City of Santa Cruz Water Department has completed the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Climate Resilient Santa Cruz: Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP) Facility Improvements Project.

The Final EIR is available for review online at https://cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/water/online-reports/environmental-documents. Printed copies are available at the Santa Cruz Water Department Engineering Counter and downtown branch Santa Cruz Public Library. The Final EIR is anticipated to be considered by the Water Commission on August 5, 2024 at 7:00 PM and by the City Council on September 10, 2024 after the hour of 10:00 AM at City Hall Council Chambers.

Please see attached Notice of Availability for additional information.

Sarah Easley Perez
Principal Planner
City of Santa Cruz | Water Department
212 Locust Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
o: (831) 420-5327 m: (818) 239-6735
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com

29.111
Climate Resilient Santa Cruz:

Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Report Certification and Project Approval 1 September 10, 2024

29.112
Santa Cruz Water System
2 • 100% Local Water Sources • Three Water Treatment Plants • Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP)
• Beltz Treatment Plant • Beltz 12 Treatment Plant
• Major Facilities Constructed in the 1960’s • Loch Lomond (only surface water storage) • Felton Diversion (replenishes Loch Lomond)
• Newell Creek Pipeline (water to GHWTP) • GHWTP (treats 90-100% water supply) • Constructed under different climate and weather patterns

29.113
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
3 The Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant was commissioned in 1960 and has provided high quality potable water to the City of Santa Cruz for the last 60 years.
1968
2022

29.114
Climate Resilient Santa Cruz &
Proposed Project
In response to severe wildfires, longer droughts,
record rainfall years and other signs of climate
change, the Santa Cruz Water Department is
prioritizing critically important, climate-resilient
projects.

The Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Facility
Improvements Project will include the ability to
operate with increased efficiency and greater
performance, to meet future water quality
conditions expected to be impacted by climate
change.

29.115 4
California
Environmental
Quality Act
(CEQA)
5 CEQA applies to "projects"
• A discretionary action by a public agency
which has the potential to result in a
physical change in the environment, either
directly or indirectly
Purposes
• Evaluate and disclose physical
environmental effects of a project
• If needed, identify mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize significant environmental
effects
• Foster informed public decision-making
• Ensure transparency in governmental
decision-making process
• Encourage public participation

29.116
Project Purpose
and Need
• Deliver a climate resilient water treatment plant
that meets our community’s climate change-driven
challenges and ensures reliable, safe drinking water
is available 24/7/365
• Upgrade aging infrastructure to meet current and
anticipated seismic standards, and become a
wildfire-hardened property
• Include new water treatment facilities that will
operate with state-of-the-art technology,
increased efficiency and greater performance, in
order to meet future water quality conditions
expected to be impacted by climate change
• Ensure the City of Santa Cruz is prepared to meet
future regulations related to water treatment, and
increase system reliability and efficiency

29.117 6
Project Objectives
• Rehabilitate existing aging infrastructure to allow
reusing and extending its useful life
• Provide a cost-effective project that optimizes the
benefits and total cost of ownership (i.e., life cycle
cost) for the City
• Support the City’s effort and policy to apply Health
in All Policies approach and equity practices to
City decision-making.
• Throughout the construction process, maintain
production of potable water delivery throughout the
City distribution system
• Provide a water treatment facility that meets
current seismic, building, fire, and electrical codes
7 • Provide an adaptable water treatment
facility
• Provide treatment facilities and equipment
that reliably and efficiently produce
potable water
• Provide treatment facilities and equipment
that reliably meet the City’s updated
treatment goals
• Provide flexibility for installation of
additional treatment equipment
• Support the implementation of the City’s
Water Supply Augmentation Strategy

29.118
Distributed Notice of Preparation
to Prepare an EIR for Public
Review (30 days) – June 2022
1 Public Scoping Meetings – July 2 2022
Prepare DEIR – 3 August 2022 – November 2023
Planning Commission – June 20, 2024 6 Water Commission – August 5, 2024 City Council Meeting to consider
EIR certification and project
approval – September 10, 2024
7 CEQA Process
and Schedule
File Notice of Determination (if 8 approved) – Fall 2024 Completed
Current Step
Distribute NOA and DEIR for
Public Review (60 days) -
December 7, 2023 – February 5,
2024
4 Prepare Responses to
Comments and Final EIR –
Release Final EIR July 2024
5 To Be Completed

29.119
9 Environmental Topics Analyzed in Detail
ENERGY

AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL

CULTURAL RESOURCES

GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY

LAND USE

AND PLANNING

GEOLOGY AND SOILS HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

NOISE AND

VIBRATION UTILITIES AND

SERVICE SYSTEMS WILDFIRE TRANSPORTATION

29.120
10 Significant
Environmental
Impacts
Temporary Construction Noise
Mitigated
Environmental
Impacts
Biological Resources (Special-Status Wildlife
and Wetlands)
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Transport,
Use, or Disposal)
Operational Noise and Vibration

29.121
Significant and Unavoidable Impact:

Construction Noise
The Proposed Project would result in substantial construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance (Project and Cumulative Impact)
 Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Construction Noise Measures o Applied but cannot fully mitigate impacts
 Statement of Overriding Considerations required

29.122 11
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
12 Alternative 1: No Project
The circumstances under which the
Proposed Project does not proceed
Alternative 2: Alternative Process
Technology
Involves a similar comprehensive upgrade
using an alternate pretreatment
technology (high-rate clarification with
ballasted flocculation)
Alternative 3: Reduced Capacity
Involves a comprehensive upgrade of the
treatment plant, but with a smaller
capacity (15 mgd)
Alternative 4: No Solids Dewatering
Involves a comprehensive upgrade of the
treatment plant, but with no solids
dewatering facilities

29.123
13 Comments Received on Draft and Final EIR
Commenter Comment Topic
California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Nesting bird Standard Construction Practice • Bat species of special concern
California State Water Resources Control Board • Clarification on impervious surface area totals Neighbors
• Wildfire vulnerability
• Solar and battery installation
• Operational noise enhancements
• Existing light fixture alignment
• Treatment chemical use
• Implementation of mitigation measures
• Inclusion of design plans and tree removals
• Visibility of Concrete Tanks Replacement Project features • Operational noise from Concrete Tanks Replacement Project • Implementation of native habitat restoration

29.124
Actions and Recommendations
 Planning Commission – June 20, 2024, approved staff recommendations on the Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Slope Development Permit
 Water Commission – Aug. 5, 2024, approved staff’s recommendation to City Council to:
o Adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR
o Adopt resolutions approving the Project, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
 City Council – September 10, 2024, consider certification of the Final EIR, adoption of Findings of Fact (including MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approval of the Project per Staff Report recommendation

29.125 14
Next Steps upon EIR Certification
and Project Approval
 Finalize 100% plans and specifications: fall 2024
 Obtain Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal from the design-builder: fall 2024  Obtain City building permits: early 2025
 Council to consider authorization of the Phase 2 construction contract: early 2025  Project construction: summer 2025 – early 2030

29.126 15
Public Outreach
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
Newell Creek Pipeline
City/Scotts Valley Intertie
 Project signage
 Postcard mailers and emails
 Media release and updates
 Social media (Instagram, Facebook)
 Digital advertising (Spotify, Google ads, etc.)
 Community partners: local news organizations,
school districts, chambers, etc.

29.127 16
Questions?

29.128
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/29/2024
AGENDA OF: 09/10/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Extending AB 1482 Rental Increase Protections Upon Expiration of Affordable Housing Rental Restrictions (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapter 21.07 “Just Cause Eviction Above AB 1482 Requirements” of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to extend AB 1482 rental increase protections to tenants in units with expiring affordable housing rental restrictions.

BACKGROUND: In 2019 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, Assembly Bill 1482 (“AB 1482”), effective January 1, 2020. AB 1482 has two components, codified at: (1) California Civil Code Section 1946.2, which establishes just-cause eviction protections for most residential tenancies; and (2) California Civil Code Sections 1947.12-1947.13 which, generally, prevents a landlord from increasing rents for an existing tenant more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living or 10 percent, whichever is lower. The proposed ordinance deals with this second component.

Just Cause Eviction:

Following passage of AB 1482 in late 2019, members of the public brought to the Council’s attention an ambiguity in Civil Code Section 1946.2 which, arguably, included a loophole that rendered its just cause eviction protections inapplicable to tenants receiving subsidies through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program or the Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program.

That section, however, included a provision that rendered it subordinate to a local ordinance adopted on or after September 1, 2019 requiring just cause for termination “that is more protective than this section…”1 Accordingly, in November of 2019, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-23, extending AB 1482’s just cause eviction protections to Section 8 tenants.

Rent Increase Restrictions:

Recently, members of the public have brought to the Council’s attention another loophole in AB 1482, this time to its rent increase restrictions. Under AB 1482, a landlord generally may not, over the course of any 12-month period, impose a rent increase of more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1).) However, the rent cap in AB 1482 does not apply to all rental properties in the state. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(d).)
1 Cal. Civil Code § 1946.2(g)(2).

30.1 More specifically, the law provides a specific limited exemption from the rent cap for properties that have expiring rental restrictions. Civil Code § 1947.13(a) provides:
“[U]pon the expiration of rental restrictions, the following shall apply:
(1) The owner of an assisted housing development who demonstrates, under penalty of perjury, compliance with all applicable provisions of Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13 of the Government Code . . . may establish the initial unassisted rental rate for units in the applicable housing development. Any subsequent rent increase in the development shall be subject to Section 1947.12.
(2) The owner of a deed-restricted affordable housing unit or an affordable housing unit subject to a regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency limiting rental rates that is not within an assisted housing development may . . . establish the initial rental rate for the unit upon the expiration of the restriction. Any subsequent rent increase for the unit shall be subject to Section 1947.12.” (Civil Code § 1947.13(a) (italics added)).

Govt. Code Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13 specify various procedural and substantive requirements for termination, expiration, or prepayment of a subsidy contract, rental restrictions, or prepayment of government assistance for a housing development in which there will be the expiration of rental restrictions for lower income tenants. Among other requirements, the owner must provide various notifications to affected tenants, prospective tenants, and “affected public entities,” including a 3-year notice of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65863.10(e)(2). Additional notifications must be sent 12 and 6 months prior to expiration of the rental restrictions.
(Gov. Code, § 65863.10(b)-(c).)
Similar to the just-cause eviction protections of Civil Code Section 1946.2, Civil Code Section 1947.13(e) specifically states that Section 1947.13 “shall not be construed to preempt any local law,” meaning the City Council may, if it chooses to do so, enact restrictions on rental increases that are more protective than those set forth in AB 1482.

DISCUSSION: The provisions of the Government Code requiring 3 year, 1 year, and 6-month notices prior to the expiration of rental restrictions and a proposed rent increase should, theoretically, provide affected tenants sufficient time to locate suitable alternative subsidized or rent-restricted housing in another location. However, given the extremely tight rental market in the City of Santa Cruz, and in particular given the shortage of available rentals affordable to very low, low or moderate income households, a tenant who would otherwise be eligible to qualify for an affordable unit can wait months, or even years, before a unit becomes available. Thus, the expiration of rental restrictions for some lower income households will result in their loss of access to shelter and render them homeless. The ordinance proposed here would close the aforementioned loophole and would eliminate the exemption in AB 1482’s rental increase restrictions for tenants in formerly rent-protected units where those protections are expiring. As drafted, the ordinance would apply only to tenants who resided in their units before the 12-month notice of expiration of rental restrictions is provided, thus ensuring that any tenant that occupies a unit after the 12-month notice is provided does not unfairly benefit.

30.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA. “Project” is defined by CEQA as:
“an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following:
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.”(Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.)
Neither the proposed ordinance nor the proposed resolution is a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the ordinance or the resolution represent the type of “activity” described in subdivisions (a) through (c) above.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The proposed ordinance supports the public health and equity principles by protecting the health and welfare of lower income individuals who could suffer extreme hardship and even become homeless if faced with exorbitant rent increases brought about by the expiration of rental protections for formerly affordable residential units.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Submitted By:

Scott Newsome
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
Submitted By:

Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORDINANCE - CLEAN.DOCX

2. ORDINANCE - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

30.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 21.07 “JUST CAUSE EVICTION ABOVE AB 1482 REQUIREMENTS” OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND AB 1482 RENTAL INCREASE PROTECTIONS UPON EXPIRATION OF AFFORDABLE

HOUSING RENTAL RESTRICTIONS
BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 21.07 “Just Cause Eviction Above AB 1482 Requirements” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 21.07
TENANT PROTECTIONS ABOVE AB 1482 REQUIREMENTS

21.07.010 EXTENDING AB 1482 PROTECTIONS TO SECTION 8 TENANTS.

Notwithstanding the language of California Civil Code Section 1946.2(e)(9), the no-fault just cause eviction protections of Section 1946.2 shall be applicable to tenants receiving subsidy through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program or the Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program. A full month’s rent shall be provided for relocation assistance, including both the tenant’s portion of the payment and the voucher amount. Any rent control protections that Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders are afforded by AB 1482 shall also be applied to such Section 8 Housing Choice tenants.

21.07.020 EXTENDING AB 1482 RENT INCREASE PROTECTIONS UPON EXPIRATION OF RENTAL RESTRICTIONS.

A. Notwithstanding the language of California Civil Code Section 1947.13(a)(1) and (2), for housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or for housing subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes, the limitations on gross rental rate increases set forth in California Civil Code Section 1947.12 shall apply to: (1) any tenancy in existence prior to when the one-year notice of expiration of rental restrictions is provided to affected tenants in accordance with California Government Code Section 65863.10(b), or (2) if multiple one-year notices are required to be provided under the Government Code due to multiple affordability agreements impacting the property, then any tenancy in existence prior to when the final required one-year notice of expiration of rental restrictions is provided to affected tenants in accordance with California Government Code Section 65863.10(b).

B. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1947.12, for any tenancy described in subsection A., above, an owner of residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12- month period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date

30.4 of the increase. In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. The gross per-month rental rate and any owner-offered discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits shall be separately listed and identified in the lease or rental agreement or any amendments to an existing lease or rental agreement.

C. For the purposes of this section, the annual “percentage change in the cost of living” shall be measured by the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area Consumer Price Index for urban consumers (CPI -U).

D. This section shall not apply to a dwelling or unit which is exempt from rent control requirements under California Civil Code Section 1954.52.

E. Upon the expiration of rental restrictions, and before establishing a gross rental rate consistent with Subdivision B above, the owner of an assisted housing development, as defined by Gov Code § 65863.10, must demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13 of the Government Code and any other applicable federal, state, or local law, or regulation, including, but not limited to, Chapter 21.05 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.

21.07.030 CIVIL REMEDIES.

Failure by a landlord to comply with the terms of this chapter shall be an affirmative defense to any unlawful detainer action pending or filed on or after its effective date. In addition, tenant may bring a civil suit in the courts of the state for injunctive relief and damages, alleging that a landlord has violated any of the provisions of this chapter. In a civil suit, a landlord found to violate this chapter shall, in addition to injunctive relief, be liable to the tenant for all actual damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, the tenant shall be awarded treble damages.

No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this section.” SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

30.5 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this XX day of XX, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2024-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

30.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 21.07 “JUST CAUSE EVICTION ABOVE AB 1482 REQUIREMENTS” OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND AB 1482 RENTAL INCREASE PROTECTIONS UPON EXPIRATION OF AFFORDABLE

HOUSING RENTAL RESTRICTIONS
BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 21.07 “Just Cause Eviction Above AB 1482 Requirements” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 21.07
JUST CAUSE EVICTIONTENANT PROTECTIONS ABOVE AB 1482

REQUIREMENTS

21.07.010 EXTENDING AB 1482 PROTECTIONS TO SECTION 8 TENANTS.

Notwithstanding the language of California Civil Code Section 1946.2(e)(9), the no-fault just cause eviction protections of Section 1946.2 shall be applicable to tenants receiving subsidy through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program or the Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program. A full month’s rent shall be provided for relocation assistance, including both the tenant’s portion of the payment and the voucher amount. Any rent control protections that Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders are afforded by AB 1482 shall also be applied to such Section 8 Housing Choice tenants.

21.07.020 EXTENDING AB 1482 RENT INCREASE PROTECTIONS UPON EXPIRATION OF RENTAL RESTRICTIONS.

A. Notwithstanding the language of California Civil Code Section 1947.13(a)(1) and (2), for housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or for housing subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes, the limitations on gross rental rate increases set forth in California Civil Code Section 1947.12 shall apply to: (1) any tenancy in existence prior to when the one-year notice of expiration of rental restrictions is provided to affected tenants in accordance with California Government Code Section 65863.10(b), or (2) if multiple one-year notices are required to be provided under the Government Code due to multiple affordability agreements impacting the property, then any tenancy in existence prior to

30.7 when the final required one-year notice of expiration of rental restrictions is provided to affected tenants in accordance with California Government Code Section 65863.10(b)..

B. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1947.12, for any tenancy described in subsection A., above, an owner of residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12- month period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. In determining the lowest gross rental amount pursuant to this section, any rent discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits offered by the owner of such unit of residential real property and accepted by the tenant shall be excluded. The gross per-month rental rate and any owner-offered discounts, incentives, concessions, or credits shall be separately listed and identified in the lease or rental agreement or any amendments to an existing lease or rental agreement.

C. For the purposes of this section, the annual “percentage change in the cost of living” shall be measured by the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area Consumer Price Index for urban consumers (CPI -U).

D. This section shall not apply to a dwelling or unit which is exempt from rent control requirements under California Civil Code Section 1954.52.

E. Upon the expiration of rental restrictions, and before establishing a gross rental rate consistent with Subdivision B above, the owner of an assisted housing development, as defined by Gov Code § 65863.10, must demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13 of the Government Code and any other applicable federal, state, or local law, or regulation, including, but not limited to, Chapter 21.05 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.

21.07.030 CIVIL REMEDIES.

Failure by a landlord to comply with the terms of this chapter shall be an affirmative defense to any unlawful detainer action pending or filed on or after its effective date. In addition, tenant may bring a civil suit in the courts of the state for injunctive relief and damages, alleging that a landlord has violated any of the provisions of this chapter. In a civil suit, a landlord found to violate this chapter shall, in addition to injunctive relief, be liable to the tenant for all actual damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, upon a showing that the landlord has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, the tenant shall be awarded treble damages. No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this section.”
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

30.8 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this #
th10th day of [Month]September , 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this #
th day of [Month], 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 202x-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

30.9 From: Garrett
To: City Council
Subject: 9.10.24 Agenda Item #30 Extending rental increase protections Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 10:06:59 AM

9.10.24 Agenda Item #30 Extending rental increase protections Dear Council,
It seems to me I have witnessed many instances where the sacred time honored legal principles' of our Constitution seem to no hold presence or acceptance in your legislative thinking.

I'm no legal scholar, but this is plainly a "change the deal" invalidating the past agreed upon rules related to the expiration of rental price controls. You are then retroactively changing agreements without an agreement by the parties affected.

They expected expiration when they agreed in the first place is part of that agreement.

This seems like another form of an "ex-post-facto" law, this time invalidating a previous legal arraignment containing a certain understanding of its expiration. The expiration means expiration. Expiration was the understanding. Again, now you want to "change the deal" it seems to me.

It seems to me this should only apply to NEW projects with new "rental protection"agreements (containing such subsidized price fixing), with full knowledge of parties involved, and not to project agreements about to expire made in the past, if you must.

Please run this by My Condotti for public comment, I'd love to hear his explanation how this is the justifiably legal right thing to do. I'd say it is not, even if cities are permitted to make tougher laws than the state. Those must be forward, not backward looking when it comes to such agreements.

Garrett Philipp

30.10 1
Lindsay Nelson
From: Chelsea Mele <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 10:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rent Hike Vote Argument from a Low income provider I urge the council not to vote for this proposed law. The reason is that the math does not support the conclusion that increasing rents will affect affordability of any tennant. I know for a fact that the percentage of a low income person's income that gets allocated for rent does not change regardless of how much the overall rent goes up. In other words they pay a percentage of what they make, not what the rent is.

I have to remind my low income renters of this every time their rents go up. They freak out for no reason. There are so many resources that I have one tenant who has no copay, free food delivered, all her furniture was for free, she got a free brand new car and they are paying her car payment and insurance and gave her a gas card.

Before you vote an in depth study of all the individual costs before and after any proposed rent increase should be done. If for no other reason but to know for a fact that this law is in fact needed.

Remember that profits from rentals are tricaled down to everyone else in our community.

Chelsea Wagner

30.11 2
Lindsay Nelson
From: Ellen Murtha <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2024 1:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Ordinance to protect renters from steep increases Dear City Council Members, I support the ordinance proposed by Councilmember Scott Newsome to limit rent increases to 5 – 10% for assisted housing developments. I believe we are a city with compassionate leadership and want to keep people housed, especially in affordable rental units.

Thank you,
Ellen Fitzgerald Murtha
111 Anderson St.,
SC, CA 95060
Sent from Mail for Windows
Virus-free.www.avg.com

30.12 1
Lindsay Nelson
From: Ami Chen Mills-Naim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:00 AM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari; Sandy Brown; Sandy Brown; Fred Keeley Cc: Rafa Sonnenfeld; [email protected]
Subject: Thank you: Rent cap rules for Tuesday
Thanks to all who worked on getting this draft legislation together to protect the folks at the St. George Residences and elsewhere.

I have a beloved friend at the St. George (I've had a couple there) who reached out to me a few months back--and we have been reporting on this possible disaster for low-income and disabled residents of our city on the Moment of Truth program/podcast at KSQD.

I know a lot of folks were supporting the residents who organized, but I want to thank Rafa, who I spoke with in mid-August, who has apparently done a lot of work in this regard, along with Tony Condotti? I assume this "introduction" of the ordinance will be pro forma. Or does it go to a vote on Tuesday? Is it helpful to get more people to try to support this?
I assume also that, regardless of the timing, this ordinance will pass, as who would vote to defeat it and leave these residents to their possible fate on the streets of Santa Cruz? PS: According to my friend at the St. George, nearly 40 units have sat empty there for some time. I do not know how to verify this, but may try to when I return from out of town.

Another argument for an Empty Homes Tax, for Pete's sake! These SRO's are desperately needed in our community. Allowing them to sit empty for the sake of higher rental rates (??) is a crime.

Thank you for your work,
Ami
Ami Chen Mills
Author, Trainer, Coach & Producer/Host for
"Moment of Truth with Ami Chen Mills,”
Clear Thinking on Confusing Topics in Challenging Times radio show and podcast
Live-streaming at KSQD 1st & 3rd Mondays, 6pm Pacific
Moment of Truth Show Page
Apple Podcasts
YouTube Podcasts
Spotify
If you love the show, please rate, like, comment and/or subscribe! (650) 424-8984
Ami's practice, writings, radio shows, YouTube Channel, books, & events calendar: www.AmiChen.com

30.13 2

30.14 3
Lindsay Nelson
From: lucinda J <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: AB1482
Dear Council Members,
Please vote to pass AB1482. Thank you for protecting our most vulnerable and addressing a root cause of homelessness-eviction caused by increased rent.

Thank you,
Cindy Jaconette

30.15 4
Lindsay Nelson
From: Kevin Cummings <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Fred Keeley; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; [email protected]; Martine Watkins; Tony Condotti; City Council
Subject: Subject: Support for the City Council’s Solution to Prevent Displacement at St. George Apartments Subject: Support for the City Council’s Solution to Prevent Displacement at St. George Apartments
Dear Mayor Keeley, City Council Members, and City Attorney Condotti, I am writing to share some important facts about Green Valley Corporation (GVC), also known as Barry Swenson Builder, and to express my appreciation for the thoughtful and fair solution you are considering regarding the St. George Apartments. As a resident of St.

George since 1993, I hope these details will help guide your decision and address any concerns raised by the property's ownership.

Green Valley Corporation and St. George Apartments Ownership Barry Swenson Builder has completed projects totaling over a billion dollars. Though privately held, the company’s estimated net worth exceeds $300 million. The ownership of St. George Apartments is not a mystery. The property is owned by GVC St. George, a Delaware-registered LLC, which was registered by Green Valley Corporation. The sole member of this LLC is Barron Ranches Inc., a company controlled by the same Swenson family.

There are two primary reasons a California company like Green Valley Corporation would form a Delaware-based LLC:

1. Delaware requires no annual report, allowing profits from the property to remain private.

2. Delaware LLCs have stricter privacy protections, making it more challenging to determine the ownership structure of Barron Ranches Inc.

The Lack of Transparency and Arms-Length Transactions
During a Title Search on St. George, conducted with the help of an employee at First American Title Company in Santa Cruz, we discovered a First Deed of Trust in the amount of $2.4 million. The document revealed that this loan transferred $2.4 million from GVC St. George to Barron Ranches Inc. in July 2021. Both entities were controlled by the same individual, Case Swenson, who signed as both the president of GVC St. George and Barron Ranches Inc., serving as both guarantor and guarantee of the loan. This transaction raises

30.16 5
concerns about the lack of arm's-length dealings between these entities, revealing a thin corporate veil over what seems to be nothing more than succession planning.

Settlement Agreement with the Attorney General
It’s also critical to note that under the settlement agreement signed by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Green Valley Corporation, the St. George Apartments are a covered property of Green Valley Corporation. Both GVC St. George and Barron Ranches Inc. are considered affiliates of Green Valley Corporation. This settlement compels GVC St. George to follow the same guidelines that you are proposing.

The Council’s Fair Solution
The solution proposed by the City Council is not punitive nor overly broad—it adheres to the settlement agreement and ensures compliance with the legislative intent of AB 1482.

The one-time rent reset GVC St. George was attempting does not align with the spirit or legislative intent of AB 1482, which was meant to protect tenants and prevent displacement and homelessness. Your solution does just that, and we residents of St.

George applaud it.

Please be prepared to hear claims of financial hardship from GVC St. George. Be wary of these claims, as they likely do not reflect the reality of a company as financially stable as Green Valley Corporation. The Swenson and Menne families will experience little more than a hiccup on their balance sheets. St. George is a generational wealth-building asset that will continue to provide for their families for generations to come.

I write to you today in the hope that tomorrow’s council meeting will proceed smoothly and quickly and with an affirmative vote by the council for residents of the St George Apartments. Thank you for your time, your careful consideration, and your commitment to the residents of St. George and the broader Santa Cruz community.

Sincerely,
Kevin Cummings
Resident, St. George Apartments since 1993

30.17 6
Lindsay Nelson
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet - Regular Meeting - September 10, 2024 Attachments: condotti letter 9-9-24.pdf
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:
[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.

From: VanRooLaw Staff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:11 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; Tony Condotti <tcondotti@abclaw.com> Subject: Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet - Regular Meeting - September 10, 2024 ****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Please see attached correspondence
--

VAN ROO LAW
530.268.8498
13863 Quarterhorse Dr.

Grass Valley, CA 95949-7816
Facsimile 800.559.4118

30.18 ➢ Please respond Grass Valley Office
WILLIAM A. VAN ROO
[email protected]
Direct line: 530.268.8498
September 9, 2024
Anthony Condotti
City Attorney City of Santa Cruz Via Email: [email protected] 333 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Re: Proposed Ordinance Extending AB 1482 Rental Increase Protections Upon Expiration of Affordable Housing Rental Restrictions
Mr. Condotti:

I have the following comments as to the above-referenced proposed ordinance.

Initially it should be noted that this proposed ordinance is a VERY short-sighted attempt to address an issue that will have severe negative impacts on the underlying goal of providing affordable housing for the City of Santa Cruz. What the council is considering is a clear message to any developers contemplating building a project in the City which will have an affordable housing component - that no matter what agreements the City enters into to secure that housing - it will not feel bound by the terms of those agreements or applicable state law.

Rather than entering reasonable negotiations and perhaps using some of the millions of dollars of in lieu funds obtained from developers over the years allowing development without actually building affordable units, this proposed ordinance attempts to benefit a small number of affected residents while threatening the very concept of agreed upon long term affordable housing agreements with the City.

As you note, the notice provisions of the Government Code prior to the expiration of rental restrictions and a proposed rent increase should, theoretically, provide notified governmental agencies sufficient time to negotiate reasonable transition agreements to the extent that there are not suitable alternative subsidized or rent-restricted housing in another location for affected residents.

The proposed ordinance alludes to a supposed “loophole in AB 1482 allowing a specific limited exemption from the rent cap for properties that have expiring rental restrictions. Such is not a

30.19 September 9, 2024