Santa Cruz City Council
October 8, 2024

Section 34. Section 24.12.160 of Chapter 24.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Fencing and Screening is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.160 FENCING AND SCREENING.

15.150

1. Fencing. Regulations governing the installation, construction and placement of fences and structures in the nature of fences, including hedges, which exceed height limitations contained herein are set forth in Chapter 24.08, Part 7, Conditional Fence Permit. a. Height Limitations. No person shall erect upon any private property in the city any fence, or structure in the nature of a fence, exceeding the following height limitations:
(1) Within the required front and exterior side yard setback areas established by ( this title, Chapter 18.04, or other ordinances of the city, fences shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches from finished grade, except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7.
(2) Within the exterior side yard setback established by this title, Chapter 18.04, or other ordinances of the city, fences outside of the front yard setback or in line with the main building frontage, whichever distance is greater, that are set back a minimum of three feet from the exterior side property line shall not exceed a height of six feet from finished grade, except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7. Fences within the exterior side yard setback that are less than three feet from the side property line or within the front setback area shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches from finished grade. Any yard area between a fence and the sidewalk or property line shall be landscaped and permanently maintained. This landscaping shall not include hedges that are higher than three-and-one-half feet.
(3) On any portion of the property outside of the required front and exterior side yard setbacks, fences shall not exceed a height of eight feet from finished grade, with any portion of the fence above six feet consisting of lattice or other similar material that is at least fifty percent open except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7, with any portion of the fence above six feet having an open architectural, decorative, or ornamental feature such as lattice or other similar design or material. “Open” means that no more than fifty percent of the design shall be opaque. This maximum fence height does not apply to fences along an alley or the rail trail associated with an accessory dwelling unit, where fences are limited to three feet, six inches along the alley or rail trail unless a conditional fence permit is approved for greater height. (4) Any fence along a property line adjacent to a street, or in the adjacent required setback, except in the clear corner triangle, may include a gate, trellis or other entry feature exceeding the height limit stated in subsections (1)(a)(1) and (2). Such gate, trellis or entry feature shall be limited to ten feet in width and ten feet in height. Only one such gate, trellis or entry feature shall be permitted per street frontage except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7.
b. Fire Hazard. The erection of any fence which constitutes a fire hazard either of itself or in connection with the existing structures in the vicinity, or which will interfere with access in case of fire, by the fire department to buildings in the vicinity or which will constitute a hazard to street traffic or to pedestrians shall not be permitted. c. Temporary Fences – Exceptions. Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to interfere with the erection of temporary fences around construction works, erected or maintained pursuant to Chapter 18.04 and other ordinances of the city. d. Barbed-Wire Fencing. No barbed-wire fences may be constructed, electrified or otherwise, without a conditional fence permit.

15.151
e. Hedges. Hedges or dense planting in the nature of a hedge in excess of three feet, six inches in height shall not be grown or maintained within the required front or exterior side yard setbacks of the zoning district in which the property is located. f. Clear Corner Triangles and Clear Vision Areas. Fences or hedges shall not be greater than, nor allowed to exceed, three feet, six inches in height in the clear corner triangle and the clear vision area as defined in Sections 24.22.202 and 24.22.206. g. Fences Within Watercourse Setback Areas. Fencing within a designated riparian corridor or development setback area of a watercourse shall be consistent with requirements of the watercourse development permit, Section 24.08.2130.

2. Screening.
a. In any nonresidential district adjacent to any R-District, screening between districts shall be provided.
b. All areas of outdoor storage in any commercial or industrial district shall be permanently screened from view from any adjacent street, public way or adjacent private property.

Section 35. Section 24.12.250 of Chapter 24.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Bike Parking Requirements is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.250 BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

1. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided for any new building, addition or enlargement of an existing building, or for any change in the occupancy.

2. Bike Spaces and Type Required. Bicycle parking facilities’ quantity and type shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule, with fractional quantity requirements for bike parking over one-half to be rounded up. Each bicycle parking space shall be no less than six feet long by two feet wide and shall have a bicycle rack system in compliance with the bike rack classifications listed in subsection (4).

Example
Number of
Bicycle Parking
Spaces Required
Classification
Class 1 = Long-Term
Class 2 = Short-Term
Industrial Warehousing,
manufacturing
1 per 7,500
square feet,
minimum 2
spaces
80% Class 1
20% Class 2
Office and financial
institutions
General office, medical,
clinic, research and
development, banks
1 per 1,500
square feet,
minimum 2
spaces
20% Class 1
80% Class 2
Retail/service or
other commercial
Grocery store, hardware
store, personal services,
handicraft
1 per 1,000
square feet,
minimum 2
spaces
20% Class 1
80% Class 2

15.152
Example
Number of
Bicycle Parking
Spaces Required
Classification
Class 1 = Long-Term
Class 2 = Short-Term
Restaurant/bar Restaurant, deli, coffee
shop, bar/tasting rooms
1 per 500 square
feet, minimum 2
spaces
20% Class 1
80% Class 2
Multifamily
residential
(3 or more units)
Housing developments
with 3 or more units, plus
any associated accessory
dwelling units
See
classification
column
Class 1 – 1 space per unit
– garages or secure
accessible indoor areas
count
Class 2 – 1 space per 4
units, minimum 2 spaces
Commercial
recreation
Sports arenas, theaters See
classification
column
Class 1 – 1 per 10,000
square feet
Class 2 – 1 per 40 seats,
minimum 10
Civic uses (civic,
cultural, public,
and religious
assembly)
Library or museum, places
of public or religious
assembly
1 per 1,000
square feet
10% Class 1
90% Class 2
Schools 1 per 5 students 20% Class 1
80% Class 2*
*Must be in secure area
such as bike cage or
within gated school
grounds, preferably with
weather protection such
as roof
Park-and-ride lots 1 per 10 auto
parking spaces,
minimum 2
spaces
100% Class 1
Transit centers See
classification
column
30 Class 1 spaces
12 Class 2 spaces
Lodging Hotel, motel 1 per 5
rooms/units
10% Class 1
90% Class 2
Commercial
parking
1 per 10 auto
parking spaces
100% Class 1

15.153
Example
Number of
Bicycle Parking
Spaces Required
Classification
Class 1 = Long-Term
Class 2 = Short-Term
Parking District
No. 1 – Residential
uses
Multifamily housing,
including any accessory
dwelling units
See
classification
column
1 Class 1 bicycle parking
space per unit
1 Class 2 bicycle parking
space per 15 units
Parking District
No. 1 –
Nonresidential uses
Any nonresidential uses in
district
1 per 1,000
square feet
25% Class 1
75% Class 2
The Class 2 spaces shall
be publicly accessible,
and the style shall be
inverted U.

Emergency shelters See Section 24.12.1610 1 per 3
occupants
25% Class 1
75% Class 2
The Class 2 spaces shall
be publicly accessible,
and the style shall be
inverted U.

3. For projects requiring twenty or more bike parking spaces, a bike fix-it station is required. A fix-it station shall include at a minimum a bicycle pump; 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 mm Allen wrenches; 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 32 mm box wrenches; two tire levers; and a Phillips and flat head screwdriver. For projects requiring twenty or more bicycle parking spaces, a minimum of five percent of required bicycle parking spaces must have a larger footprint of three feet by ten feet, which must be provided in a horizontal, floor level rack. These spaces will be available for larger bicycles such as e-bikes, cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, and other larger bicycles.

4. Classification of Facilities.
a. “Class 1 bicycle facility” means a locker, individually locked enclosure or supervised area within a building providing protection for each bicycle therein from theft, vandalism and weather. Class 1 facilities are intended for long-term storage. b. “Class 2 bicycle facility” means a stand or other device constructed so as to enable the user to secure by locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Racks must provide two points of contact to bicycle frames, so that they are easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks. Racks should support the bikes in a stable upright position so that a bike, if bumped, will not fall or roll down. The preferred Class 2 bike rack style is an inverted U, which meets code requirements. Racks that support a bike primarily by a wheel, such as standard “wire racks,” are damaging to wheels and thus are not acceptable.

Class 2 facilities are intended for short-term storage.

5. Location and Design of Facilities.
a. Bicycle parking shall be located in well-lit locations within forty feet of the building’s entrance and clustered in lots not to exceed sixteen spaces each. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall provide two points of contact to bicycle frames to support bicycles in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame or other components. c. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in highly visible, well-lit areas to minimize theft and vandalism.

15.154
d. Bicycle parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the lot surface so they cannot be easily removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft. e. Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, and should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Parking facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. f. Racks must not be placed close enough to a wall or other obstruction so as to make use difficult. There must be sufficient space (at least twenty-four inches) beside each parked bike that allows access. This access may be shared by adjacent bicycles. An aisle or other space shall be provided to bicycles to enter and leave the facility. This aisle shall have a width of at least six feet to the front or rear of a bike parked in the facility. g. Paving is not required, but the outside ground surface shall be finished or planted in a way that avoids mud and dust.
h. Bike parking facilities within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier to protect bicycles from damage by cars, such as curbs, wheel stops, poles or other similar features.
i. Any bicycle parking provided in double-decker bicycle racks shall have a lift-assist mechanism to aid the user in parking their bicycle on the upper rack. j. If vertical wall hanging bicycle racks are used for Class 2 bicycle parking, thirty percent of required Class 2 bicycle parking must be provided in racks that meet Class 2 requirements in subsection (4)(b) at ground level.
k. If required Class 2 bicycle parking is not clearly visible to bicyclists approaching from adjacent public roadways or paths, signs shall indicate the locations of the facilities on the exterior of the building at each major entrance and in other appropriate locations. Where necessary, additional directional signage to the bicycle parking area shall be provided.

6. Variation to Requirements.
a. Substitution of Car Parking With Bike Parking. New and preexisting developments may reduce up to ten percent of their parking requirement with the provision of unrequired additional bike parking, as long as the spaces are conveniently located within forty feet of a building entrance. This parking reduction must yield at least six bike parking spaces per converted auto space. These bike parking spaces shall be in addition to the bike parking facilities required by this section, and provided in the same ratio of Class 1 and Class 2.

The total available parking reduction granted shall be calculated in conformance with the city parking reduction worksheet in effect at the time a complete planning application is submitted.
b. Where the provision of bike parking is not feasible, the requirements may be waived or reduced to a feasible level by the zoning administrator in accordance with city bike parking standards.
c. Downtown Parking District – All Nonresidential Uses. Businesses and developments within Parking District No. 1 are not required to provide Class 2 bicycle parking on site if adequate on-site space is not available, as determined by the planning director. The city shall permit required bicycle parking within the public right-of-way for the downtown parking district area in locations and amounts determined by the director of public works.

Section 36. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance is considered a “project” under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15378(a)(1) of the

15.155
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, typically subject to environmental review. The City Council finds that these amendments fall within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR using the existing zoning and General Plan and, therefore, pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

Section 37. If any section or portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, which shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 38. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption outside of the Coastal Zone. Within the Coastal Zone, this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force after approval by the California Coastal Commission, but no earlier than thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 8th day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this 22nd day of October 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

15.156
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.
___________________________
City Clerk Administrator

15.157
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 21.06 - RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING UNIT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, 23.04 – SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE – GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.12 – MAPS REQUIRED, 23.37 – COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECTS, AND 24.08 - LAND USE PERMITS AND FINDINGS; AMENDING CHAPTER

24.16 PART 1 – INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND PART 2 – ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; AND ADDING NEW SECTION 24.16.165 RELATED

TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH STATE

REGULATIONS, CLARIFY EXISTING STANDARDS, REMOVE OWNER-OCCUPANCY

REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, REQUIRE

PROPERTIES WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO ENROLL IN THE

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL INSPECTION SERVICE, AND TO ALLOW FOR THE

CONDOMINIUM MAPPING AND SEPARATE SALE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED PRIMARY DWELLINGS; AND TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NOS. 2022-22 AND 2023-01. (CEQA: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 AS A PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR WHICH AN EIR WAS CERTIFIED.)
WHEREAS, accessory dwelling units contribute needed housing to the community’s housing stock and provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others within existing neighborhoods, and homeowners who create accessory dwelling units may benefit from added income and an increased sense of security; and WHEREAS, at its December 13, 2022 meeting, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinance 2022-22, amending accessory dwelling unit regulations in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to comply with implementation deadlines set by state laws AB 2221 and SB 897; and WHEREAS, at its January 24, 2023 meeting, the City Council extended the urgency ordinance through the end of 2024 with Ordinance 2023-01; and
WHEREAS, amendments made by the urgency ordinance are now codified through a formal ordinance required to be approved prior to the end of 2024, thus rescinding the urgency ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, AB 976 (Ting) was signed into law, removing owner-occupancy requirements for properties with accessory dwelling units for any accessory dwelling unit created in 2025 and in perpetuity thereafter; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, AB 1033 (Ting) was signed into law, allowing local jurisdictions to create an ordinance to allow for the separate sale of accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings as condominiums; and

15.158
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the Department of Planning and Community Development detailing a review of the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations and requiring several corrections to ensure ongoing compliance with state law.

WHEREAS, additional clarifications are needed to the accessory dwelling unit regulations in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2024, the Department of Planning and Community Development held a community meeting to present proposed modifications to local accessory dwelling unit regulations and solicited feedback from the public; and WHEREAS, at its September 5, 2024 meeting, the Santa Cruz Planning Commission reviewed the proposed additions and modifications to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and any adopted area or specific plan; and
WHEREAS, at its September 5, 2024 meeting, the Santa Cruz Planning Commission passed a motion that recommended the City Council approve the proposed additions and amendments as well as any additional changes needed to comply with state ADU law; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments and additions to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code fall within the analyzed development potential in the City of Santa Cruz’s existing 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report using the existing zoning and General Plan and, therefore, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no further environmental review under the CEQA is required.

BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 21.06.030 of Chapter 21.06 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Scope of Residential Rental Dwelling Unit Inspection and Maintenance Program is hereby amended to read as follows:

21.06.030 SCOPE.

A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all owners of one or more residential rental dwelling units located within the city of Santa Cruz.

B. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to legal accessory dwelling units, rooms rented to single individuals in an owner-occupied single-family residence, hotel or motel units subject to the transient occupancy tax ordinance codified at Chapter 3.28, units inspected by another governmental authority for housing and safety standards, newly constructed multiple dwelling units (including townhouse dwelling groups and condominium projects that are rented) for a period of five years from the issuance of certificate of occupancy, and mobile home parks.

15.159
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Section 2. Section 23.04.050.1 of Chapter 23.04 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Subdivision Principles – General is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.04.050.1 SUBDIVISION PRINCIPLES – GENERAL.

The necessity for tentative parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps, parcel maps, and final maps shall be governed by the provisions of the Map Act and this title. A tentative and final map shall be required for all subdivisions creating five or more parcels, including community housing projects, except where expressly excluded by the Map Act. The city council shall have final jurisdiction in the approval of tentative and final subdivision maps. A tentative parcel map and a final parcel map shall be required for all subdivisions referred to herein as minor land divisions, including community housing projects creating four or fewer parcels, except for creation of no more than four condominium parcels for accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings pursuant to Section 24.16.165, in which case a tentative parcel map shall not be required, but a parcel map shall be required. The zoning administrator shall have final jurisdiction in the approval of such minor land divisions. A tentative subdivision map and a final map shall be required for all other subdivisions of land or other procedures provided in the Map Act, and the city council shall have final jurisdiction in the approval of such maps. Each subdivision or minor land division shall conform to the standards and principles set forth, or referred to, in this title unless modified for good cause by the city council, the zoning board, or the zoning administrator.

Section 3. Section 23.12.030.1 of Chapter 23.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Division of Land – Fewer Than Five Parcels – Maps Required is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.12.030.1 DIVISION OF LAND – FEWER THAN FIVE PARCELS – MAPS

REQUIRED
A tentative parcel map and a parcel map shall be required for all divisions of land which create fewer than five parcels, except for:
(a) Divisions of land created by short-term leases (terminable by either party on not more than a thirty-day notice in writing) of a portion of an operating right-of-way of a railroad corporation defined as such by Section 230 of the Public Utilities Code; provided, however, that upon a showing made to the city engineer, based upon substantial evidence that public policy necessitates such a map, this exception shall not apply; (b) Lot-line adjustments, provided:
(1) The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, zoning and building ordinances; and

15.160
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting (2) A greater number of parcels than originally existed are not created by the lot line adjustment.; or
(c) Creation of no more than four condominium parcels for accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings pursuant to Section 24.16.165, in which case a tentative parcel map shall not be required, but a parcel map shall be required.

The zoning administrator shall review the application for a lot line adjustment and shall not impose conditions or exactions on approval except to conform to the general plan, any applicable specific plan or area plan, any applicable coastal plan, zoning or building ordinances, and except to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements.

No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition of approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8792 of the state Business and Professions Code.

Section 4. Section 23.37.020.1 of Chapter 23.37 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Provisions for Conversions of Existing Structures – Vacancy Requirements - Exceptions is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.37.020.1 PROVISIONS FOR CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES – VACANCY REQUIREMENTS – EXCEPTIONS.
(1) An existing residential structure may be converted to a community housing project and be exempt from Section 23.37.020(a) if the structure is converted and sold to at least sixty-seven percent of the existing tenants. In such cases, proposals containing five or more units shall provide at least twenty percent of the total units for purchase by households of below-average income pursuant to Section 24.16.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) An existing residential stock cooperative proposed for conversion to a condominium is exempt from Section 23.37.020.
(3) A building which is listed on the city historic building survey or which is a contributing building located in a city historic district. (4) Creation of no more than four condominium parcels for existing accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings pursuant to Section 24.16.165.

Section 5. Section 23.37.050 of Chapter 23.37 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Provision for the Protection of Tenants is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.37.050 PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF TENANTS.

15.161
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Conversion of existing residential structures to community housing projects can be approved in accordance with Section 23.37.030 only if evidence is provided that the following provisions have been implemented:
(a) Each of the tenants of the proposed projects has or will have received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required by the State Subdivision Map Act, including written notice of intention to convert, at least sixty days prior to the filing of a tentative map, pursuant to Section 66452.9 of the Government Code; ten days’ written notification that an application for a public report will be available upon request, pursuant to Section 66427.1(a) of the Government Code; written notice of public hearing and the tenant’s right to appear and to be heard on the conversion, pursuant to Section 66451.3 of the Government Code; and copies of the staff report on the tentative map at least three days prior to any hearing or action on such map, pursuant to Section 66452.3 of the Government Code.
(b) Within ten days after the filing of the tentative subdivision map with the city, the subdivider shall cause the following notice to be delivered or mailed by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested to the occupant of each occupied apartment being converted to a condominium:

NOTICE TO PRESENT TENANT
This apartment is sought to be converted to a condominium unit and may be subject to future sale. The City of Santa Cruz will provide information about the City’s regulations regarding conversions of apartments to condominiums. (c) At the time of the issuance of the written notice of the intention to convert, the applicant has informed the tenants that a tenants’ association has the right to negotiate for the purpose of converting the structure as a cooperative.
(d) Within ten days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion, each of the tenants of the proposed project will be given written notification of the approval. (e) Each of the tenants of the proposed project has been, or will be, given one hundred eighty days’ written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed conversion. Tenants aged sixty-two or older or handicapped or with minor children have been, or will be given an additional one hundred twenty days in which to find suitable replacement housing. A list of available rental units of similar price shall be provided to each tenant. The provisions hereof shall not alter or abridge the rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants including, but not limited to, the provision of services, payment of rent, or the obligations imposed by Sections 1941, 1941.1 and 1941.2 of the California Civil Code.
(f) Each of the tenants of the proposed project has, or will be given, the right to cancel any existing lease following receipt of the written notice of public hearing by providing thirty-day written notice to the landlord.

15.162
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting (g) Each of the tenants of the proposed project has been, or will be given, notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit or, in the case of a cooperative, the share controlling the dwelling unit then occupied by the tenant upon the same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public on terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than ninety days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report, pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code, or approval of the application by city if a subdivision public report is not required, unless the tenant has given prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right.
(h) Each of the tenants of the proposed project who resided in the project at the time of the issuance of the notification of intention to convert has been, or will be, offered moving and relocation assistance amounting to one and one-half times the tenant’s monthly rent, except when the tenant has given notice of his or her intention to move prior to issuance of intention to convert. However, for the conversion of no more than four units consisting of accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings to condominiums pursuant to Section 24.16.165, relocation assistance shall be defined as four months’ rent for a person or family of low or moderate income who currently occupies or had occupied the dwelling unit within two years prior to the date of submission of the application for the conversion of the unit(s). (i) Rents will not be increased from the time of filing of the application for conversion until relocation takes place or until the application is denied or withdrawn. (j) No apartment in a building to be converted shall be leased to any person after the filing of an application with the city for such conversion unless a written notice shall have been delivered to the prospective lessee or tenant in substantially the following form:

NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE TENANT
This apartment unit is sought to be converted to a condominium unit and may be subject to future sale.

A permanent record of such required notices shall be kept for a period of one year thereafter, such record to include:
(1) A copy of each notice showing the date on which it was delivered or mailed; and (2) Proof of the giving of the notice consisting of:
(A) If delivered, the signature of the person to whom it was delivered acknowledging such delivery; or
(B) If mailed, proof of mailing and return receipt if the receipt was returned to the recipient of the notice

15.163
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Section 6. Section 24.08.800 of Chapter 24.08 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Purpose for Slope Development Permit (Applies Outside the Coastal Zone) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.08.800 PURPOSE.

Development on slopes presents opportunities and challenges. Construction on unstable slopes can lead to erosion, steep terrain can present wildfire and evacuation hazards, and buildings constructed on hilltops often have exceptional views while having the potential to adversely impact public views. Such development is therefore regulated by the provisions of Section 24.14.030, Slope regulations (outside the Coastal Zone), to ensure that risks to public and private property and adverse impacts to public views are minimized. “Public views” include scenic views of the ocean, beaches, and the Santa Cruz Mountains from public property, including from parks and public rights-of-way. This section is also part of the local coastal implementation plan.

Section 7. Section 24.08.810 of Chapter 24.08 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Procedure for Slope Development Permit (Applies Outside the Coastal Zone) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.08.810 PROCEDURE.

Projects on or within twenty feet of a slope of thirty percent or greater must apply for a slope development permit unless the project is exempted from the need for such a permit under Section 24.14.030(1)(g) or when approval of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit waives of this standard pursuant to Section 24.16.141.11. This permit may be granted by the zoning administrator under Section 24.14.030(1)(c) without a hearing if the project is on or within twenty feet of a slope greater than or equal to thirty percent and less than fifty percent and is consistent with the findings in Section 24.08.820, unless the slope development permit is accompanied by an application that must be heard by a higher body. Projects on or within twenty feet of a slope of fifty percent or greater must be considered at a public hearing by the zoning administrator and must also be consistent with the findings in Section 24.08.820 unless the project is exempted from such a permit per Section 24.14.030(1)(g).

In the case of construction of an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24.16.100 et seq., this section shall apply only when alternative site configurations are available to an applicant that would permit the construction of a detached accessory dwelling conforming to the development standards in Section 24.16.140 without the need for a slope development permit; when no alternative site configuration will allow the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit in conformance with Section 24.16.140, the applicant shall comply with the maximum possible number of findings in Section 24.08.820, but shall not be denied a building permit for the accessory dwelling unit based on this section.

15.164
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Section 8. Section 24.08.820 of Chapter 24.08 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Findings Required for Slope Development Permit (Applies Outside the Coastal Zone) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.08.820 FINDINGS REQUIRED.

A slope development permit may be granted when all of the following applicable conditions are found or when, pursuant to the provisions of Section 24.08.810, an application for an accessory dwelling unit meets as many of the following conditions as possible:

1. Measures have been included within the design of the project to mitigate impacts on environmental constraint areas identified in the Natural Resources and Conservation Element and the Safety Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.

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

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

4. A registered civil engineer or other qualified professional will design streets, buildings, and other man-made structures to conform with existing landforms and topography.

5. 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.

6. The proposed project employs architectural and design elements which in total serve to reduce the mass and bulk of structures to protect public views. 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;
e. Fence lines, walls, and other features which blend with the terrain rather than strike off at an angle against it.

15.165
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting

7. 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.

Section 9. Section 21.08.1320 of Chapter 24.08 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding General Provisions of Residential, Demolition/Conversion Authorization Permits is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.08.1320 GENERAL PROVISIONS.

California State law includes strict standards for the demolition of housing in an effort to ensure that existing density is not reduced and that housing that is currently rented to lower income tenants is maintained as affordable housing within new development. Housing demolition and housing development projects must comply with the requirements of this section as well as those contained in California state law governing relocation assistance and replacement housing units, including but not limited to Government Code Sections 65589.5 and 66300, as amended. For each provision of the regulations, when both this code and the California Government Code apply, whichever requires the higher number of replacement units, bedrooms, and/or relocation assistance shall take precedence. A residential demolition/conversion authorization permit shall be required prior to issuance of a demolition permit for No demolition permit shall be issued for any residential dwelling unit, including any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, or single-room occupancy living unit. A residential unit that is replaced by a conversion accessory dwelling unit shall not be required to obtain a residential demolition authorization permit. unless a residential demolition/conversion authorization permit has been issued pursuant to this part.

Section 10. Section 21.08.1330 of Chapter 24.08 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Demolition of Conversion of Single-Family Residence or Duplex Units is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.08.1330 DEMOLITION OR CONVERSION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OR DUPLEX UNITS.

The zoning administrator may issue a demolition/conversion authorization permit for the demolition or conversion of a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit, junior accessory dwelling unit, or duplex upon finding that:

1. The building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition Permits) of this chapter, or that the demolition or conversion has been approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 11; and

2. The project which will replace the demolished or converted unit(s) has been approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been issued; unless no building permit is required or some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this finding inappropriate; and

15.166
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting

3. The building is not in the coastal zone, or, if it is in the coastal zone, is being replaced by a residential use or a nonresidential coastal-dependent use as defined by Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code; and

4. Relocation assistance has been provided to eligible tenants consistent with Section 24.08.1350; or

5. The building which is in the coastal zone and is being replaced by a nonresidential use which is not coastal-dependent as defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code, is located where residential use is no longer feasible, but will not be issued a demolition permit or building permit in connection with the conversion until the applicant has entered into an agreement to provide relocation assistance and replacement housing or in-lieu fees consistent with Section 24.08.1350 and the applicable portions of Sections 24.08.1360 and 24.08.1370.

Section 11. Section 24.16.020 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Basic On-Site Inclusionary Housing Requirements is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.020 BASIC ON-SITE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

1. Applicability.
a. The inclusionary housing requirements defined in this chapter are applicable to all residential developments that create two or more new and/or additional dwelling units or FDU or SRO units at one location by construction or alteration of structures, or would create two or more lots through approval of a parcel map or tentative map, except for exempt residential developments under subsection (2).
b. Additional rent above and beyond affordable rent or affordable ownership cost may be permitted for the commercial/work space in a live/work unit at a rent that is determined to be affordable to qualifying households and is proportionate to the amount of commercial space provided. The amount of rent for the commercial portion of the live/work unit shall be agreed upon by the developer, the economic development director, and the planning and community development director. If no agreement can be reached, the city will retain an outside financial consultant to evaluate and determine the allowable affordable rent and establish a methodology for determining future commercial rent levels. The methodology for determining future commercial rent levels shall be defined in every affordable housing development agreement for residential developments that include at least one live/work unit.

2. The following residential developments are exempt from the requirements of this chapter:
a. Residential developments developed pursuant to the terms of a development agreement executed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; provided, that such residential developments comply with any affordable housing requirements included in the development agreement or any predecessor inclusionary housing requirements in effect on the date the development agreement was executed.
b. Residential developments for which a complete application was filed with the city prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; provided, that such residential

15.167
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting developments comply with any predecessor inclusionary housing requirements in effect on the date the application for the residential development was deemed complete. c. Residential developments if exempted by California Government Code Section 66474.2 or 66498.1; provided, that such residential developments comply with any predecessor inclusionary housing requirements in effect on the date the application for the residential development was deemed complete.
d. Residential developments replacing dwelling units that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, or other acts of nature, so long as no additional dwelling units are created by the residential development; and provided, that such residential developments comply with any inclusionary housing requirements previously applied to the dwelling units being replaced. e. Accessory dwelling units.
f. e. Rental residential developments with two to four dwelling units.

3. Ownership Residential Developments with Two to Four Dwelling Units. For ownership residential developments that would create at least two but not more than four new or additional dwelling units and/or live/work units at one location, the applicant shall either: (a) make one inclusionary unit available for sale at an affordable ownership cost; (b) make one inclusionary unit available at an affordable rent for low income households; or (c) pay an in-lieu fee calculated pursuant to Section 24.16.030(6).

4. Ownership Residential Developments with Five or More Dwelling Units. For ownership residential developments that would create five or more new or additional dwelling units and/or live/work units at one location, the applicant shall provide inclusionary units as follows:
a. Affordable Housing Requirement for Ownership Residential Developments. In an ownership residential or live/work development, twenty percent of the dwelling units shall be made available for sale to low and moderate income households at an affordable ownership cost. b. Fractional Affordable Housing Requirement for Ownership Residential Developments – 0.7 Units or Less. If the number of dwelling units required under subsection (4)(a) results in a fractional requirement of 0.7 or less, then the applicant shall either: (i) make one inclusionary unit available for sale at an affordable ownership cost; (ii) make one inclusionary unit available at an affordable rent for low income households; or (iii) pay an in-lieu fee calculated pursuant to Section 24.16.030(6). This subsection (4)(b) applies to the fractional unit only, and whole units shall be provided as required by subsection (4)(a).
c. Fractional Affordable Housing Requirement for Ownership Residential Developments – More Than 0.7 Units. If the number of dwelling units required under subsection (4)(a) results in a fractional requirement of greater than 0.7, then the applicant shall either: (i) make one inclusionary unit available for sale at an affordable ownership cost; or (ii) make one inclusionary unit available at an affordable rent for low income households. This subsection (4)(c) applies to the fractional unit only, and whole units shall be provided as required by subsection (4)(a). d. Rental Units in an Ownership Residential Development. i. In an ownership residential development where all dwelling units are initially offered for rent, an applicant may satisfy the inclusionary requirements by providing rental units as provided in subsection (5).
ii. The rent regulatory agreement required by Section 24.16.045 shall include provisions for sale of the inclusionary units at an affordable ownership cost to eligible households within ninety days from the issuance of the public report by the California Department of Real Estate permitting sale of the units or at termination of the tenant’s lease whichever is later and otherwise in compliance with state law; provided, however, that the sale of the entire ownership

15.168
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting residential development from one entity to another shall not trigger the obligation to sell individual inclusionary units. To the extent relocation payments are required by law the applicant shall be wholly responsible for the cost of preparing a relocation plan and making required payments. Any tenant of an inclusionary unit at the time units are offered for sale that qualifies to purchase an inclusionary unit at an affordable ownership cost shall be offered a right of first refusal to purchase the inclusionary unit. At sale appropriate documents shall be recorded to ensure the continued affordability of the inclusionary units at an affordable ownership cost as required by Section 24.16.045.

5. Rental Residential Developments with Five or More Dwelling Units. For rental residential developments that would create five or more new or additional dwelling units and/or live/work units at one location, the applicant shall provide inclusionary units as follows:
a. Rental residential developments that would create five or more new or additional dwelling units or live/work units at one location shall provide twenty percent of the dwelling units as inclusionary units, which shall be made available for rent to low income households at an affordable rent.
b. SRO Developments. In a rental residential development comprised of SRO units, twenty percent of the single-room occupancy units shall be made available for rent to very low income households at an affordable rent.
c. Fractional Affordable Housing Requirement for Rental Residential Developments with More Than Five Dwelling Units. If the number of dwelling units required results in a fractional requirement of 0.7 or less, then there will be no inclusionary requirement for the fractional unit.

If the number of dwelling units required results in a fractional requirement of greater than 0.7, then the applicant shall make one inclusionary unit available at an affordable rent. This subsection (5)(c) applies to the fractional unit only, and whole units shall be provided as required by subsections (5)(a) and (b).

6. The requirements of subsections (3) through (5) are minimum requirements and shall not preclude a residential development from providing additional affordable units or affordable units with lower rents or sales prices than required.
a. By mutual agreement by the developer, the planning and community development director, and the economic development director, the percentage of inclusionary units may be increased in exchange for reduced parking and/or other development requirements. b. If the developer agrees to make at least forty percent of the residential project available for rent to low income households at a rental cost affordable to low income households, in addition to reduction of development requirements, by mutual agreement by the developer, the planning and community development director, and the economic development director, the city may also provide financial incentives to increase the number of inclusionary units in a project.

7. For purposes of calculating the number of inclusionary units required by this section, an accessory dwelling unit or units, constructed on parcels in the R-1 Districts or otherwise as part of a development of detached, single-family homes, shall not be counted either as part of the residential development or as an affordable unit fulfilling the inclusionary requirements for the residential development.

87. For the purposes of calculating the number and type of inclusionary units required by this section, rental accessory dwelling units that are not eligible for separate conveyance, constructed on parcels with multifamily structures-, either as part of the initial development or anytime thereafter, shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (5), and ownership accessory dwelling units or rental accessory dwelling units that are mapped, created either as part of the

15.169
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting initial development or anytime thereafter shall be subject to the requirements of subsections (3) and (4). The calculation shall be based on the total resulting number of accessory dwelling units on the original lot., commencing with the fifth accessory dwelling unit proposed for the parcel.

The first four accessory dwelling units on such a parcel shall not be counted either as part of the residential development or as affordable units fulfilling the inclusionary requirements for the residential development. The inclusionary requirement for accessory dwelling units constitutes a separate inclusionary requirement than that of the primary residential use, such that only accessory dwelling units shall count toward the inclusionary requirement calculation for the accessory dwelling units on the lot, and only the residential units comprising the primary residential use shall count toward the inclusionary requirement calculation for the primary residential use on the lot. The accessory dwelling unit inclusionary requirementand shall be met with accessory dwelling units or as otherwise permitted under Section 24.16.030, including, but not limited to payment of the in-lieu fee.

89. For purposes of calculating the number of inclusionary units required by this section, any dwelling units authorized as a density bonus pursuant to Part 3 of this chapter shall not be counted as part of the residential development. However, if a developer receives a city rental housing bonus as authorized by Section 24.16.035(4), then all of the dwelling units in the project, including the dwelling units authorized as a density bonus, shall be counted as part of the residential development for purposes of calculating the inclusionary units required by this section.

Section 12. Section 24.16.100 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Purpose of Accessory Dwelling Units is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.100 PURPOSE.

The ordinance codified in this part provides for accessory dwelling units in certain areas and on lots developed or proposed to be developed with single- or multifamily dwellings. Such accessory dwellings are allowed because they can contribute needed housing to the community’s housing stock. Accessory dwelling units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others within existing neighborhoods, and homeowners who create accessory dwelling units may benefit from added income and an increased sense of security.

In addition, the ordinance codified in this part provides a mechanism to grant legal status to existing illegally constructed accessory dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods. By encouraging legalization, safe dwellings may be added to the city’s existing housing supply.

Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are considered dwelling units for the purposes of meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation and for the purposes of replacement housing and relocation assistance requirements.

Thus, it is found that accessory dwelling units are a residential use whichthat is consistent with the General Plan objectives and zoning regulations and whichthat enhances housing opportunities throughout the city of Santa Cruz. To ensure that accessory dwelling units will conform to General Plan policy, the following regulations are established.

15.170
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Section 13. Section 24.16.125 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Definitions of Accessory Dwelling Units is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.125 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply to accessory dwelling units throughout the municipal code:

1. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” shall mean an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the primary dwelling, including to an attached garage.

1. 2. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” shall mean any accessory dwelling unit created primarily by the conversion of any one permitted, entitled, or legal nonconforming structurebuilding, or portion of such a structurebuilding. Structures to be convertedThe conversion accessory dwelling unit may either be converted utilizing the existing structural components of the structurebuilding, or reconstructed within the existing three-dimensional physical space occupied by the structurebuilding. On property developed with multi-unitfamily structuresbuildings, only areas that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, shall be eligible to become conversion accessory dwelling units. The limitation on converting non-livable space shall not apply to a nonconforming duplex on a single-family zoned lot where one unit is converted to an accessory dwelling unit to result in a single-family home and accessory dwelling unit on the site. Consistent with zoning standards, conversion accessory dwelling units shall be permitted to expand the existing footprint of the structurebuilding by up to one hundred fifty square feet, and the existing height by up to two feet, and must be in conformance with all requirements of Section 24.16.142.

2. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” shall mean an accessory dwelling unit that is separated from any single- or multi-unit building.

3. “Multi-unit building” shall mean a building with two or more attached dwellings on a single lot, including apartment or condominium buildings that contain at least two units.

Accessory dwelling units do not count toward the number of units in this calculation.

4. 2. “New construction accessory dwelling unit” shall mean any accessory dwelling unit that includes new construction and whichthat does not meet the definition and requirements for a conversion accessory dwelling unit.

5. “Non-exempt accessory dwelling unit” shall mean an accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the definition of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit.

6. “Primary dwelling” shall mean the dwelling unit with which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is associated.

7. “Single-unit building” shall mean a structurally independent building that contains one dwelling unit. A single-unit building may be the only building on the lot, such as a single-family home or a townhome, or it may be a detached residential condominium or apartment unit on a lot with one or more other dwellings that are not attached to the single-unit building. Accessory dwelling units do not count toward the number of units in this calculation.

8. “Statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit” shall mean any of the following:
a. One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-unit building, including a single-family dwelling, townhome, or a detached residential condominium or apartment unit on a lot with multiple dwellings, if all of the following apply:

15.171
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting i. The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-unit building or it is within the existing space of a single-unit building or detached accessory building. This type of statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit does not include a building reconstructed within the three-dimensional space of an existing building to be demolished.
ii. If the accessory dwelling unit is within the space of an existing detached accessory building, the accessory dwelling unit may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory building. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing building shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
iii. The accessory dwelling unit has an exterior entrance separate from that of the primary dwelling unit.
iv. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. v. The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 24.16.170 below.
b. One detached, new construction accessory dwelling unit that meets the following standards:
i. The accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a lot with a proposed or existing single-unit building, including a single-family dwelling, townhome, or a detached residential condominium or apartment unit on a site with multiple dwellings.
ii. The accessory dwelling unit size shall not exceed 800 square feet in floor area.
iii. Interior side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be at least four feet. iv. The accessory dwelling unit shall meet one of the following height limitations as measured to the roof peak:

1. A height of 16 feet; or

2. A height of 18 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is on a lot within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. This height can be increased an additional two feet to twenty feet to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
v. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit that meets the standards as described in Section 24.16.170. c. Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multi-unit buildings, including a residential condominium or apartment building with two or more attached units, that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. The number of accessory dwelling units permitted is equivalent to up to twenty-five percent of the number of existing, legally permitted units in the multi-unit building, or one, whichever is greater. When the twenty-five percent limit results in a fraction of a

15.172
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting unit, the total number of accessory dwelling units that may be added shall be determined by rounding the fraction up to the next whole number. d. Not more than two detached accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing or proposed multi-unit building, including a residential condominium or apartment building with two or more attached units. Each accessory dwelling unit shall meet the following standards:
i. Rear and interior side yard setbacks shall be at least four feet. If the existing multi-unit building has a rear or interior side yard setback of less than four feet, the existing multi-unit building will not be required to be modified to meet this setback.
ii. The accessory dwelling units shall meet one of the following height limitations as measured to the roof peak:

1. A height of 16 feet; or

2. A height of 18 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is on a lot within one-half of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. This height can be increased an additional two feet to 20 feet to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; or

3. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-unit, multistory building.

Section 14. Section 21.16.130 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Permit Procedures is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.130 PERMIT PROCEDURES.

1. Accessory dwelling units shall be principally permitted uses within the zoning districts specified in Section 24.16.120 and subject to the development standards in Section 24.16.140 et seq.

2. Accessory dwelling units on substandard lots shall not be required to obtain a design permit unless they are associated with the construction of a new single-family dwelling per Section 24.08.400 et seq.

3. An accessory dwelling unit replacing a detached garage shall receive review and issuance of a demolition permit concurrently with the review and issuance of the permit for the accessory dwelling unit.

4. 2. City shall issue a ministerial building permit for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit without discretionary review or a hearing, consistent with the provisions

15.173
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting of this chapter and state law, within sixty days of submittal of a complete building permit application, unless provided otherwise. The sixty-day review period shall not apply when:
a. Additional administrative or discretionary review is required under applicable provisions of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or otherwise allowed by state law. i. Applications to construct accessory dwelling units shall be subject only to ministerial permitting processes to the extent necessary to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit conforming to the size limits stated in Section 24.16.140(3).

Applications that propose to locate an accessory dwelling unit on a parcel or portion of a parcel triggering additional administrative or discretionary review shall only be relieved of the requirement for those reviews when no alternative site plan or project proposal can be created which would allow the creation of an up to eight-hundredsquare-foot accessory dwelling unit that would not trigger additional reviews; b. a. If tThe permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted requires simultaneous approval ofwith a discretionary or building permit application associated with creatingto create a new single-familyunit or multi-familyunit dwellingbuilding on the same lot or parcel. The City may delay approving or denying the building permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the City approves or denies the permit application to create the new single-unit or multi-unit building; or
c.b. When the applicant seeks a delay, for any reason, including but not limited to pursuit of a discretionary permit pursuant to Section 24.16.130.8. in which case The period of the delay shall not count toward the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
103. If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant in accordance with the 60- day time period set forth in Section 24.16.130 (4) above.

5.4. Construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, except as specified under state law. Construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing single-familyunit or multifamily-unit dwellingbuilding.

6.5. The City shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures unless they

15.174
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting present a threat to public health and safety and are affected by the construction of the accessory dwelling unit.

7.6. The City shall not require, and the applicant shall not be otherwise required, to provide written notice or post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit, unless the property is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.

3.7. An accessory dwelling unit replacing a detached garage shall receive review and issuance of a demolition permit concurrently with the review and issuance of the permit for the accessory dwelling unit.

8. Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are designated as historic resources by the city, the state of California, or by the National Register of Historic Places shall show substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development on such properties.

9. Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are subject to the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements established in that plan for such properties, as implemented by Section 24.08.2100 et seq.

10. If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant in accordance with the 60- day time period set forth in Section 24.16.130 (4) above.

8. To promote flexibility in siting of accessory dwelling units, nothing in this Part shall prohibit an applicant from pursuing a discretionary permit to construct an accessory dwelling unit on a lot that has a buildable area of at least eight hundred square feet with at least four foot side and rear yard setbacks for an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit with application of all site development standards or waivers as provided in Section 24.16.141 but where the applicant chooses to place the accessory dwelling unit in a location that does not meet such standards or waivers.

Section 15. Section 21.16.140 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Development Standards is hereby renamed General Development Standards and amended to read as follows:

24.16.140 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

15.175
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting All accessory dwelling units, both new construction and conversion, mustshall conform to the following requirements:

1. Number of Accessory Dwelling Units per Parcel.
a. For parcels zoned for and including a proposed or existing single-unit building, including a single-family home, townhome, or multiple detached dwellings, but not including any multifamily structures: One non-exempt accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed for each parcelon each lot in addition to any statewide exemption accessory dwelling units. Each parcellot may also include a junior accessory dwelling unit conforming to the standards set forth in Section 24.16.170. b. For parcelslots developed with an existing or proposed multi-unit building, including an apartment or condominium building with two or more dwelling units: multifamily structure(s): no non-exempt accessory dwelling units shall be allowed in addition to any statewide exemption dwelling units. The number of statewide exemption dwelling units allowed on each lot equals two new construction and at least one conversion accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on each parcel. Up to twenty-five percent of the number of existing dwellings in the structuremulti-unit building may be added as conversion accessory dwelling units. When the twenty-five percent limit results in a fraction of a unit, the total number of accessory dwelling units that may be added shall be determined by rounding the fraction up to the next whole number.
i. For the purposes of this section, multifamily structures are those that contain more than one dwelling unit, including but not limited to duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, and condominium buildings.

2. Parking. No off-street parking shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit outside of the Coastal Zone. Any parking spaces, covered or uncovered, removed in order to create an accessory dwelling unit shall not be required to be replaced outside the Coastal Zone. For properties within the Coastal Zone, parking requirements are contained in Section

24.12.240(1)(w).

3. Unit Size.
a. The floor area for new construction detached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed ten percent of the net lot area or eight hundred fifty square feet for a studio or one-bedroom ADU, or one thousand square feet for an ADU with more than one bedroom, whichever is greater, and no detached new construction ADU shall exceed a maximum of one thousand two hundred square feet of habitable area.
b. The floor area for new construction accessory dwelling units attached to the principal residential use on the property shall not exceed fifty percent of the existing habitable floor area of the principal residential use on the property, or eight hundred fifty square feet for a

15.176
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting studio or one-bedroom ADU, or one thousand square feet for an ADU with more than one bedroom, whichever is greater.
c. The floor area for conversion accessory dwelling units shall not be limited, subject to compliance with Section 24.16.142.
d. Accessory units that utilize alternative green construction methods that cause the exterior wall thickness to be greater than normal shall be accommodated by calculating the unit square footage size in a manner that accounts for the difference between the square footage of the proposed structure and the square footage of a traditional frame house. e. Stairways which provide access to accessory dwelling units do not count toward the floor area of an accessory dwelling unit when the stairs are not part of the conditioned space, the stairs do not include any other rooms or room-like areas that would function as habitable floor area for the ADU, and there is a fire-rated entry door at the top of the stairs at the entrance to the accessory dwelling unit.

4. 2. Existing Development on Lot. One of the following conditions must be present in order to approve an application to create an accessory dwelling unit:
a. One or more single-family dwellingsunit buildings, as defined in Section 24.16.125.8, exists on the lot or will be constructed concurrently and in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit;
b. The lot contains an existing multifamily-unit structurebuilding, as defined in subsection (1)(b)(i)Section 24.16.125.4, or a multifamily-unit structurebuilding that will be constructed concurrently and in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit.

5. Rear Yard Lot Coverage. In no case shall any accessory dwelling unit be limited in size based on rear yard lot coverage requirements contained in Section 24.12.140(5). In the application of Section 24.12.140(5), accessory dwelling units shall count toward the limit on allowable coverage by other accessory structures.

6. Nonconforming Setbacks.The following standards apply to accessory dwelling units located outside the standard side and rear yard setbacks for the zone district in which they are proposed:
a. The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face the interior of the lot unless the accessory dwelling unit is directly accessible from an alley, a public street, or the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail.
b. Windows which face an adjoining residential property shall be designed to obscure views of neighboring yards by ADU occupants, including transom windows, translucent

15.177
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting glass, or other methods; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening.

7. Alley or Rail Trail Orientation. When an accessory dwelling unit is adjacent to an alley or the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, the accessory dwelling unit is encouraged to be oriented toward the alley or trail with the front access door and windows facing the alley.

Parking provided off the alley shall maintain a twenty-four-foot back-out which includes the alley. Fences shall be three feet, six inches tall along the alley. However, higher fencing up to eight feet can be considered in unusual design circumstances, subject to review and approval of the zoning administrator.

8. Occupancy.
a. For accessory dwelling units permitted between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2025, owner occupancy shall not be required and no land use agreement requiring owner occupancy shall be recorded or enforced on properties containing these units. b. For accessory dwelling units permitted on or before December 31, 2019, or on or after January 1, 2025, the property owner or an adult member of the property owner’s immediate family, limited to the property owner’s spouse, adult children, parents, or siblings, and subject to verification by the city, must occupy either the primary or accessory dwelling as his or her principal place of residence except under circumstances as established by resolution by the city council that may allow the property owner or the executor or trustee of the property owner’s estate to apply to the city council for approval of a temporary change in use allowing both units to be rented for a period of no more than two years with a possible extension of one year by the planning director if circumstances warrant. Upon the expiration of the rental period, the property owner and/or the property owner’s immediate family member, as specified above, shall reoccupy the property, or the property owner shall cease renting one of the units, or shall demolish the accessory dwelling unit, or shall sell the property to a buyer who will reside on the property. A fee to cover the costs of processing such a request shall be in an amount established by resolution by the city council.
c. For purposes of this chapter, the property owner is the majority owner of the property as shown in the most recent Santa Cruz County assessor’s roll. d. If there is more than one property owner of record, the owner with the majority interest in the property shall be deemed the property owner for purposes of this chapter. Any property owner of record holding an equal share interest in the property may be deemed the majority property owner if no other property owner owns a greater interest. (For example, if the property is owned by two people, each with a fifty percent interest, either of the two owners may be deemed the property owner for purposes of the owner occupancy requirement. If three people own the property, each with a thirty-three and one-third percent interest, any one of the three may be deemed the property owner for purposes of the owner occupancy requirement.)

15.178
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting e. Notwithstanding subsection (8)(a), the community development director, in consultation with the city manager and city attorney, shall be authorized to promulgate regulations intended to legalize accessory dwelling units which are nonconforming solely by virtue of the fact that the property owner has failed to comply with subsection (8)(b)’s owner occupancy requirement, including but not limited to regulations providing for the amortization of the nonconformity by specifying a period of time within which the absentee owner must either establish occupancy or discontinue the accessory dwelling unit use of the property, or alternatively sell the property, and regulations providing for the recordation of land use agreements specifying the terms of amortization. f. Accessory dwelling unit properties shall be used for long-term residential purposes, for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. Accessory dwelling unit properties may neither be used on a transient occupancy basis nor for short-term/vacation rental purposes. Within condominium or townhouse properties that contain an accessory dwelling unit associated with a specific individual unit and not the larger common condominium or townhouse complex, neither the accessory dwelling unit nor the associated condominium or townhouse unit shall be used as a short-term rental.
i. Exception. A legal accessory dwelling unit property that had legal status prior to November 10, 2015, and was in use as a short-term/vacation rental prior to that date, and for which the owner remits transient occupancy tax in compliance with Chapter 3.28 in full in a timely manner for the use of the property as shortterm/vacation rental purposes, may continue the use. The owner must meet the owner occupancy requirement of this code.

9. Connections Between Units. At the discretion of the planning director, accessory dwelling units may be permitted to create direct access between units, or common access to a shared garage, laundry room, or storage area; provided, that each unit meets the definition of dwelling unit found in Section 24.22.320.
103. Building Code Requirements. The accessory dwelling unit shall meet the requirements of the California Building Standards Code, including the alternative means and methods section as prescribed therein.

11. Municipal Code Requirements. All accessory dwelling units shall meet the objective design standards set forth in this Code, including landscape and tree removal and/or replacement requirements, which may require discretionary review.
124. Large Home Design Permit. The square footage of an accessory dwelling unit shall not be counted with the square footage of the single-family home in determining whether a large home design permit is required. The square footage of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be counted

15.179
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting with the square footage of the single-family home in determining whether a large home design permit is required.

5. Accessory dwelling units that require approval of a coastal permit shall conform to the standards in Section 24.12.140.2.

6. Accessory dwelling units shall meet the inclusionary requirements described under Section

24.16.020.8.

Section 16. Section 21.16.141 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding New Construction Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards is hereby renamed Site Development Standards and amended to read as follows:

24.16.141 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

Despite any directly conflicting zone district site development standards, all accessory dwelling units shall comply with the following site development standards. All other zone district site development standards not listed here shall apply to accessory dwelling units.

1. General.

Development
Standard
Attached Conversion1,2 Detached
Maximum
Floor Area
(square feet)
3,4
Greatest of:
 850 for a studio or
one bedroom
 1,000 for a unit with
two or more
bedrooms.
 50% of the habitable
area of the primary
dwelling to which
the unit is attached
Footprint of existing
building. Can expand
footprint by 150.5,6
Greatest of:
 850 for a studio or
one bedroom
 1,000 for a unit
with two or more
bedrooms
 10% net lot area
and no more than
1,200 habitable
square feet.

Maximum
Height (feet)7
Zone district standard
that applies to primary
dwelling.

Maintain existing, or
expand up to lesser of
2’ or standard for new
construction ADU.8
 16’ to roof peak if
less than 4’ from
side/rear property
line
 22’ to roof peak if
4’ or more from
side/rear property
line

15.180
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Minimum
Front Setback
(feet)
Zone district standard
that applies to
primary dwelling.

Maintain existing.

Any expansion shall
meet new construction
standard.

Lesser of:
 Front wall line of
primary building,
excluding any
projections from
that line.
 Zone district
standard.

Minimum
Rear Setback
(feet)
4’ Maintain existing.

Any expansion shall
meet new construction
standard.
3’ for up to 16’
height.
4’ above 16’ height.

Minimum
Exterior Side
Yard Setback
Zone district standard
that applies to
primary dwelling.

Maintain existing.

Any expansion shall
meet new construction
standard.

Zone district
standard.

Minimum
Interior Side
Yard Setback
4’9 Maintain existing.

Any expansion shall
meet new
construction
standard.
3’ for up to 16’
height
4’ above 16’ height
Minimum
Distance
Between
Buildings
6’ Maintain existing. 6’
for any expansion
6’

1. Conversion accessory dwelling units may occupy the three-dimensional space, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height, of the building to be converted or reconstructed, regardless of conformance to current zoning standards.

2. A conversion accessory dwelling unit with any expansion in excess of the above thresholds shall be reviewed as a new construction accessory dwelling unit, including assessment of any required fees.

3. Accessory dwelling units that utilize alternative green construction methods that cause the exterior wall thickness to be greater than normal shall be accommodated by calculating the unit square footage size in a manner that accounts for the difference between the square footage of the proposed building and the square footage of a traditional frame house.

4. Stairways that provide access to accessory dwelling units do not count toward the floor area of an accessory dwelling unit when the stairs are not part of the conditioned space, the stairs do not include any other rooms or room-like areas that would function as habitable floor area for the ADU, and there is a fire-rated entry door at the top of the stairs at the entrance to the accessory dwelling unit.

5. An expansion of up to 150 square feet shall not enlarge the accessory dwelling unit beyond one thousand two hundred square feet unless necessary to accommodate ingress and egress to the accessory dwelling unit.

6. Expansions detached from the primary dwelling shall meet height and setback requirements for a new construction detached accessory dwelling unit. Expansions attached to the primary dwelling shall meet height and setback requirements for new construction attached dwelling units. Expansions of either type on a substandard lot shall be consistent with substandard lot development standards described in Section

24.16.161.7.

7. If the design of the building in which the primary dwelling is located has special roof features that should be matched on the detached accessory dwelling unit to enhance design compatibility, the maximum allowed building height of the accessory dwelling unit may be exceeded in order to include such similar special roof features, subject to review and approval of the zoning administrator as part of the review of the building permit application.

15.181
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting

8. Existing and resulting roof height are measured to the roof peak. Other portions of the roof may expand more than two feet if their resulting height is the same or lower than the resulting roof peak.

9. Any zone development standard for an additional setback based on building height or stories shall not apply to the portion of the building that contains the accessory dwelling unit.

2. Parking. No off-street parking shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit outside of the Coastal Zone. Any parking spaces, covered or uncovered, removed in order to create an accessory dwelling unit shall not be required to be replaced outside the Coastal Zone. For properties within the Coastal Zone, parking requirements are contained in Section 24.12.240.1.

3. Rear Yard Lot Coverage. In no case shall any accessory dwelling unit be limited in size based on rear yard lot coverage requirements contained in Section 24.12.140.1.f. In the application of Section 24.12.140.1.f., the footprint of accessory dwelling units shall not count toward the maximum allowable lot coverage by accessory buildings in yard setback areas.

4. Projections. An accessory dwelling unit that meets the standard zone district setbacks shall be permitted to include projections as described in Section 24.12.120.1. An accessory dwelling unit, or portion thereof, that does not meet standard zone district setbacks but meets standard setbacks for new construction accessory dwelling units shall be permitted to include architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, and sills that project into the setback two and one-half feet. A conversion accessory dwelling unit, or portion thereof, that does not meet standard setbacks for new construction accessory dwelling units shall not contain any new projections beyond any already present on the existing wall.

5. If a new construction detached accessory dwelling unit is attached to a non-habitable accessory use within the same building, then the portion of the building containing the nonhabitable use shall meet the site development standards for non-habitable accessory buildings as described in Section 24.12.140. A garage may have interior access to an accessory dwelling unit, but no other non-habitable accessory use within the same building shall have interior access to the accessory dwelling unit.

6. Clear corner triangle and clear vision area. Any new construction accessory dwelling unit or expansion of a conversion accessory dwelling unit shall be located outside of the clear corner triangle, as defined in Section 24.22.202, and the clear vision area, as defined in Section

24.22.206.

7. Substandard Lots. When a new construction accessory dwelling unit is proposed on a substandard residential lot, as defined in Section 24.22.520, that contains a single-family residential use, the following design standards shall apply:
a. The maximum allowable lot coverage for all structures shall be forty-five percent, except that lot coverage shall be waived to the extent that it physically precludes the construction of the accessory dwelling unit up to eight hundred square feet in floor area. The lot coverage of the accessory dwelling unit shall not be included in the calculation of all other structures’ maximum allowable lot coverage. Lot coverage shall include the footprints of the first floor, garage and other accessory buildings (attached and detached), decks and porches (greater than thirty inches in height and not cantilevered), and any second-story cantilevered projection (enclosed or open) beyond two and one-half feet.

Decks under thirty inches in height or fully cantilevered with no vertical support posts do not count toward lot coverage for this purpose. Second-story enclosed cantilevered areas that project less than thirty inches from the building wall do not count toward lot

15.182
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting coverage. For such areas that project more than thirty inches from the building wall, only the floor area that projects more than thirty inches shall be counted toward lot coverage. b. The floor area of a building’s second story shall be limited to one hundred percent of the floor area of the building’s first floor if the floor area of the building’s first story constitutes thirty percent or less of the net lot area. c. The floor area of a building’s second story shall not exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the building’s first story if the building’s first story has greater than thirty percent lot coverage up to a maximum of forty-five percent lot coverage. d. The floor area of a building’s second story shall be limited to fifty percent of forty-five percent lot coverage if the building’s first story has greater than forty-five percent lot coverage.

8. Archaeological Resources. The application shall be consistent with all objective standards relating to the preservation of archaeological resources pursuant to Section 24.12.430.

9. Distance from Natural Features. Any new construction accessory dwelling unit or expansion of a conversion accessory dwelling unit shall be consistent with the following standards for distance from natural features.
a. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be constructed within any watercourse setback designated within the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan that does not allow for construction of an accessory dwelling unit by right, as implemented by Section

24.08.2100 et seq.
b. If the site or an adjacent lot contains a wetland or potential wetland as shown in the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, the accessory dwelling unit shall be located at a distance from the wetland as recommend in a report prepared by a professional biologist with a background in wetland biology. c. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be constructed within 20 feet of a 30 percent or greater slope.
d. The accessory dwelling unit and any related construction and site work shall be located away from a heritage tree, or any street tree growing in the public right of way protected under municipal code chapter 13.30, the greatest distance of: 10 feet, or three times the diameter of the tree’s largest trunk at 54 inches above grade, or the dripline of the tree. e. When the project site includes an area mapped for sensitive habitat or vegetation under the general plan, the accessory dwelling unit and related site work shall be located at a distance from such habitat or vegetation area as determined in a report prepared pursuant to Section 24.14.080 by a professional biologist with a background in sensitive habitat biology.

10. If the application of all site development standards results in a buildable area that physically precludes the creation of any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet with at least four foot interior side and rear yard setbacks, including both statewide exemption accessory dwelling units and non-exempt accessory dwelling units, then the applicant only may waive any one or more of the following site development standards to the extent that it increases the buildable area to allow such an accessory dwelling unit:
a. Percentage of primary dwelling, and/or
b. Lot coverage, and/or
c. Floor area ratio, and/or
d. Open space, and/or
e. Front setbacks.

15.183
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting

11. If waiver of all the standards listed in Section 24.16.141.10 results in a buildable area that physically precludes the creation of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit, then the following site development standards shall be waived only to the extent that the waiver increases the buildable area to allow construction of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit. Such waivers are limited to the following:
a. First, the applicant may waive any one or more of the following standards:
i. Exterior side yard setback, and/or
ii. Distance between buildings, and/or
iii. Second floor area of a structure on a substandard lot, and/or iv. Distance from 30 percent or greater slopes.
b. If waiver of all standards in Section 24.16.141.11.a. results in a buildable area that physically precludes the creation of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit, then the applicant may waive any one or more of the following standards:
i. The management and development setbacks of a watercourse, but not the riparian setback, when recommendations in a report prepared by a professional biologist with a background in riparian biology are followed and included on the building permit plans. The report recommendations shall not include a requirement to move the building; and/or
ii. The required distance from a heritage tree, or any street tree growing in the public right of way protected under Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, if a report prepared by a professional consulting arborist determines that the reduced distance does not require removal of the tree or any other action that would require approval of a heritage tree permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 or street tree permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.30 and when the building permit plans incorporate all recommendations from the report.
c. If waiver of all the standards in Section 24.16.141.11.b. results in a buildable area that physically precludes the creation of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit, then the applicant may waive any one or more of the following standards:
i. The required distance from a heritage tree or any street tree growing in the public right of way protected under Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, if a report prepared by a professional consulting arborist determines that the tree must be removed or that any other action must be taken that would otherwise require a heritage tree permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 or street tree permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.30. In this case, the statewide exemption dwelling unit is exempt from heritage tree permit and street tree permit requirements. Instead, the building permit plans shall include replacement tree(s) with a location and species specified in the arborist report, or the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee, as described in the City's heritage tree regulations of Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, street tree regulations of Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, associated City Council resolutions, and associated implementing standards.
ii. The riparian setback of a watercourse, when recommendations in a report prepared by a professional biologist with a background in riparian biology are followed and included on the building permit plans. The report recommendations shall not include a requirement to move the building; and/or
iii. Distance from a wetland as determined pursuant to Section 24.16.141.9.b, when recommendations in a report prepared by a professional biologist with a background

15.184
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting in wetland biology are followed and included on the building permit plans. The report recommendations shall not include a requirement to move the building; and/or iv. Distance from a sensitive habitat or vegetation area as determined pursuant to Section

24.16.141.9.e, when recommendations in a report prepared by a professional biologist with a background in sensitive habitat biology are followed and included on the building permit plans. The report shall not include a requirement to move the building; and/or
v. Distance from an archaeological resource recommended in a report prepared by a professional archaeologist. The applicant shall submit an additional review by the archaeologist with recommendations for archaeological resource protection based on the proposed location of the accessory dwelling unit. The additional review shall not include a requirement to move the building. The recommendations from the additional review shall be followed and included on the building permit plans. d. If waiver of all the standards in Section 24.16.141.11.c results in a buildable area that precludes creation of a statewide exemption accessory dwelling unit, then the applicant may waive the following standards in the following order:
i. Clear vision area
ii. Clear corner triangle

24.16.141 NEW CONSTRUCTION ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

1. Setbacks for New Construction Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. a. The side yard and rear yard setbacks for a new construction detached single-story accessory dwelling unit shall not be less than three feet and the distance between buildings on the same lot must be a minimum of six feet.
b. Any portion of a new construction accessory dwelling unit that is over sixteen feet in height shall provide side setbacks of at least four feet and rear setbacks of at least four feet. c. If any portion of a new construction accessory dwelling unit is located in front of the principal structure, then the front yard setbacks shall be the same as those required for single-family homes in the zoning district. A smaller front setback shall be granted only if needed to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet. In this case, the front setback and the clear corner triangle area (as defined in Section 24.22.202) shall be maximized while maintaining required separation between structures.

2. Setbacks for New Construction Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. New construction attached accessory dwelling units shall provide a side setback of at least four feet and meet the same front setback required for the principal structure, either the single-family dwelling or the multi-family structure, by the zoning district, except that any requirement for an additional setback based on height over fifteen feet shall not apply to the portion of the structure that contains the accessory dwelling unit. A smaller front setback shall be granted only if needed to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet, and the front setback and the

15.185
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting clear corner triangle area (as defined in Section 24.22.202) shall be maximized while still accommodating an accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet.

3. Building Height and Stories.
a. A detached new construction accessory dwelling unit shall meet one of the following standards, with height measured to the roof peak:
i. Any accessory dwelling unit that is built within four feet of a side and rear property line shall be subject to a height limit of sixteen feet. iii. Any other accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to a height limit of twenty-two feet.
b. Any two-story detached new construction accessory dwelling unit shall place access stairs, decks, entry doors, and windows toward the interior of the lot, an alley, road, or the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, if applicable. Second-story windows shall be oriented to obscure views of neighboring yards by accessory dwelling unit occupants by using transom windows, translucent glass, or other methods. These requirements do not apply to accessory dwelling units that conform to the setbacks required for the primary structure on the parcel. c. An attached new construction accessory dwelling unit may occupy any level of the principal single-family dwelling and must comply with the height standard established for single-family homes in the zone district except as noted in subsection (3). d. If the design of the principal structure has special roof features that should be matched on the detached accessory dwelling unit to enhance design compatibility, the maximum allowed building height of the accessory dwelling unit may be exceeded in order to include such similar special roof features, subject to review and approval of the zoning administrator as part of the review of the building permit application.

4. Substandard Lots. When a new construction accessory dwelling unit is proposed on a substandard residential lot, as defined in Section 24.22.520, the following design standards shall apply, but shall not serve to limit the accessory dwelling unit to a size of less than eight hundred square feet:
a. The maximum allowable lot coverage for all structures shall be forty-five percent. Lot coverage shall include the footprints of the first floor, garage (attached and detached), decks and porches (greater than thirty inches in height and not cantilevered), and any second-story cantilevered projection (enclosed or open) beyond two and one-half feet.

Decks under thirty inches in height or fully cantilevered with no vertical support posts do not count toward lot coverage for this purpose. Second-story enclosed cantilevered areas that project less than thirty inches from the building wall do not count toward lot coverage.

For such areas that project more than thirty inches from the building wall, only the floor area that projects more than thirty inches shall be counted as lot coverage. Lot coverage requirements must permit an accessory dwelling unit up to 800 square feet.

15.186
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting b. The floor area for all second stories shall not exceed fifty percent of the first floor area for all structures, except in cases where the first floor area of the structure to which a second story is being added constitutes thirty percent or less of the net lot area.

5. Large Home Design Permit. Accessory dwelling units, both attached and detached, conversion and new construction, shall not contribute to the need for a large home design permit and, consistent with Section 24.16.130, shall be subject only to ministerial review. The city reserves the right to delay action on an application to build an accessory dwelling unit until such time as the permits for the primary residential use on the parcel have been approved.

Section 17. Section 21.16.142 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Conversion Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards is hereby renamed Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and amended to read as follows:

24.16.142 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS
All accessory dwelling units, or the type of accessory dwelling unit if specified below, shall comply with the following design standards:

1. Municipal Code Requirements. All accessory dwelling units shall meet the objective design standards set forth in this Code, including landscape and tree removal and/or replacement requirements.

2. The following standards apply to accessory dwelling units that that do not meet one or more of the standard setbacks for the zone district in which they are proposed:
a. The entrance to the accessory dwelling unit, access stairs, and second story decks shall face the interior of the lot unless the accessory dwelling unit is adjacent to an alley or a public street.
b. When an accessory dwelling unit is adjacent to an alley or a public street, the accessory dwelling unit shall be oriented toward the alley or street with the front access door and windows facing the alley or street. The entry facing the alley or street shall include a minimum of 12 square feet of flat, unenclosed, covered area, which may be a projection from the building, or inset, or a combination of the two.
c. Windows that do not meet the standard zone district side or rear setback and that face an adjoining residential property shall be designed to obscure views of that property by ADU occupants, including transom windows, translucent glass, or other methods; alternatively, fencing or landscaping shall be required to provide screening.

2. Connections Between Units. Accessory dwelling units shall not create access between units except a connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling via common access to a shared garage, laundry room, or storage area; provided, that each unit meets the definition of dwelling unit found in Section 24.22.320.

3. The application to construct an accessory dwelling unit on a property that is designated as a historic resource by the National Register of Historic Places, the State of California, or by the City, including any property that has been determined to be eligible for the City’s historic building survey list but the property owner has elected to not list the property (opt-out), shall

15.187
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting show substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development on such properties as confirmed in a report prepared by a professional historic consultant who is listed on the Department of Planning and Community Development’s approved consultant list.

24.16.142 CONVERSION ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

1. Setbacks and Lot Coverage. Conversion accessory dwelling units shall be permitted to maintain the existing setbacks and lot coverage of the structure to be converted or reconstructed, regardless of their conformance to current zoning standards.

2. Reconstruction. Structures to be converted may either be converted utilizing the existing structural components of the building, or reconstructed within the existing three-dimensional physical space occupied by the structure.

3. Additions and Expansions. An accessory dwelling unit shall be considered a conversion accessory dwelling unit when the proposed dwelling unit is created primarily within an existing or reconstructed structure.
a. Expansions of floor space up to one hundred fifty square feet shall be permitted, and these expansions shall comply with the development standards that apply to new construction accessory dwelling units as stated in Section 24.16.141, and shall not enlarge the accessory dwelling unit beyond one thousand two hundred square feet, unless necessary to accommodate ingress and egress to the accessory dwelling unit. b. Expansions of height up to two feet in additional height shall be permitted, and these expansions shall comply with the height limits set for new construction accessory dwelling units in Section 24.16.141.
c. Any expansion in excess of the above thresholds will trigger review as a new construction accessory dwelling unit, including assessment of any required fees.

Section 18. Section 21.16.150 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Deed Restrictions is hereby renamed and amended to read as follows:

24.16.150 DEED RESTRICTIONSUSE STANDARDS.

Before obtaining a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit,or junior accessory dwelling unit the property owner shall file with the county recorder a declaration of restrictions containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the present owner and stating that:

1. For any unit that is not approved for separate sale under the provisions of 24.16.165: Tthe accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately.

2. The unit is restricted toshall not be altered from the approved size except by approval of a subsequent building permit where the resulting unit meets the accessory dwelling unit development standards described in this Part.

15.188
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting

3. The use of the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be in effect only so long as the property is in compliance with the ordinance as codified and the land use agreement recorded on the property, including any requirements regarding occupancy.

4. Neither an accessory dwelling unit nor an associated primary dwelling shall be used on a transient occupancy basis or for short-term/vacation rental purposes with a term of 30 or fewer days.
a. Exception. A legal accessory dwelling unit property that had legal status prior to November 10, 2015, and was in use as a short-term/vacation rental prior to that date, and for which the owner remits transient occupancy tax in compliance with Chapter 3.28 in full in a timely manner for the use of the property as short-term/vacation rental purposes, may continue the use.

5. For properties with accessory dwelling units that are located in a permit parking program district, the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit combined shall qualify only for the number of residential parking permits that would have been available to the primary dwelling.

No additional permits will be granted for the accessory dwelling unit. The property owner shall offer the tenant of an accessory dwelling unit a residential parking permit if requested by the tenant.

6. For properties developed with attached accessory dwelling units, any portion of the accessory dwelling unit that in the future is remodeled to become part of the primary dwelling shall meet the zone district development standards that apply the primary dwelling.

7. The accessory dwelling unit and primary dwelling unit shall be registered with the residential rental dwelling unit inspection and maintenance program.

4. The above declarations are binding upon any successor in ownership of the property; lack of compliance shall be cause for code enforcement.

5. The deed restrictions shall lapse upon removal of the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit.

6. For properties with accessory dwelling units and/or junior accessory dwelling units that are located in a permit parking program district, the primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit combined shall qualify only for the number of residential parking permits that would have been available to the primary residence. No additional permits will be granted for the accessory dwelling unit. The property owner shall offer the tenant of an accessory dwelling unit a residential parking permit if requested by the tenant.

7. For properties developed with single-family homes, neither the accessory dwelling unit, the junior accessory dwelling unit, nor the primary unit shall be used as a short-term rental. On properties zoned for and developed with multifamily structures, the accessory dwelling unit shall not be used as a short-term or vacation rental. In units within condominium or townhouse properties that contain an accessory dwelling unit associated with a specific individual unit and

15.189
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting not the larger common condominium or townhouse complex, neither the accessory dwelling unit nor the associated condominium or townhouse unit shall be used as a short-term rental.

Section 19. Section 21.16.160 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Zoning Incentives is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.160 ZONING INCENTIVES.

The following incentives are to encourage construction of accessory dwelling units:

1. Affordability Requirements for Fee Waivers. In addition to any inclusionary housing requirements as set forth under Section 24.16.010 et seq., aAccessory dwelling units proposed to be rented at affordable rents, as established by the city, may have development fees waived per Part 4 of this chapter. Existing dwelling units shall be relieved of the affordability requirement upon payment of fees in the amount previously waived plus the difference between that amount and the fees in effect at the time of repayment.

2. Covered Parking. The covered parking requirement for the principal single-family dwelling shall not apply if an accessory dwelling unit is provided. However, no plumbing fixtures may be installed in any remaining existing garage or newly constructed garage on a property that has an accessory dwelling unit without approval of the zoning administrator.

3.2. Front or Exterior Yard Parking. Three parking spaces may be provided in the front or exterior yard setback under this incentive with the parking design subject to approval of the zoning administrator. The maximum impervious surfaces devoted to the parking area shall be no greater than the existing driveway surfaces at time of application. Not more than fifty percent of the front yard width shall be allowed to be parking area.

4.3. Tandem Parking. For a parcel with a permitted accessory dwelling unit, required parking spaces for the principalprimary single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit may be provided in tandem on a driveway. A tandem arrangement consists of one car behind the other.

No more than three total cars in tandem may be counted towards meeting the parking requirement.

Section 20. Section 21.16.165 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Separate Sale of Accessory Dwelling Units is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.165 SEPARATE SALE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

1. This section implements Government Code Section 66342, enacted by Assembly Bill 1033 (Ting). The purpose of this section is to apply objective local development standards for subdivisions covered by Government Code Section 66342 and is applicable only so long as Government Code Section 66342 is operative. Where this section or Government Code Section 66342 conflict with any other provisions of the municipal code, this section and Government

15.190
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting Code Section 66342 shall control. Any development standard or requirement not specifically addressed by this section or Government Code Section 66342 must conform to all other provisions of the municipal code and all other objective policies and requirements governing subdivisions.

2. Condominium parcels for the separate conveyance of one or more accessory dwelling unit(s) and their associated primary dwelling unit may be created on lots with single-unit buildings, and condominium parcels for the separate conveyance of one or more accessory dwelling unit(s) may be created on lots with multi-unit buildings, and such condominium parcels shall be approved only as provided by this section.
a. On sites with one single-family dwelling and one or more ADUs, the ADU(s) and the single-family dwelling shall each be mapped as condominiums. b. On sites with multiple unmapped rental dwelling units and one or more ADUs, the ADU(s) and any associated primary dwelling shall each be mapped as condominiums, and the remaining rental dwelling units shall be mapped under a single condominium parcel.
c. On sites with multiple condominium units and one or more ADUs, the ADU(s) shall each be mapped as condominiums.

3. Creation of five of more condominium parcels under the provisions of this section for five or more accessory dwelling units shall require approval of a tentative map and final map consistent with the requirements of Title 23 of the Municipal Code.

4. Creation of four or fewer condominium parcels under the provisions of this section for accessory dwelling units and associated primary dwellings shall require approval of a parcel map consistent with the requirements of Title 23 of the Municipal Code.

5. The applicant shall obtain a parcel map or final map to establish the condominium parcels. A tentative map shall not be required.

5. Units mapped under the provisions of this section shall not be required to comply with the Community Housing Project Requirements under Section 24.12.180, except:
a. Each new construction accessory dwelling unit or new construction primary dwelling unit shall meet the open space requirement pursuant to Section 24.12.280.3 unless waived pursuant to Section 24.16.141.10.d, and
b. Each new construction accessory dwelling unit or new construction primary dwelling unit shall provide a minimum of two hundred cubic feet of enclosed storage space within the project capable of being secured by lock or other means for each unit, in addition to kitchen cupboards or clothes and linen closets, consistent with Section 24.12.180.4.

6. No off-street parking beyond that required by Section 24.16.141.2 shall be required for any accessory dwelling unit mapped as a condominium.

7. Accessory dwelling units and associated primary dwelling units mapped as condominiums pursuant to this section shall meet the inclusionary dwelling unit requirements under Section 24.16.020.

8. When no more than four condominium units are created from the conversion of existing accessory dwelling units and associated primary dwellings, the following shall apply:
c. The units may be converted to condominiums regardless of the multi-family housing vacancy rate consistent with Municipal Code Section 23.37.020.1. d. Tenants displaced shall retain a first right of refusal if the unit is offered to sale to the general public consistent with Municipal Code Section 23.37.050.g.

15.191
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting e. Relocation assistance in the amount of four months’ rent shall be provided to tenants of low or moderate income who have resided in the unit within two years prior to the date of submission of the application for the conversion of the unit(s) consistent with Section

23.37.050.h.

9. Consistent with Government Code Section 66341, an accessory dwelling unit shall be approved with a condominium lot for separate conveyance pursuant to the following:
f. The condominiums shall be created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the Civil Code).
g. The condominiums shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) and all applicable objective requirements of Title 23, the Subdivision Ordinance. h. Before recordation of the condominium plan, a safety inspection of the accessory dwelling unit shall be conducted as evidenced either through a certificate of occupancy from the City or a housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. i. Neither a subdivision map nor a condominium plan shall be recorded with the county recorder in the county where the real property is located without each lienholder’s consent. The following shall apply to the consent of a lienholder:
i. A lienholder may refuse to give consent.
ii. A lienholder may consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied.
j. Prior to recordation of the initial or any subsequent modifications to the condominium plan, written evidence of the lienholder’s consent shall be provided to the county recorder along with a signed statement from each lienholder that states as follows: “(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in their sole and absolute discretion and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have.”
k. The lienholder’s consent shall be included on the condominium plan or a separate form attached to the condominium plan that includes the following information:
i. The lienholder’s signature.
ii. The name of the record owner or ground lessee.
iii. The legal description of the real property.
iv. The identities of all parties with an interest in the real property as reflected in the real property records.
v. The lienholder’s consent shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the real property is located.
l. The City shall include the following notice to consumers on any accessory dwelling or junior accessory dwelling unit submittal checklist or public information issued describing requirements and permitting for accessory dwelling units, including as standard condition of any accessory dwelling unit building permit or condominium plan approval:
“NOTICE: If you are considering establishing your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, please ensure that your building permitting agency allows this practice. If you decide to establish your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, your condominium plan or any future modifications to the condominium plan must be recorded with

15.192
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting the County Recorder. Prior to recordation or modification of your subdivision map and condominium plan, any lienholder with a lien on your title must provide a form of written consent either on the condominium plan, or on the lienholder’s consent form attached to the condominium plan, with text that clearly states that the lender approves recordation of the condominium plan and that you have satisfied their terms and conditions, if any.

In order to secure lender consent, you may be required to follow additional lender requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(a) Paying off your current lender. You may pay off your mortgage and any liens through a refinance or a new loan. Be aware that refinancing or using a new loan may result in changes to your interest rate or tax basis. Also, be aware that any subsequent modification to your subdivision map or condominium plan must also be consented to by your lender, which consent may be denied. (b) Securing your lender’s approval of a modification to their loan collateral due to the change of your current property legal description into one or more condominium parcels.
(c) Securing your lender’s consent to the details of any construction loan or ground lease. This may include a copy of the improvement contract entered in good faith with a licensed contractor, evidence that the record owner or ground lessee has the funds to complete the work, and a signed statement made by the record owner or ground lessor that the information in the consent above is true and correct.”
m. If an accessory dwelling unit is established as a condominium, the homeowner shall notify providers of utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance.
n. The owner of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development that has an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, shall not record a condominium plan to create a common interest development under Section 4100 of the Civil Code without the express written authorization by the existing association.

For purposes of this section, written authorization by the existing association means approval by the board at a duly noticed board meeting, as defined in Section 4090 of the Civil Code, and if needed pursuant to the existing association’s governing documents, membership approval of the existing association.

10. Nothing in this section shall prohibit approval of an accessory dwelling with a condominium lot for separate conveyance pursuance to Government Code Section 66340-66341.

Section 21. Section 21.16.170 of Chapter 24.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code regarding Junior Accessory Dwelling Units is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.16.170 JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

1. Notwithstanding any other regulation or definition of this code, onea junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on parcelslots in zones where single-family dwellings are an allowed use, including in the R-S, R-1, R-L, R-M, R-H, R-T(A), R-T(B), R-T(C), R-T(D), R15.193 Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting T(E), and P-A zones; and where one or more single-familyunit structuresbuildings, including a single-family home, townhome, or a detached condominium or apartment on a site with multiple units, exist or are proposed on the site,lot; and where the owner of the property occupies the property as their primaryprincipal place of residence.

2. For the purposes of this section, “junior accessory dwelling unit” shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 65852.22 of the California Government Code.

3. Junior accessory dwelling units mustshall be attached to a single-familyunit dwellingbuilding, and may be created in any part of an existing or proposed single-familyunit dwellingbuilding, including in an attached garage. , and may be created in an addition to a single-family dwelling. For purposes of this section, a proposed single-unit building shall mean the resulting building including the junior accessory dwelling unit, regardless of whether portions of the building already exist, and shall therefore include any new single-unit building or a single-unit building resulting from an addition to an existing single-unit building.

4. Junior accessory dwelling units mayshall be no larger than five hundred square feet in size.

5. Junior accessory dwelling units shall contain, at a minimum, the following features:
a. An exterior entrance separate from that of the primary homedwelling. b. A cooking facility with appliances.
c. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.

6. Junior accessory dwelling units may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the primary dwelling. Where sanitation facilities are shared with the primary dwelling, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall have access to the primary dwelling through internal circulation and shall not be required to exit the structurebuilding in order to reach the entrance to the primary dwelling.

7. Junior accessory dwelling units that contain all the required features of a dwelling unit will not be required to maintain an interior connection between the junior accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units that do not contain all the required features of a dwelling unit will be required to maintain an interior connection between the junior accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling unit.

7. The property owner shall occupy either the junior accessory dwelling unit or the primary dwelling to which the junior accessory dwelling unit is attached as his or her principal place of residence. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
a. For purposes of this section, the property owner is:

15.194
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting i. The majority owner(s) of the Property as shown in the most recent Santa Cruz County records.
ii. If there is more than one property owner of record, the owner with the majority or highest ownership interest in the Property shall be deemed the property owner. Any property owner(s) of record holding an equal share interest in the Property may be deemed the majority property owner(s) if no other property owner owns a greater interest.
iii. For property held by a corporation or business entity, a shareholder or officer of the corporation or business entity with the greatest shares or business interest as defined in the articles of incorporation, or other applicable business document.
iv. For property held in trust: a) the Trustor(s) or Settlor(s) who created the trust in which the Property is held; or any person(s) or entity deemed as the legal owner of the Property held in trust in accordance with the trust document, and b) who has/have the highest ownership interest in the Property.

8. A deed restriction pursuant to Section 24.16.150 shall be required and recorded on the parcel. Before obtaining a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, the property owner shall file with the county recorder a declaration of restrictions containing a reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the present owner and including:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-unit building, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with the standards in 24.16.170.

Section 22. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance is considered a “project” under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15378(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, typically subject to environmental review. The City Council finds that these amendments fall within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR using the existing zoning and General Plan and, therefore, pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.

Section 23. If any section or portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, which shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 24. Ordinances 2022-22 and 2023-01 shall be rescinded when this ordinance takes effect and be in full force.

Section 25. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

15.195
Highlight = changes made after 9/5 Planning Commission meeting PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 8th day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this 22nd day of October 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.
___________________________
City Clerk Administrator

15.196
Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 8/30/2024
AGENDA OF: 9/5/2024
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Public Hearing to review and make a recommendation on amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 21.06,

23.04, 23.12, 23.37, 24.04, 24.08, 24.10, 24.12, and 24.16 and adding new sections 24.04.095 and 24.16.165 to maintain consistency with state regulations for accessory dwelling units, clarify existing standards, remove owner-occupancy requirements for existing accessory dwelling units, require properties with accessory dwelling units to enroll in the Residential Rental Inspection Program, and to allow for the condominium mapping and separate sale of accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings. Amendments to Chapter 24.04; Chapter 24.08 Parts 5, 9A, 14, 21, and 22; Chapter 24.10 Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 24(A); and Chapter 24.12 are part of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (LCP IP) and will require approval by the California Coastal Commission prior to taking effect inside the Coastal Zone. (CEQA: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as a project that with certainty does not have an effect on the environment and Section 15183 as a project consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified.)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission make findings for Zoning Ordinance amendments pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 24.06.040 and recommend that the City Council: 1) Acknowledge the Environmental Determination; 2) Approve the proposed ordinances amending accessory dwelling Unit Regulations and other minor technical amendments, including amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters 21.06, 23.04,

23.12, 24.04, 24.08, 24.10, 24.12, and 24.16 and adding new sections 24.04.095 and 24.16.165, and including amendments to the Local Coastal Program; 3) Approve changes related changes to Subdivision Ordinance Chapters 23.04 and 23.12 related to condominium mapping of accessory dwelling units and primary dwellings; 4) Rescind temporary ordinance 2022-22 and as extended by ordinance 2023-01; and 5) Direct the City Manager to submit the Local Coastal Program amendments to the California Coastal Commission for approval.

BACKGROUND: The City’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations have evolved over the last several years in response to ongoing changes to state-level regulations as well as proactively on a local level as part of an effort to expand opportunities to create a variety of housing types. In December 2022, the City adopted a 45-day urgency ordinance that made minor changes to the

15.197
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

City’s ADU regulations in response to two new state laws that required local adoption on a fast timeline before the end of that year. In January 2023, City Council extended the urgency ordinance to the end of 2024. A formal ordinance must be adopted prior to expiration of the urgency ordinance to permanently codify the approved language. When the City Council approves the formal ordinance, the urgency ordinance will be rescinded.

On February 6, 2024, as part of a statewide review of all jurisdictions, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the Department of Planning and Community Development detailing a review of the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations and requiring several mostly minor corrections to ensure ongoing compliance with state law.

In addition to permanently adopting the revisions made in the urgency ordinance and updates required by HCD, the proposed modifications include removal of owner-occupancy restrictions for existing ADUs constructed prior to 2020, implementation of state laws that allow ADUs and their associated primary dwelling to be sold separately as condominiums, and addressing other topics or needed clarifications that have arisen during review of ADU permit applications.

Development of these updates involved considering several policy questions that are also discussed below.

DISCUSSION:

State of California Housing and Community Development Department Letter The letter sent by HCD included several comments relating to removing references to discretionary review or subjective standards, the number of statewide exemption ADUs (specific types of ADUs allowed by right pursuant to Government Code Section 66323) permitted on a single-family home lot, standards for Junior ADUs (JADUs), and conformance with state laws regarding owner-occupancy and separate sale of ADUs constructed by nonprofit developers.

Following many discussions with HCD staff, the proposed amendments bring the Zoning Ordinance fully into compliance with state law. The attached comment response matrix details how the proposed amendments have addressed each of the comments from HCD.

Removal of Owner Occupancy Requirement and Residential Rental Inspection Service Enrollment
Historically, the City’s ADU regulations required owner occupancy for properties with ADUs with the property owner being required to live on the property, either in the primary dwelling or in the ADU. In 2019, state senate bill SB 13 (Wieckowski) passed into law and prohibited local jurisdictions from imposing owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs approved between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025. In 2023, AB 976 (Ting) expanded on this legislation by removing owner occupancy requirements in perpetuity for all ADUs created in 2025 and beyond.

The City’s ADU regulations currently waive owner-occupancy requirements for those ADUs constructed between 2020 and 2025. The proposed modifications eliminate owner occupancy requirements for ADUs altogether, not only to bring requirements for ADUs constructed in 2025 and beyond in line with state law but also to remove owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs constructed prior to 2020. This modification will ensure fairness and consistency in applying regulations so that those with existing ADUs can share the same benefits afforded to those who create ADUs today and in the future. It should be noted that properties with JADUs, which are essentially smaller attached ADUs that can share bathroom facilities with the primary dwelling, still require owner occupancy as this is required by state law.

15.198
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

Since the City has historically required ADUs to have owner-occupancy and were considered an accessory use with direct oversight by the owner, they have been exempt from the City’s Residential Rental Inspection Service (RRIS). However, since the proposed amendments would no longer require owners to live on site, single-family properties with ADUs would have the capacity to function like a typical duplex rental property, and ADUs on multi-family properties would function as additional rental units on those properties. Therefore, the proposed amendments would eliminate the exemption for ADUs, requiring these properties to enroll in the RRIS.

The purpose of the RRIS is to ensure that rental dwelling units meet basic health and safety standards. The RRIS requires all rental dwelling units in the city to participate, and participation involves an annual program fee, currently $62, as well as an annual City inspection fee of $28 per unit. The program does provide exemptions for units that are not being used as a rental property or where Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are used by the tenants and the Housing Authority conducts similar inspections. Those units would still require registration but would not require City inspections. Additionally, many properties are eligible for self-certification, which comes with reduced fees and an opportunity for owners to self-inspect their properties most years. Therefore, the RRIS helps ensure that rented ADUs meet the same basic health and safety standards as any other rental property.

Separate Sale of ADUs
Two state laws in recent years have created opportunities to sell ADUs separately as condominiums. First, AB 587 (Friedman) was passed into law in 2019 and allowed ADUs and associated single-family detached residences to be constructed by a non-profit housing developer and sold via a tenants-in-common ownership structure. The law requires the City to allow these types of developments, and proposed language has been added to the amendments to address this requirement. The second state law is AB 1033 (Ting), passed into law in 2023 and codified as Government Code Section 66342, which permits local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance to allow for any accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings to be sold separately as condominiums. While local jurisdictions are not required to have an implementing ordinance, doing so would support the creation of a new type of ownership housing unit that may be more affordable by nature and create the potential for more variety in the city’s housing market.

The proposed amendments implement these state laws in a new Section 24.16.165 within the municipal code’s ADU regulations. With regard to implementing AB 1033, the proposed amendments would allow any number of permitted new construction or existing ADUs on a single-family or multi-family site to be mapped as condominiums. On sites with single-unit buildings, the primary dwelling associated with the ADU(s) could also be mapped and sold separately.

The new section includes several items that are required by Government Code Section 66342, including:
 The condominiums shall be created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act;

15.199
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

 The condominiums shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and all objective requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinance;
 A safety inspection must be completed before recordation of the condominium plan;  The applicant must obtain all lienholders’ consent prior to recording the subdivision map or condominium plan;
 The City must include a notice to applicants on a submittal checklist or other public information regarding lender consent requirements;
 The homeowner is required to notify utility providers, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance; and  If a property is part of an existing association, the owner must obtain permission from the association to record the condominium plan.

The process would involve approval of a tentative map and final map for a project that involves the creation of five or more ADU condominiums on a site with a multi-family building as required by the Subdivision Map Act. On a site with a single-family home where the ADU(s) and associated primary dwelling are mapped as condominiums, or on a site with a multi-family building that is converting four or fewer ADUs into condominiums, the project would be exempt from requiring a tentative parcel map and instead would only require approval of a parcel map.

Exempting the tentative map for these projects results in a process that is more streamlined and involves fewer fees for the applicant. For all projects, Government Code Section 66342 requires that the process would include review of only objective standards required by the subdivision ordinance. It should be noted that exempting these permits from a tentative map requires minor language changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 23 of the municipal code) itself was not detailed in the public noticing for this item, though the notice did refer to “condominium mapping and separate sale of accessory dwelling units and their associated primary dwellings,” which includes this topic. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for City Council to approve these minor changes to the Subdivision Ordinance.

Municipal code regulations currently allow rental units to be converted to condominiums when at least 67 percent of the tenants purchase the condominium units or when the multi-family vacancy rate is more than five percent. The vacancy rate in Santa Cruz is consistently below five percent, which means that the 67 percent requirement would typically apply. Other displaced tenants have a right of first refusal for purchase of the condominium unit and are afforded two months of relocation assistance. These regulations were intended to protect against tenant displacement from conversions of entire apartment buildings to condominiums and not necessarily for the conversion of a single unit or handful of units. For ADU condominium conversions of up to four units, the proposed amendments would eliminate the 67 percent threshold and allow owners to remove their tenants to transfer ownership of the condominiums.

This would remove a potential barrier to condominium conversion of an ADU since it would not otherwise be possible to map an existing ADU without selling it to the existing tenant. Making this measure more flexible would be coupled with strengthening other protections, including first right of refusal if the condominium is offered for sale to the general public and four months of relocation assistance for low- or moderate-income tenants who lived in the unit within the last two years. The proposal strikes a balance between facilitating the creation of ADU ownership units and protecting existing tenants.

15.200
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

Zoning Ordinance Section 24.12.180 requires certain development standards for community housing projects related to utilities, open space, storage areas, and off-street parking. While this section requires each unit in a community housing project to provide separate utilities to each unit, Government Code Section 66342 specifically requires applicants for ADU condominium units to contact the various utilities. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not include the local requirement for separate utilities but instead follow the state law requirement. With regard to open space, this standard is consistent with open space standards that would be applied to a new construction ADU except that state ADU law requires waiver of an open space standard if needed to allow an ADU of up to 800 square feet. Therefore, the proposed amendments require the open space standard only for new construction ADUs and with the caveat that the waiver could apply. The community housing project standards also require each unit to provide 200 cubic feet of storage space in addition to any kitchen cupboard, clothes closets, or linen closets.

The proposed ADU condominium regulations include this requirement only for new construction ADUs as it could be cost prohibitive to construct an addition to an existing building if needed solely to provide such storage space.

Regarding off-street parking, Zoning Ordinance Section 24.12.180 and the associated parking requirements in Section 24.12.240 require community housing projects to provide one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit, two parking spaces per two-bedroom unit, and guest parking at a rate of 10 percent of the total parking requirement. However, the City’s ADU regulations do not require any parking for ADUs except for a small, defined area in the Coastal Zone. In addition, requiring parking for ADU condominium units could create a barrier to creating this type of housing and would therefore run against goals to support a variety of housing types. Finally, parking already is not required throughout much of the City, since most areas are within half a mile of a major transit stop, so any parking requirement would be restricted to a few small areas. Therefore, the proposed regulations for ADU condominiums require them to meet the same parking standards required for non-mapped ADUs. Specifically, no parking would be required except for within a small, defined area of the Coastal Zone.

Other Policy Questions
Staff evaluated a number of other policy questions that arose as a result of responding to comments from HCD or from review of ADU building permit applications. The following provides a brief description of each question as well as staff recommendation.

Number of ADUs
The ADU regulations currently limit the number of ADUs on sites with single-family homes to one and limit the number of ADUs on sites with multi-family buildings to two new construction ADUs plus a number of conversion ADUs equivalent to at least one but not more than 25% of the number of regular units in the building. However, state law requires the City to approve a specific number of statewide exemption ADUs that are different and distinct from any ADU that is created under the City’s more flexible development standards that have been in place several years before the new state laws. A site with a single-family home, including a lot with a townhome or a lot with multiple detached units, has a right to two statewide exemption ADUs including a new construction detached ADU and a conversion ADU. However, many ADUs constructed in the city on single-family home sites do not meet the definition of a statewide exemption ADU but meet the more flexible city standards in terms of setbacks, height, or size.

This means that if a single-family home property has an ADU that was approved under the City’s

15.201
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

standards but that does not meet the definition of a statewide exemption ADU, that property would still be eligible to construct the two statewide exemption ADUs, bringing the total to three. Therefore, the proposed amendments account for this allowance by providing for one nonexempt ADU in addition to the two statewide exemption ADUs.

With regard to ADUs on multi-family sites, the City only amended its regulations in the last few years to reflect new statewide requirements to allow statewide exemption ADUs on these properties and did not allow ADUs on multi-family sites prior to this time. The proposed amendments clarify that only statewide exemption ADUs (two detached plus 25 percent conversion) are allowed on multi-family properties.

Establishing objective standards for natural features
The review by HCD identified areas of the City’s ADU regulations that still involve some form of subjective reasoning and indicated those should be revised to become objective. Under the current regulations, sites with natural features such as slopes, creeks, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and heritage trees have been reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the best location for the ADU given the applicant’s desires and site constraints. While this approach has generally resulted in site layouts that meet both the applicant’s desires and the City’s interests in resource protection, it does not meet the state’s test of objectivity. Therefore, objective standards have been created to set a proposed ADU a specific distance away from these natural features. This provides the City and the applicant with potentially less flexibility but does create a knowable, objective standard that the state requires.

Waiver of standards
While the City may set objective site development standards, state law also requires these standards to be waived under some circumstances. Percentage of primary dwelling floor area, lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and front yard setback must be waived to the extent that they preclude the creation of an 800 square foot attached or detached ADU with four-foot front and side yard setbacks. In addition, any other development standard would need to be waived to the extent that it would preclude the creation of a statewide exemption ADU, which includes a range of new construction and conversion ADUs defined specifically in Government Code Section 66323. HCD has indicated that the City must waive these standards in an objective manner and not on a case-by-case basis.

Therefore, the proposed modifications include a subsection on waiver of standards and creates an objective hierarchy of when each standard may be waived. The first tier waives those standards that must be waived for any 800 square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks and gives the applicant the flexibility to decide how to waive those standards. For statewide exemption ADUs, applicants may waive additional standards in three tiers to provide for creation of the statewide exemption ADU. First, the applicant may waive standards related to aesthetics such as site layout and building design. The second tier allows waiver of standards related to resource preservation. Third, the applicant can waive standards related to safety, preserving the line of sight at driveways and intersections.

An applicant may only waive standards in the next tier if waiver of all standards in the previous tier does not result in a buildable area that would provide for the statewide exemption ADU. For example, an applicant may only waive standards related to resource preservation if they are proposing a statewide exemption ADU and waiver of standards for all 800 square foot ADUs

15.202
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

plus waiver of all aesthetic site development standards for statewide exemption ADUs do not create a buildable area for the proposed ADU. This setup creates an objective way to waive standards, while giving applicants some choice about which standards to waive and simultaneously protecting those standards that the City considers most important.

Rail trail orientation
The existing regulations encourage ADUs adjacent to a street, alley, or the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (also known as the rail trail) to be oriented toward these features. While the intention of these standards was to activate the rail trail and make it a more interactive and accessible amenity, in review of these standards, Public Works staff indicated a desire to keep rail trail entry points at designated street intersections or planned entries from larger residential developments rather than via gates from individual properties as this would help to maintain safety on the trail. In addition, many parts of the rail trail abut retaining walls with significant grade changes that would preclude an ADU from being accessed via the rail trail. Therefore, since ADUs should not, and in many circumstances cannot, be accessed from the rail trail, standards calling for ADU orientation to the rail trail have been removed. These standards still remain in place and have been made more objective for an ADU that is adjacent to a street or alley.

Attached ADUs on substandard lots
The Zoning Ordinance includes specific site development standards for single-family homes on substandard lots in the R-1 zone districts. These development standards include a limitation of 45 percent lot coverage for all buildings and structures on the site, and the standards also limit the second story of a building to 50 percent of the size of the first story when the first story takes up more than 30 percent lot coverage. State law requires lot coverage to be waived to allow the creation of an ADU of up to 800 square feet, but it does not require such a waiver for a building’s second story to first story ratio. This combination of rules creates confusion in how the standards should apply new ADUs that are attached to a single-family home on a substandard lot. For example, if an ADU is constructed in conjunction with a new home, then under most circumstances, unless the lot is severely constrained by size, an 800 square foot ADU and a single-family home can be constructed within a space that maximizes the building envelope, taking up 45 percent lot coverage and a second floor that is 50 percent the size of the first floor.

However, if a new construction attached ADU is added to an existing house that has already maximized its floor area under these ratios, then the lot coverage limitation would need to be waived to allow the ADU. This scenario results in a building that is 800 square feet larger based on the order in which the single-family dwelling and ADU were created.

Staff recommends modifying the substandard lot regulations for ADUs in a way that make the rules equal regardless of the order of construction, that provide flexibility for applicants in how they want to design their ADUs, and that reflect the City’s desire to regulate building form on substandard lots by limiting the massing of second stories. The proposed modifications would allow the single-family home to occupy up to 45 percent of the lot coverage and allow the ADU to exceed that coverage as needed to create an 800 square foot ADU. If the house and ADU were constructed at the same time, the two units would not be required to fit together within the 45 percent lot coverage limit. However, whether the single-family home is existing or constructed in conjunction with the ADU, the second floor of the building is always limited to half of the 45 percent lot coverage. In other words, a waiver of lot coverage for an ADU does not increase the potential size of the building’s second floor.

15.203
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

Converting nonconforming duplexes on R-1 lots to conforming SFD/ADU One question that has come up in development inquiries is whether a nonconforming duplex in the single-family R-1 zone districts can be redesignated as a conforming single-family home with an ADU. The Zoning Ordinance restricts nonconforming duplex units from expanding in size. However, it would still be possible to add ADUs to the property, specifically two detached new construction ADUs and one conversion ADU, resulting in a development capacity of five units. Two units designated as a single-family home and an ADU on an R-1 zoned lot are considered principal permitted uses and therefore could be enlarged as allowed by the zone district and ADU development standards. On such a site, the development capacity would be one single-family home, three ADUs, and a junior ADU, also resulting in five units. So, while the development capacity is essentially the same between a site with a duplex and a site with a single-family home and ADU, naming the existing structure by one name (duplex) is more restrictive than by another name (single-family home and ADU) in that the duplex could not be expanded. The ability to redesignate a duplex as a single-family home and ADU would create an equal set of rules.

State law and the City’s ADU regulations allow an ADU to be located on a site with a singlefamily home and allow an ADU to be created from the conversion of any building or portion of building on a site with a single-family home. So, when an R-1 lot contains a nonconforming use of two detached units, those are each considered single-family units for purposes of ADU regulations. One of the units could therefore be converted to an ADU, since the code allows an entire building to be converted if the result still includes a single-family unit on the site.

However, if the two nonconforming duplex units are attached, then they are considered a multifamily building for which state law restricts conversion ADUs to non-habitable space. This means that one of the existing attached dwellings could not be converted to an ADU because the dwelling is habitable space. However, state ADU law also allows local jurisdictions to make rules that are more permissive than the state code regarding ADUs. Therefore, the proposed amendments include an exception to allow a nonconforming attached duplex to convert one of the units into an ADU, thereby turning the nonconforming use into a conforming use consisting of a single-family home with an ADU. This approach promotes flexibility in the creation of housing and fairness among both detached and attached nonconforming two-unit sites. 150 square feet addition to conversion ADUs
State ADU law allows a conversion ADU to expand the footprint of the converted structure by up to 150 square feet to provide for ingress and egress. The City’s ADU regulations are more flexible and do not limit the 150 square foot expansion to ingress and egress only. Because of this more liberal standard, questions have arisen about how creatively this standard can be applied. For example, could the 150 square feet be used to attach a detached conversion ADU to the main unit? Or, on a two-story ADU, could a 150-square foot expansion of the footprint be interpreted to allow 150 square feet of floor area to be added on both the first and the second floor? To support flexibility in creating ADUs, staff recommends allowing such creative applications of the standard, and this flexibility is reflected in the proposed amendments. A more conservative approach could be to not allow attachments of units or to interpret the expansion as floor area and not footprint, which would limit a two-story structure expansion to 150 square feet total.

Allowing JADUs on sites with multiple detached units

15.204
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

Government Code Section 66333(a) limits JADUs to “one per residential lot zoned for singlefamily residences with a single-family residence built, or proposed to be built, on the lot.” While the standard interpretation from HCD indicates that a JADU is allowed on a lot with only one single-family home, staff correspondence with HCD has confirmed that a more flexible interpretation of the government code section would be acceptable to the state. The existing regulations in the municipal code are not clear on whether a JADU is allowed on a lot that contains only one single-family home or whether one can be created on a lot that has multiple detached single-unit buildings. The proposed amendments apply the flexible interpretation of state law to allow a JADU on a lot that either has just one single-family home or has multiple detached single-unit buildings. It should be noted that the state law does not allow a JADU on a site with a multi-family dwelling, which is a building that contains more than one unit. So, while a JADU would be allowed on a multi-family site with detached units, it would not be allowed on a site with a multi-unit building. This interpretation parallels state ADU law that also applies different rules to lots with multiple detached units and lots with multiple attached units.

Ordinance Reorganization and Clarifications
The draft amendments to the ADU regulations found in municipal code Chapter 24.16 Part 2 include reorganization of Sections 24.16.140-142 into a section on general standards, site development standards, and design standards. In addition, the amendments include consolidation of site development standards for attached, detached, and conversion ADUs into a single site development standards table, creating a concise reference for both the public and City staff. This reorganization results from feedback from permit reviews and will help to streamline and clarify future reviews. In addition, the definitions section in 24.16.125 has been expanded, and other minor language changes clarify the meaning of certain requirements.

Minor Technical Changes
The draft ordinance amendments also include minor technical changes related not to ADUs but to objective standards for multi-family developments, specifically in Section 24.04.130 regarding which hearing body approves changes depending on the development type and the number of requested variations from objective standards. There was an administrative error that led to a discrepancy between the clean and strikeout versions that resulted in language being reviewed by the Coastal Commission and subsequently codified that was not the intended amendments reviewed by the PC and CC. The proposed amendments restore the text to that which was approved by the City Council. Since this language is referenced and relied upon regularly in processing development applications, staff seeks to remedy this error as soon as possible rather than waiting several more months for a more general set of Zoning Ordinance cleanup amendments.

General Plan and Local Coastal Program Consistency
The proposed amendments further general plan policies to promote the production of housing and affordable housing, facilitate production of ADUs, and remove ADU owner-occupancy requirements, including:
 Housing Element Policy 1.1 Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations that encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.

15.205
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

 Housing Element Policy Policy 1.3 Facilitate the production of residential units through design and compatibility review, use of objective development standards, and regulatory and/or financial incentives.
 Housing Element Policy 1.5 Facilitate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.  Housing Element Policy 1.5b. Continue to implement the City’s ADU program and communicate with ADU applicants to identify ways to modify the program in a manner that facilitates the production of ADUs, including continuation of the allowance for conversion of non-habitable space in multi-family projects to ADUs to be constructed simultaneously with new development projects. Continue public awareness campaigns regarding the construction of ADUs and available incentives through diverse forms of media and outreach distribution.
 Housing Element Policy 1.5d. Present to Council amendments to the City’s ADU regulations regarding owner occupancy to provide greater flexibility to existing and future ADU developments.
 Housing Element Policy 2.2 Develop creative ways to facilitate more affordable housing development in the City.
 Housing Element Policy 6.2c. Revise ADU regulations to provide additional units in single-family zoning by such methods as removing owner occupancy requirements, allowing additional ADUs under certain circumstances, or similar measures.  LU3.8 Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Cf. LU1.3 and 3.7.1.
o Single-room occupancy (SRO) units;
o Flexible density units (FDU);
o Small studio and one-bedroom units;
o Accessory dwelling units (ADU);
o Density bonus units; and
o Residential uses within areas designated High-Density Overlay District (HD-O).

Some of the proposed amendments are also part of the Local Coastal Program, including minor text changes to procedures for ADU coastal permits; standards for design permits, slope development permits, watercourse development permits, and watercourse variances as they relate to ADUs; zone district allowed uses and site standards related to ADUs; projections into setback areas; accessory buildings and structures; fencing and screening; and bicycle parking requirements for multi-family developments. These proposed amendments are also consistent with Local Coastal Program policies that support natural resource protection and infill of housing in existing neighborhoods, including:
 Environmental Quality Element 4.2 Preserve and enhance the character and quality of riparian and wetland habitats, as identified on Maps EQ-8 and EQ-11, or as identified through the planning process or as designated through the environmental review process.  Environmental Quality Element 4.2.5 Protect and minimize the impact of development on bird, fish and wildlife habitat in and adjacent to waterways.  Community Design Element 1.1 Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services. (See policy L 2.1 and policies under L 2.6.3  Community Design Element 6.1 Protect existing significant vegetation and landscaping that provides scenic as well as wildlife habitat and forage value. (See policies under Goal EQ 4.)

15.206
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

Findings
Zoning Ordinance Section 24.06.040 requires that prior to making a recommendation for approval of Zoning Ordinance amendments to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall make findings that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and any adopted area or specific plan. Similar findings are also required in the Local Coastal Program for any amendments to the LCP.

These findings include: (1) the proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest; (2) the proposed General Plan and/or Local Coastal Program amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and LCP and any implementation programs that may be affected; (3) the potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and (4) the proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed amendments serve and further public necessity and general community welfare by supporting the creation of ADUs, a housing type affordable by nature, throughout the city. The amendments further good zoning practice by maintaining consistency with state law and improving clarity of regulations. The proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as described above. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of CEQA as discussed at the end of this report.

Community Outreach
The Department of Planning and Community Development held a virtual community meeting on August 15, 2024 consistent with the Department’s Community Outreach Policy. Approximately 30 community members attended the meeting. Staff presented an overview of proposed amendments and obtained feedback from attendees. Questions and comments from the public focused mainly on how the Residential Rental Inspection Services program works and questions about legalizing unpermitted ADUs. Additional questions included how the separate sale of ADUs would apply to SB 9 developments and what parking requirement would apply to ADU condominiums. In Santa Cruz, SB 9 developments can include condominiums, so ADUs could be mapped as well under the separate sale provisions as long as all SB 9 requirements, such as owner occupancy, are met. Regarding parking, staff recommends that parking requirements reflect those for ADUs and not regular condominium units.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATINON: The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 as a project consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified. Creation of objective standards related to natural resources such as slopes, heritage trees, watercourses and wetlands, and other sensitive habitats are consistent with existing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and involve the type of review that was considered in the General Plan EIR.

15.207
Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Amendments

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 changes to accessory dwelling unit regulations support the HiAP approach as these revisions support the creation of both rental and ownership accessory dwelling units that are typically more affordable by nature, allow for new types of ownership housing, and can provide seniors with an additional option for aging in place. The changes also support streamlined production of accessory dwelling units that create new infill housing units, which is an efficient and sustainable use of land. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP.

Submitted By:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Approved By:

Matt VanHua, AICP
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft ordinance for accessory dwelling unit regulations amendments, LCP, strikeoutunderline

2. Draft ordinance for accessory dwelling unit regulations amendments, non-LCP, strikeoutunderline

3. Letter from HCD dated February 6, 2024

4. Matrix detailing City’s responses to HCD comments on current ordinance

15.208
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 6, 2024
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development Planning and Community Development Department
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street, Room 107
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Lee Butler:

RE: Review of Santa Cruz’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State ADU Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2)
Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Cruz (City) accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Ordinance No. 2022-22. (Ordinance), adopted December 13, 2022, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Ordinance was received on December 13, 2023, HCD has reviewed the Ordinance and submits these written findings pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h). HCD finds that the Ordinance does not comply with section 65852.2 in the manner noted below. Under that statute, the City has up to 30 days to respond to these findings.

Accordingly, the City must provide a written response to these findings no later than March 8, 2024.

The Ordinance addresses many statutory requirements; however, HCD finds that the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU Law in the following respects:
• Section 24.08.810 – Procedure – The Ordinance states: “In the case of construction of an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24.16.100 et.

Seq, this section shall apply only when alternative site configurations are available to an applicant that would permit the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit up to eight hundred square feet in size without the need for a slope modification permit…” However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i), requires the City to impose objective standards on ADUs. Objective standards are defined in subdivision (j)(7) as “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” Additionally, subdivision (a)(3), requires only a ministerial process for the approval of

15.209
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

ADUs. The slope permit process and the alternative site configurations present a discretionary approval process and subjective standards for compliance in violation of these subdivisions. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.
• Section 24.16.130 4.a. – Ministerial Timeline – The Ordinance states that the state law requirement of a 60-day ministerial review timeline shall not apply when: “Additional administrative or discretionary review is required under applicable provisions of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or otherwise allowed by state law.” However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(3)(A), requires ministerial without discretionary review ADU permit applications to be approved or denied within 60 days. Further, if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. Finally, the Ordinance may not impose additional standards on ADUs other than those provided by Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), and no other local ordinance, policy or regulation may be the basis of delay or denial of building or use permits for ADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(7) & (a)(8)).

Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to clarify the nature of the 60- day ministerial approval timeline and remove any additional administrative or discretionary review for ADU permit applications.
• Section 24.16.130 4.a. and Section 24.16.140 7. and 11. – Discretionary Review – The Ordinance states that: “Applications that propose to locate an accessory dwelling unit on a parcel or portion of a parcel triggering additional administrative or discretionary review shall only be relieved of the requirement for those reviews when no alternative site plan or project proposal can be created which would allow the creation of an up to eight-hundred-square-foot accessory dwelling unit that would not trigger additional reviews” (SCMC section 24.16.130 4.a.i.). The Ordinance indicates that “Higher fencing up to eight feet can be considered in unusual design circumstances, subject to review and approval of the zoning administrator.” (SCMC section 24.16.140 7).

The Ordinance also states that: “All accessory dwelling units shall meet the objective design standards set forth in this code… which may require discretionary review” (SCMC section 24.16.140 11.). However, accessory dwelling units may only be approved: “ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). As this section references no other ordinance sections regulating variances or special permits, ADUs may not be subject to discretionary review under any circumstances. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove the potential for discretionary review of ADU permits.

15.210
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

• Section 24.16.130 8. – Historic Properties – The Ordinance states that:
“Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are designated as historic resources by the city, the state of California, or by the National Register of Historic Places shall show substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development on such properties.” However, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i), jurisdictions may only impose objective standards the prevent adverse impacts on real proposed listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. As State ADU Law makes no similar carve out for properties on corresponding city-wide and national registries, the City may not preclude the development of ADUs on these properties for failing to show “substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development.” Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to accurately reflect which historic properties may be subject to additional objective standards.
• Section 24.16.130 9. – Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan – The Ordinance states that: “Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are subject to the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements established in that plan for such properties, as implemented by Section 24.08.2100 et seq.” Section 24.08.2100 states:
“The Coastal Zone Overlay District is a district which combines with the underlying zone. The City’s coastal regulations shall prevail where they conflict with regulations governing the underlying district. Any permitted, administrative or special uses in the underlying zoning district within the Coastal Zone Overlay District are subject to coastal permit regulations and findings, and may be authorized only by approval of a coastal permit, except as provided in Section 24.08.230, Exemptions.”
Further, Section 24.08.230 states that “Minor projects lacking coastal significance, are exempted from the requirements of coastal development permit processing in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Code of Regulations.” While the City may impose separate standards on ADUs in coastal zones pursuant to the California Coastal Act and the local coastal program, it is unclear whether ADUs in the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan are part of the local coastal program, or whether the City merely intends to apply existing standards for the Coastal Zone to the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands. Unless the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan was adopted pursuant to the California Coastal Act, this Ordinance would violate Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(7) which states, “No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. Additionally, if the Ordinance in section is valid, it is unclear whether any exemption would qualify as “minor projects lacking coastal significance.” Please clarify.

15.211
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e) states, “Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone.” Therefore, standards adopted pursuant to subdivisions (a)-(d) may not preclude ADUs created pursuant to subdivision (e). The City must amend the Ordinance to allow for this exception.
• Section 24.16.140 1.a. – Number of ADUs per Parcel – The Ordinance states, for parcels zoned for and including a proposed or existing single-family home, “…One accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed for each parcel. Each parcel may also include a junior accessory dwelling unit...” However, Pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1), “Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application…to create any of the following: (A) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling…(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure.” Moreover subparagraph (B) permits “One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.” The use of the term “any” followed by an enumeration of by-right ADU types permitted indicate that any of these ADU types can be combined on lots with existing or proposed single-family dwellings. Statute does not use ‘or’ nor “one of” to indicate only one or another would be applicable to the exclusion of the other.

Thus, if the local agency approves an ADU that is created from existing (or proposed) space of a single-family dwelling, or created from an existing accessory structure, and the owner subsequently applies for a detached ADU permit (or vice versa), which meets the size and setback requirements, pursuant to the subdivision, the local agency cannot deny the applicant, nor deny a permit for a ADU under this section. This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one (1) converted ADU, one (1) detached, new construction ADU, and one (1) JADU, in any order without prejudice, totaling three units. This standard simultaneously applies to ADUs created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C) and (D), on lots with proposed or existing multifamily dwellings according to specified requirements. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to allow for the correct allotment of ADUs.
• Section 24.16.140 1.b. – Multifamily Detached ADUs – The Ordinance states, “For parcels developed with and existing with an existing multifamily structure(s): Two new construction and at least 1 conversion accessory dwelling unit” on each parcel. However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(D) specifies, that the “two new construction” ADUs are “located on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling, but are

15.212
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation in clause (i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), and rear yard and side setbacks of no more than four feet.” Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to allow for ADUs with proposed multifamily dwellings and expand on the requirements of new construction ADUs in compliance with State ADU Law.
• Section 24.16.140 3. – Unit Size, Lot Coverage & Floor Area – The Ordinance states: “The floor area for new construction detached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed ten percent of the net lot area…” and “…shall not exceed fifty percent of the existing habitable floor area of the principal residential use of the property”. The City appears to be limiting the size of ADUs based on lot coverage requirements and floor area ratio. However, local agencies may not establish any maximum size for an ADU based upon limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C)). Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to align with statute.
• Section 24.16.140 8.b. and 8.f.i. – Occupancy – The Ordinance states, “For accessory dwelling units permitted on or before December 31, 2019, or on or after January 1, 2025, the property owner or an adult member of the property owner’s immediate family, limited to the property owner’s spouse, adult children, parents, or siblings, and subject to verification by the city, must occupy either the primary or accessory dwelling as his or her principal place of residence…” However, effective January 1, 2024, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(8), prohibits the City from imposing an owneroccupant requirement. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.
• Section 24.16.140 9. – Connections Between Units – The Ordinance states:
“At the discretion of the planning director, accessory dwelling units may be permitted to create direct access between units, or common access to a shared garage, laundry room, or storage area.” However, jurisdictions may only impose objective standards on ADUs, which, by definition, involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i) & (j)(7)). A standard that depends on “the discretion of the planning director” involves subjective judgement by a public official and is thus not an objective standard. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove this language.
• Section 24.16.141 1.c. and 2. – Setbacks – The Ordinance states: “A smaller front setback shall be granted only if needed to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet.” SCMC section 24.16.141 2. expands

15.213
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

on this allotment. However, while jurisdictions can impose front setbacks, they cannot preclude an ADU of 800 square feet or fewer from existing in the front setback, regardless of whether such an ADU could exist somewhere else on the lot. There exists no legislative provision of feasibility or conditionality regarding the preclusion of front setbacks on ADUs in statute. To read such a provision into subparagraph (C) would imply each of the preclusions listed apply a discretionary test of feasibility or additional conditions when applied.

Therefore, the City must further amend its Ordinance to allow for ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (c)(2)(C) within the front setback regardless of feasibility within the front setback. • Section 24.16.141 4.b. – Second Story Floor Area – The Ordinance states:
“The floor area for all second stories shall not exceed fifty percent of the firstfloor area for all structures, except in cases where the first-floor area of the structure to which a second story is being added constitutes thirty percent or less of the net lot area.” However, this requirement may preclude the development of accessory dwelling units pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e). Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to clarify the exceptions to these design standards.
• Section 24.16.150 1. – Separate Sale – The Ordinance states: “The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately.” However, Government Code section 65852.26 and Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(10) provide for the separate sale of ADUs from the primary dwelling unit when certain conditions are met. The City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.
• Section 24.16.170 3. – Attached Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) – The Ordinance states that: “Junior accessory dwelling units must be attached to a single-family dwelling…” Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(4) states, that a JADU must (emphasis added): “…be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence. For purposes of this paragraph, enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence.” JADUs may not be created by a new construction addition to the single-family residence. Therefore, the City must clarify that JADUs are only created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence which includes enclosed uses such as attached garages.
• Section 24.16.170 7. – JADU Entrance – The Ordinance states: “Junior accessory dwelling units that do not contain all the required features of a dwelling unit will be required to maintain an interior connection between the junior accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling unit.” However, Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(5)(B) states, that: “If a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom,

15.214
Lee Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development

the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.” Requiring a separate entrance for JADUs for any reason beyond the lack of a separate bathroom within the JADU would violate this subdivision.

Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to require separate entrances for JADUs under this circumstance and not due to JADUs lacking “all the required features of a dwelling unit.”
• Section 24.16.170 8. – Deed Restriction – The Ordinance states that: “A deed restriction pursuant to Section 24.16.150 shall be required and recorded on the parcel.” However, Section 24.16.150 of the SCMC contains deed restriction provisions that go beyond what is provided by Government Code section 65852.22 (a)(3), such as SCMC sections 24.16.150 6. and 7. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to only permit deed restrictions for JADUs pursuant to the terms specified in Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(3).

In response to the findings in this letter, and pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(2)(B), the City must either amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law or adopt the Ordinance without changes. Should the City choose to adopt the Ordinance without the changes specified by HCD, the City must include findings in its resolution that explain the reasons the City finds that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite the findings made by HCD. Accordingly, the City’s response should provide a plan and timeline to bring the Ordinance into compliance.

Please note that, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (h)(3)(A), if the City fails to take either course of action and bring the Ordinance into compliance with State ADU Law, HCD may notify the City and the California Office of the Attorney General that the City is in violation of State ADU Law.

HCD appreciates the City’s efforts in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law. Please feel free to contact Nicholas Green, of our staff, at (916) 841-6665 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jamie Candelaria
Senior Housing Accountability Manager
Housing Policy Development Division

15.215
HCD Comment and Response Matrix
Comment # Comment Response
1 • Section 24.08.810 – Procedure – The Ordinance states: “In the case of construction of an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24.16.100 et. Seq, this section shall apply only when alternative site configurations are available to an applicant that would permit the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit up to eight hundred square feet in size without the need for a slope modification permit…” However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i) [66314(b)(1)], requires the City to impose objective standards on ADUs. Objective standards are defined in subdivision (j)(7) as “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” Additionally, subdivision (a)(3) [66316], requires only a ministerial process for the approval of ADUs. The slope permit process and the alternative site configurations present a discretionary approval process and subjective standards for compliance in violation of these subdivisions. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.

Section 24.08.810 has been amended to
remove any requirement for a slope
development permit for ADUS. In addition, an
objective slope setback has been added to the
development standards within the ADU
ordinance (24.16.141.9.c). Statewide
exemption ADUs can obtain a waiver to this
standard if needed to construct the ADU
(24.16.141.11.a.iv). So that the City can provide
more flexibility and support development of
additional ADUs, the ordinance includes a new
provision to allow the applicant to obtain a
slope development permit when the ADU can
meet the standard but the applicant chooses
not to (24.16.130.8).
2 • Section 24.16.130.3.a. – Ministerial Timeline – The Ordinance states that the state law requirement of a 60-day ministerial review timeline shall not apply when: “Additional administrative or discretionary review is required under applicable provisions of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or otherwise allowed by state law.” However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(3)(A), requires ministerial without discretionary review ADU permit applications to be approved or denied within 60 days. Further, if the local agency has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. Finally, the Ordinance may not impose additional standards on ADUs other than those provided by Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a), and no other local ordinance, policy or regulation may be the basis of delay or denial of building or use permits for ADUs (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds.

The language referencing required additional
administrative or discretionary review has
been removed.

15.216
(a)(7) & (a)(8)). Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to clarify the nature of the 60-day ministerial approval timeline and remove any additional administrative or discretionary review for ADU permit applications.
3 • Section 24.16.130 4.a. and Section 24.16.140 7. and 11. – Discretionary Review – The Ordinance states that: “Applications that propose to locate an accessory dwelling unit on a parcel or portion of a parcel triggering additional administrative or discretionary review shall only be relieved of the requirement for those reviews when no alternative site plan or project proposal can be created which would allow the creation of an up to eighthundred-square-foot accessory dwelling unit that would not trigger additional reviews” (SCMC section 24.16.130 4.a.i.). The Ordinance indicates that “Higher fencing up to eight feet can be considered in unusual design circumstances, subject to review and approval of the zoning administrator.” (SCMC section 24.16.140 7).

The Ordinance also states that: “All accessory dwelling units shall meet the objective design standards set forth in this code… which may require discretionary review” (SCMC section 24.16.140 11.). However, accessory dwelling units may only be approved: “ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(3)(A)) (emphasis added). As this section references no other ordinance sections regulating variances or special permits, ADUs may not be subject to discretionary review under any circumstances. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove the potential for discretionary review of ADU permits.

The language in Section 24.16.130.4. and

24.16.140.11 referring to discretionary review
has been removed.

The language in Section 24.16.140.7 regarding
fence height has been removed.
4 • Section 24.16.130.8. – Historic Properties – The Ordinance states that:
“Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are designated as historic resources by the city, the state of California, or by the National Register of Historic Places shall show substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development on Per correspondence from Nick Green, HCD, on
5/17/24, the City may apply as an objective
standard for sites listed at the national or local
level to show substantial compliance with the

15.217
such properties.” However, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i) [66314(b)(1)], jurisdictions may only impose objective standards the prevent adverse impacts on real proposed listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. As State ADU Law makes no similar carve out for properties on corresponding city-wide and national registries, the City may not preclude the development of ADUs on these properties for failing to show “substantial compliance with the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior for development.” Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to accurately reflect which historic properties may be subject to additional objective standards.

Secretary of the Interior standards. Therefore,
no changes are proposed to this section.
5 • Section 24.16.130 9. – Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan – The Ordinance states that: “Applications to construct accessory dwelling units on properties that are subject to the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements established in that plan for such properties, as implemented by Section 24.08.2100 et seq.” Section 24.08.2100 states: “The Coastal Zone Overlay District is a district which combines with the underlying zone. The City’s coastal regulations shall prevail where they conflict with regulations governing the underlying district. Any permitted, administrative or special uses in the underlying zoning district within the Coastal Zone Overlay District are subject to coastal permit regulations and findings, and may be authorized only by approval of a coastal permit, except as provided in Section 24.08.230, Exemptions.”
Further, Section 24.08.230 states that “Minor projects lacking coastal significance, are exempted from the requirements of coastal development permit processing in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Code of Regulations.” While the City may impose separate standards on ADUs in coastal zones pursuant to the California Coastal Act and the local coastal program, it is unclear whether ADUs in the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan are part of the local coastal program, or whether the City merely intends to apply existing standards for the Coastal Zone to the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands. Unless the The ordinance refers to 24.08.2100, which is
the watercourse development permit section.

The letter’s language regarding the Coastal
Zone Overlay District is actually in Section

24.08.210 and is not referenced by Section

24.16.130.9.

That being said, the ordinance has been
amended to no longer refer to the Creeks and
Wetlands Management Plan and instead
creates an objective setback from creeks or
wetlands (24.16.141.9.a and b) with waivers
from the setback as needed to create a
statewide exemption ADU (24.16.141.11.b.i
and 24.16.141.11.c.ii and iii) and an option to
obtain a watercourse development permit if
the ADU can be located outside the setback (or
inside the setback with waivers) but the
applicant chooses to locate it within the
setback (24.16.140.8).

It should also be noted that an ADU that is
required to obtain a coastal permit must

15.218
Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Plan was adopted pursuant to the California Coastal Act, this Ordinance would violate Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(7) which states, “No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. Additionally, if the Ordinance in section is valid, it is unclear whether any exemption would qualify as “minor projects lacking coastal significance.” Please clarify. demonstrate consistency with the Citywide
Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan as that
document is part of the Local Coastal Program.

No changes are proposed in this regard.

5.5 Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e) [66323] states, “Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone.” Therefore, standards adopted pursuant to subdivisions (a)-(d) may not preclude ADUs created pursuant to subdivision (e). The City must amend the Ordinance to allow for this exception.

The modifications include new language that
provides for waivers of objective standards in
an objective manner to the extent that they
physically preclude the construction of a
statewide exemption ADU (24.16.141.10 and
11).
6 • Section 24.16.140 1.a. – Number of ADUs per Parcel – The Ordinance states, for parcels zoned for and including a proposed or existing singlefamily home, “…One accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed for each parcel. Each parcel may also include a junior accessory dwelling unit...” However, Pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1), “Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application…to create any of the following:
(A) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling…(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a singlefamily dwelling or accessory structure.” Moreover subparagraph (B) permits “One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.” The use of the term “any” followed by an enumeration of by-right ADU types permitted indicate that any of these ADU types can be combined on lots with existing or proposed single-family dwellings. Statute does not use ‘or’ nor “one of” Correspondence from Nick Green, HCD, dated
June 6, 2024 indicated that statewide
exemption ADUs are required in addition to
any non-exempt ADU on the lot. Therefore, the
code has been revised to allow any statewide
exemption ADUs plus one non-exempt ADU on
a lot with a single-family building and to allow
the number of statewide exemption ADUs on a
lot with a multi-family building (24.16.141.1).

15.219
to indicate only one or another would be applicable to the exclusion of the other.

Thus, if the local agency approves an ADU that is created from existing (or proposed) space of a single-family dwelling, or created from an existing accessory structure, and the owner subsequently applies for a detached ADU permit (or vice versa), which meets the size and setback requirements, pursuant to the subdivision, the local agency cannot deny the applicant, nor deny a permit for a ADU under this section. This permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one (1) converted ADU, one (1) detached, new construction ADU, and one (1) JADU, in any order without prejudice, totaling three units. This standard simultaneously applies to ADUs created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C) and (D), on lots with proposed or existing multifamily dwellings according to specified requirements.

Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to allow for the correct allotment of ADUs.
7 • Section 24.16.140 1.b. – Multifamily Detached ADUs – The Ordinance states, “For parcels developed with and existing with an existing multifamily structure(s): Two new construction and at least 1 conversion accessory dwelling unit” on each parcel. However, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(D) specifies, that the “two new construction” ADUs are “located on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation in clause (i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), and rear yard and side setbacks of no more than four feet.” Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to allow for ADUs with proposed multifamily dwellings and expand on the requirements of new construction ADUs in compliance with State ADU Law.

The ordinance now includes a definition for a
statewide exemption ADU that includes that a
multifamily detached ADU can be within a
proposed multifamily dwelling and includes the
noted information on height and setbacks
(24.16.125.8.d).
8 • Section 24.16.140 3. – Unit Size, Lot Coverage & Floor Area – The Ordinance states: “The floor area for new construction detached accessory Correspondence between the City to HCD
indicates that during a conversation between

15.220
dwelling units shall not exceed ten percent of the net lot area…” and “…shall not exceed fifty percent of the existing habitable floor area of the principal residential use of the property”. The City appears to be limiting the size of ADUs based on lot coverage requirements and floor area ratio.

However, local agencies may not establish any maximum size for an ADU based upon limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c)(2)(C)). Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to align with statute.

Sarah Neuse and HCD staff on March 4th, it was
determined that the City’s ordinance as written
was in compliance in this regard and that no
changes were needed. Specifically, the code
section in question limits ADU size based on lot
area or a percentage of the main unit only
when the ADU exceeds the thresholds of 850
square feet for a studio or one-bedroom units
and 1,000 square feet for a unit with more
than one bedroom. This standard has been
relocated to the new site development
standards table in Section 24.16.141.1.
9 • Section 24.16.140 8.b. and 8.f.i. – Occupancy – The Ordinance states, “For accessory dwelling units permitted on or before December 31, 2019, or on or after January 1, 2025, the property owner or an adult member of the property owner’s immediate family, limited to the property owner’s spouse, adult children, parents, or siblings, and subject to verification by the city, must occupy either the primary or accessory dwelling as his or her principal place of residence…” However, effective January 1, 2024, Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(8) [66315], prohibits the City from imposing an owner-occupant requirement. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.

These sections referring to occupancy have
been removed from the code.
10 • Section 24.16.140 9. – Connections Between Units – The Ordinance states: “At the discretion of the planning director, accessory dwelling units may be permitted to create direct access between units, or common access to a shared garage, laundry room, or storage area.” However, jurisdictions may only impose objective standards on ADUs, which, by definition, involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i) & (j)(7)). A standard that depends on “the discretion of the planning director” involves subjective judgement by a public official and is thus not an objective standard. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to remove this language.

Section 24.16.140.9 has been relocated to

24.16.142.2 and amended to remove language
related to subjective judgement.

15.221
11 • Section 24.16.141 1.c. and 2. – Setbacks – The Ordinance states: “A smaller front setback shall be granted only if needed to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit of up to 800 square feet.” SCMC section 24.16.141

2. expands on this allotment. However, while jurisdictions can impose front setbacks, they cannot preclude an ADU of 800 square feet or fewer from existing in the front setback, regardless of whether such an ADU could exist somewhere else on the lot. There exists no legislative provision of feasibility or conditionality regarding the preclusion of front setbacks on ADUs in statute. To read such a provision into subparagraph (C) would imply each of the preclusions listed apply a discretionary test of feasibility or additional conditions when applied. Therefore, the City must further amend its Ordinance to allow for ADUs built pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (c)(2)(C) [66321.b.3] within the front setback regardless of feasibility within the front setback.

Per correspondence with Nick Green, HCD,
dated DATE, the front yard setback can be
imposed if it can also be waived in a manner
that includes no subjectivity on the part of the
City. The amended ordinance includes new
language to waive a front yard setback in an
objective manner to the extend that it
physically precludes the construction of an 800
square foot attached or detached ADU with
four-foot side and rear yard setbacks
(24.16.141.10).
12 • Section 24.16.141 4.b. – Second Story Floor Area – The Ordinance states:
“The floor area for all second stories shall not exceed fifty percent of the first-floor area for all structures, except in cases where the first-floor area of the structure to which a second story is being added constitutes thirty percent or less of the net lot area.” However, this requirement may preclude the development of accessory dwelling units pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e). Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to clarify the exceptions to these design standards.

Per correspondence to HCD, during a March 4th
meeting with HCD staff, HCD staff confirmed
that the ordinance as written is not in conflict
with state law.
13 • Section 24.16.150 1. – Separate Sale – The Ordinance states: “The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately.” However, Government Code section 65852.26 and Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (a)(10) provide for the separate sale of ADUs from the primary dwelling unit when certain conditions are met. The City must amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.

Section 24.16.165.9 has been added to allow
separate sale of ADUs as required by state law.
14 • Section 24.16.170 3. – Attached Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) – The Ordinance states that: “Junior accessory dwelling units must be attached to a single-family dwelling…” Government Code section Language has been added clarifying that
attached garages are a space within a

15.222
65852.22, subdivision (a)(4) states, that a JADU must (emphasis added):
“…be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence. For purposes of this paragraph, enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence.” JADUs may not be created by a new construction addition to the single-family residence. Therefore, the City must clarify that JADUs are only created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-family residence which includes enclosed uses such as attached garages.
residence that may be converted to a JADU
(24.16.170.3).

Per correspondence from the City to HCD
describing a March 4th conversation with HCD
staff, HCD staff agreed that a “proposed” single
family home can be interpreted to mean the
resulting dwelling including a JADU, regardless
of whether parts of that dwelling are already
existing. The code section has been clarified to
reflect this interpretation (24.16.170.3).
15 • Section 24.16.170 7. – JADU Entrance – The Ordinance states: “Junior accessory dwelling units that do not contain all the required features of a dwelling unit will be required to maintain an interior connection between the junior accessory dwelling unit and the primary dwelling unit.” However, Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(5)(B) states, that: “If a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.” Requiring a separate entrance for JADUs for any reason beyond the lack of a separate bathroom within the JADU would violate this subdivision. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to require separate entrances for JADUs under this circumstance and not due to JADUs lacking “all the required features of a dwelling unit.”
Section 24.16.170.7 has been deleted. Section

24.16.170.6 indicates that an interior
connection is required only when the jADU
does not include a separate bathroom.
16 • Section 24.16.170 8. – Deed Restriction – The Ordinance states that: “A deed restriction pursuant to Section 24.16.150 shall be required and recorded on the parcel.” However, Section 24.16.150 of the SCMC contains deed restriction provisions that go beyond what is provided by Government Code section 65852.22 (a)(3) [66333(c)], such as SCMC sections 24.16.150 6. and 7. Therefore, the City must amend its Ordinance to only permit deed restrictions for JADUs pursuant to the terms specified in Government Code section 65852.22, subdivision (a)(3).

References to JADUs have been removed from
Section 24.16.150. Section 24.16.170.8
describes deed restriction requirements
specific to JADUs and consistent with state law.

15.223

15.224
Sep 5, 2024
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Changes to Santa Cruz’s ADU Ordinance
Dear Santa Cruz Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter regarding agenda item 3 for the September 5, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, proposed amendments to the City’s accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) ordinance. The proposed ordinance would violate state law in a number of ways, as detailed below.

Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.) Separately from local ADU ordinances, Gov. Code, § 66323 prescribes a narrower set of ADU types for which it imposes a ministerial duty on cities to approve. “Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. (Ibid.) In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Gov. Code, § 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).))
Additionally, state law prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
[email protected]

15.225
Impermissible Development Standards
Santa Cruz Code (“SCC”) Section 24.16.141 would place numerous impermissible development standards on ADUs, as detailed below:

SCC Section 24.16.141(1) imposes front yard setbacks on detached ADUs. However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), the City may not impose any front setback requirement at all.

SCC Section 24.16.141(1) imposes the exterior side yard setback standard of the underlying zoning district on detached ADUs. However, the City may only impose four foot side yard setbacks on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314, subd. (d)(7).) In addition, ADUs “constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure” are entirely exempt from any setback requirements. (Ibid.)
SCC Section 24.16.141(1) requires a building-to-building separation of six feet for ADUs.

However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), the City may not impose any building to building separation requirement at all.

SCC Section 24.16.141(1) prohibits “An expansion of up to 150 square feet shall not enlarge the accessory dwelling unit beyond one thousand two hundred square feet unless necessary to accommodate ingress and egress to the accessory dwelling unit.” However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a)(1)(A), the City may not disallow a 150 square foot expansion so long as that expansion is only for accommodating ingress and egress, regardless of whether a plan reviewer considers it “necessary.” SCC Section 24.16.141(6) requires a “Clear corner triangle and clear vision area” for ADUs.

However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), the City may not impose any such standards.

SCC Section 24.16.141(7) imposes lot coverage and second story standards on ADUs. However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a, the City may not impose any such standards.

SCC Section 24.16.141(8) imposes archaeological controls on ADUs. However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), the City may not impose any such standards.
2 of 5

15.226
SCC Section 24.16.141(9) imposes minimum distances from certain natural features.

However, for ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), the City may not impose any such standards.

SCC Sections 24.16.141(10) and (11) create a multiple-step waiver process to ensure that an ADU of 800 square feet can be created. However, this process is not allowed by state law. As stated above, ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a) may not be subject to any standard other than four foot side and rear setbacks (or the setbacks of the existing, converted structure) and the height limitations outlined Government Code Section 66321, subd. (b)(4). State law does not allow cities to impose such requirements and only remove them if reviewing officials can be convinced that they must be waived.

SCC Section 24.16.142(1) imposes all the objective design standards of the entire City code on ADUs. This is clearly impermissible. Firstly, only standards listed in Government Code Section 66314 may be imposed on ADUs, not all design standards. Secondly, only basic height and setback requirements may be imposed on ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), as discussed above.

SCC Section 24.16.142(2) creates requirements for ADU entrances, fenestration, and landscaping. Against, none of these requirements may be imposed on ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), as discussed above.

SCC Section 24.16.142(2*) [the second use of Section 24.16.142(2) in the proposed code] forbids connections between an ADU and the primary unit. Again, this requirement may not be imposed on ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), as discussed above.

SCC Section 24.16.1429(3) regulates ADU development on properties listed by the “National Register of Historic Places, the State of California, or by the City, including any property that has been determined to be eligible for the City’s historic building survey list but the property owner has elected to not list the property (opt-out) …” However, Government Code Section 66314, subd. (b) only allows the imposition of historic standards on ADU development on state register sites, not properties listed on the National Register or local landmarks/surveys but not the state register. Furthermore, no such standards may be imposed on ADUs that meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66323, subd. (a), as discussed above.

Impermissible Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Section 24.16.020(7) places an inclusionary housing requirement on ADU development.

However, Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for 3 of 5

15.227
rentals of terms 30 days or longer.” A deed restriction would be an “additional standard” and thus cannot be imposed. Additionally, given that the City is already assuming in its Housing Element that a certain percentage of ADUs are naturally affordable, it is illogical to also require an inclusionary requirement if the ADUs are already naturally affordable.

Impermissible Restriction on Short-Term Rentals of the Primary Unit SCC Section 24.16.140(3) forbids the short term rental of condo units and townhouses after an ADU has been developed on the property. Unless the City forbids the short term rental of all condo units and townhouses in the City, it may not specifically forbid the short term rental of condo units and townhouses where an ADU has been developed. Not only might this have a chilling effect on ADU production, in spite of the fact that the City is planning on building 584 ADUs during its current Housing Element Cycle, but this would mean that the City is imposing an additional standard on ADU development not specifically mentioned in state law. And as discussed above, Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.” A restriction on the short term rental of the primary unit is an “additional standard” and thus cannot be imposed.

Approval Process
SCC Section 24.16.130 allows for a discretionary process for the approval of ADUs that do not meet the standards in the code. However, Government Code Section 66316 only allows for ministerial approvals: “... an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units… ” Additionally, if the City amends its ordinance to comply with state law, then there will be no need for such a process.

The Required Deed Restrictions Are Unenforceable
SCC Section 24.16.150 requires a deed restriction to be recorded against the property as a condition of developing an ADU. However, such deed restrictions imposed on ADUs are unenforceable. This is due to the absence of horizontal privity between the City and the applicant. In other words, since the City does not own the applicant’s property at the time of the application, and does not own a neighboring property to whose benefit the proposed restriction(s) redound, black letter property law bars the restrictions from binding future property owners. (See, e.g., Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enters. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 [describing the types of privity relationship between covenanting parties that allow enforcement of a deed restriction]; see also Civ. Code §§ 1460 et seq.)
Additionally, Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than 4 of 5

15.228
those provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer.” A deed restriction would be an “additional standard” and thus cannot be imposed.
⧫⧫⧫
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
5 of 5

15.229
From: Claire Castagna
To: City Council
Subject: Changes to ADU law
Date: Saturday, October 5, 2024 7:12:11 AM
Re:

Another proposed change would require that all ADUs are required to be inspected by the city’s Residential Rental Inspection Service as they were exempt before. With owner occupancy no longer required, ADUs would be seen as functioning more as a rental property so city staff recommends that the exemption be removed to ensure they are adequately maintained.

Not ALL ADUs should be under the City’s Rental Inspection program, which seems to be wanting to build their budget, charging people more and more for the illusion of providing a service, in reality, barely needed. Landlords are charged annually to inspect their own property! An actual inspector shows up every 5 years— so for 80% of the time, it’s one big paper push. What are the percentages of serious problems “uncovered” by inspecting rentals? That data should drive the decision to expand or exist at all.

If the City can see in the data the need to include non-owner occupied ADUs, at least it’s consistent with the current inspection policy. It is inconsistent to require annual inspection of a part of a owner occupied home, including their backyard, driveway, garage, shed or ADU.

The City staff doesn’t seem to appreciate that most citizens and homeowners are good people doing the right thing. Now the staff wants to charge even more people annually for completing a form attesting to be good. Seems like one more way to build the department’s budget.

Sincerely,
Claire Castagna
Santa Cruz

15.230
From: Kirsten
To: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] 10/08/24 Council Agenda Item 15: ADUs Date: Sunday, October 6, 2024 10:41:11 PM
Attachments: sccouncilADU.docx
Hello,
My parents have requested that I electronically submit their letter for consideration at the October 8th Council meeting regarding Accessory Dwelling Unit revisions. Thank you for your consideration on this very important issue.

Sincerely,
Kirsten Garrard

15.231
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Santa Cruz, California:

We are writing to express our strong support of the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission and staff recommendations to make Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ownership in the City consistent and equitable Citywide by removing the current owner-occupied deed restriction requirements that pertain to a limited number of residential homes with ADUs.

Giving homeowners the option to recind the current deed restrictions streamlines the process, creates more affordable housing and levels the playing field for the handful of homeowners with ADUs burdened down with the many restrictions that other homes with ADUs do not have. Again, we strongly encourage you to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations.

Sincerely,
Tom and Mary Hamilton
118 Manor Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

15.232
From: PJ Grube
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback
Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 10:15:48 AM
Low Cost Housing and ADU Condominiums
The failure of Low-cost housing has an origin. in the late 60s early 70s condominiums were approved on multi residential property. Even existing apartment complexes were converted to condominiums, basically removing them from the rental market.

Apartments were our low-cost housing driven by market forces.

It is now rare to see a new apartment complex built that is not designed as condominiums.

We have consistently built housing units with more and more amenities, raising their market values.

We need less amenities, smaller units and more density. Rich people tend to not want this type of housing.

The idea of allowing ADU to be condominiums is only exacerbating the ever decreasing affordability of housing.

The difference between renting an ADU and buying a one bedroom one bath ADU is all you need to look at to be convinced.

Buying would be $600,000 at 6.39% interest, fully amortized is $3,750 per month + $150 tax and insurance = $3,900 per month.

Renting a one bedroom = $2,000-$2,700
Zoning needs to be change to have an apartment specific multi-unit zoning category, no condominiums.

The expectation that government should supply us affordable housing has to stop. We need a market driven supply and demand system. Driven by tax incentives to create safe, minimum size, low amenity, greater density, not over engineered apartment units.

PJ Grube Real Estate Broker 45 years

15.233
Santa Cruz City Council
October 8, 2024
Accessory Dwelling
Unit Ordinance
Amendments

15.234
2 • Permanently adopt urgency ordinance changes
• State law consistency
• ADU ordinance clarity
• Remove owner occupancy and require Rental Inspection
enrollment
• Separate sale of ADUs
Proposed Changes

15.235
3 Current Requirements
• Owner-occupancy waived
for ADUs built 2020 or
later
• ADUs exempt from rental
inspection service
Proposed Amendments
• Remove owner-occupancy
for all ADUs
• Residential Rental
Inspection Service
enrollment required
Owner-Occupancy/RRIS

15.236
4 • Allows condominium mapping of sites with ADUs
• More variety in housing market
• Opportunity for lower-cost ownership housing
• Ministerial approval process for four or fewer condos • Tenant displacement assistance
Separate Sale: AB 1033

15.237
5 • August 15: Community meeting
• August 23: Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors
• September 19: Westside Engagement Community Meeting
Community Feedback

15.238
6 • Agreed with staff recommendation for approval
• Review Housing Defense Fund letter and state law
conformance
Planning Commission: Sept. 5

15.239
7 • City Council 2nd reading
• 30 day after 2nd reading Changes in effect, Local Coastal Program changes not in effect in Coastal Zone until
approved by Coastal Commission
• December – January: new state law required changes
Next steps

15.240
8 1) Acknowledge the Environmental Determination;
2) Approve the proposed ordinances amending accessory dwelling Unit Regulations and other minor technical amendments,
including amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapters

21.06, 23.04, 23.12, 24.04, 24.08, 24.10, 24.12, and 24.16 and adding new sections 24.04.095 and 24.16.165, and including amendments to the Local Coastal Program;
3) Rescind temporary ordinance 2022-22, extended by ordinance 2023-01 when new ordinance goes into effect
Recommendation

15.241
City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 09/17/2024
AGENDA OF: 10/08/2024
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Response (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize the Mayor to submit responses to the Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury on behalf of the Santa Cruz City Council for the (1) Honoring Commitments to the Public, (2) Housing for Whom, and (3) Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence reports.

BACKGROUND: The Grand Jury issued three reports which require responses from the Santa Cruz City Council. The full reports can be accessed here:
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Departments/GrandJury/2023- 2024GrandJuryReportsandResponses.aspx. The required responses included:

1. Honoring Commitments to the Public—Review of 2020-21 Grand Jury Report Responses Response due date: October 9, 2024;

2. Housing For Whom? An Investigation of Inclusionary Housing in the City of Santa Cruz Response due date: October 9, 2024; and

3. Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence—Where’s the Priority? Response due date: October 9, 2024.

DISCUSSION: At the September 10, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council approved the formation of a City Council subcommittee to review the responses prepared by staff and to submit a request to the Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury for an extension to submit their responses from September 25th to October 9, 2024. The Civil Grand Jury approved the extension. The subcommittee was formed with Councilmembers Brown, Brunner and Mayor Keeley. After gathering feedback from the Council subcommittee and various City Departments, staff has prepared responses for Council’s review. The Council is being requested to authorize the Mayor to respond, on behalf of the Council, to the published Civil Grand Jury reports that required responses. Upon approval, responses will be submitted to the Civil Grand Jury by October 9, 2024.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

Under Pub. Resources Code, § 21065, the proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the proposed Council action represent the type of “activity” described in subdivisions (a) through (c) of Section 21065.

16.1 HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The City’s prioritization of the subject areas addressed by the Grand Jury reports is supportive of many current Collective of Results and Evidencebased Investments program goals pertaining to health and wellness, economic security and mobility, thriving families, community connectedness, healthy environments, a safe and just community, and stable, affordable housing and shelter. While there is little nexus with sustainability, the City activities to address the Grant Jury’s subject areas support two of the three pillars of HiAP, equity and public health, as well as related community well-being outcome metrics adopted as part of the HiAP initiative.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

Prepared By:

Gina Liebig
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. HONORING COMMITMENTS TO THE PUBLIC.PDF

2. HOUSING FOR WHOM – TRACK CHANGES.DOC

3. HOUSING FOR WHOM – CLEAN.DOC

4. PREVENTING RAPE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESPONSE - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

5. PREVENTING RAPE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESPONSE - CLEAN.DOCX

16.2 Honoring Commitments to the Public
Review of 2020-21 Grand Jury Report Responses
Summary
The value of Grand Jury reports and recommendations comes when government agencies actually improve their transparency and efficiency. It typically takes two years for results to be measurable.

The 2023-24 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury reviewed local government responses to three of the nine 2020-21 Grand Jury reports. The other six (6) reports were in compliance. The purpose was to determine whether the named local government officials and their agencies met their stated commitments. Following through on these commitments is required by California Penal Code section 933.05.

In two cases, the agencies promised to take action at some unspecified time in the future. This is not an appropriate response. The specific time action will be taken is required to be specifically stated.

The Grand Jury investigation on those two cases discovered that there was significant action taken, though in the case of one report Grand Jury recommendations were not fully implemented. In the third case, the specific recommendations could not be addressed due to changing circumstances. The reports reviewed, and agency actions, are below:
● Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Can Get By with a Little Help from its Friends: The Commissioner’s Office still has work to do. Four new recommendations have been made to address the original recommendation, which is still unmet.
● Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz: Commitments were partially met. ● The CZU Lightning Complex Fire - Learn…or Burn?: Commitment has been met.

Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 1 of 14

16.3 Table of Contents
Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents............................................................................................................2 Background.....................................................................................................................3 Scope and Methodology................................................................................................ 3 Investigation.................................................................................................................... 4

1. Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends..................................................4 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up to R2 and R3........................................................ 5 Findings................................................................................................................. 6 Recommendations................................................................................................. 7

2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz.............................................................7 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2..................................... 8 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8..................................... 9 Finding................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations............................................................................................... 10

3. The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn...or Burn?........................................10 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors Response to R3..............................................................................................10 Finding..................................................................................................................11 Recommendation................................................................................................. 11 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 11 Required Responses.................................................................................................... 12 Invited Responses........................................................................................................ 12 Definitions..................................................................................................................... 12 Sources.......................................................................................................................... 12 References................................................................................................................ 12 Websites....................................................................................................................14 Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 2 of 14

16.4 Background
Each year the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigates local government operations. It then issues reports with the goal of improving government efficiency and effectiveness, and promoting accountability and transparency. The Grand Jury reports make recommendations for improvements. When called for in the report, elected local government officials and governing bodies are required to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations.

Each investigated organization receives a copy of the Grand Jury’s report and a response packet that includes the instructions. They send their responses to the presiding judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Grand Jury. Elected officials must respond within 60 days and governing bodies are required to respond within 90 days.

Only governing bodies and elected county officers are required to respond to Grand Jury reports. However, the Grand Jury may invite a response from other “responsible officers” such as the chief administrative officer of a government function.

Readers interested in a more comprehensive look at the Grand Jury reports and responses are encouraged to read the original reports and responses. All may be found on the County’s Grand Jury web page in the Reports section.

Scope and Methodology
For this Honoring Commitments report, the Grand Jury reviewed responses to the following three 2020-21 reports:
● Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends.[1]
● Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz[2]
● The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn...or Burn?[3]
The 2023-24 Grand Jury has followed up with the responding agencies for these selected reports. The Grand Jury wanted to know whether the agencies actually did implement recommendations as they said they would, or that they did the further analysis, and what the outcome was. Without follow-up these recommendations can fall by the wayside and drop out of public view.

Online research of websites, news articles, and published reports as well as interviews were all employed by the Grand Jury to investigate these issues.

Grand Juries are authorized to review report responses for each of the following categories. However, the responses in this report address only categories 2 and 3 as listed below:

1. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken,

2. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for implementation,
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 3 of 14

16.5 3. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or

4. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.

Investigation

1. Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends
This report from the 2020-21 Grand Jury had to do with managing resident notification gaps related to agricultural pesticide applications near schools and neighborhoods.

The Watsonville City Council responded to public demands for advance notice of pesticide use in nearby neighborhoods with a City Council resolution.

It was believed that the Santa Cruz County Agriculture Commissioner's office could post the submitted and approved notices online, indicating that pesticide application was about to take place.[1]
2020-21 R2: Recommendation by Grand Jury
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should assess and initiate online posting, text, or email notification of pesticide applications for nearby neighborhoods.[4]
2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Our County has been engaged with community members residing next to farms that may have questions or want information about the use of pesticides. These engagement efforts are led by the Agricultural Commissioner who works with our growers and community members to encourage more communication.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is in the early stages of assessing feasibility for a statewide notification program and DPR is the appropriate agency to lead these efforts to ensure a program that is equitable and consistent across the State.[5]
2020-21 R3: Recommendation by Grand Jury
Within six months, the Board of Supervisors should lobby the state and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to require that specific location information useful to the public be included on forms such as the Restricted Material Permits and the Notice of Intent forms.[4]
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 4 of 14

16.6 2020-21 R3: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
These efforts are already underway by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). DPR is in the early stages of engaging stakeholders on the development of a statewide pesticide notification program. DPR plans to have listening sessions with communities throughout the State later this year to receive feedback and comments regarding information that would be important as part of any notification process including more site-specific information. Input from communities and stakeholders will drive the specific information that will be included on notifications and whether Restricted Material Permits and Notices of Intent are the best outlets to provide this information. It is possible that notification information may be provided in a different format in an effort to make the information comprehensive.[5]
2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up to R2 and R3
Even though the responses to these recommendations were neither:

HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED nor

HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, the 2023-24 Grand Jury assessed that the responses did require follow-up to assure the public that the issue is being addressed.

The 2023-24 Grand Jury did research on the California Department of Pesticide Regulation website, and interviewed personnel in the Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office as well as officials of the City of Watsonville.[6] The Grand Jury learned that the DPR is indeed developing a new system of notification for agricultural pesticide applications statewide, called “Spray Days Now.” A preliminary version of that application has been tested in four California counties, including Santa Cruz County. The testing was done with the participation of the Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner and several residential communities near agricultural fields.[6] [7] [8] The program has two modes of operation. The first is passive. It allows anyone to go to a specific website where they will be presented with a map of California. The user can then drill down on the map to their (or any) specific location and locate any planned pesticide application in that area. The second mode is more active. It allows a user to sign up to be notified anytime a pesticide application is to be made in an area near their home, business, school, etc.[7]
This new program was initially scheduled to be rolled out in the spring of 2024, but due to various project issues it is now expected to be ready by spring of 2025.[7] The Grand Jury found, through interviews with officials at the county and city levels, that information about the new program being developed by the CDP has not been successfully communicated to impacted south county city officials.

Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 5 of 14

16.7 The County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office is the primary liaison to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. The information in this section was largely furnished by the Commissioner’s Office. To corroborate this data, fact finding with other agencies such as the City of Watsonville or Pajaro Valley School District was done. The Grand Jury did not observe content reflecting the plan on those agency websites and was not briefed on it by those agencies based on interviews.[8] [9] The Grand Jury did learn some good news from the County Agricultural Commissioner.

As science progresses, less toxic pesticides are being developed and released regularly. This reduces the severity of health and environmental impacts in the community. There is also growth in the organic control of pests, again reducing hazards to the public. In addition, many growers in Santa Cruz County are now investing in artificial intelligence driven machines, such as one that goes through the crop fields and vacuums up any unwanted insect pests, and one that can selectively destroy weeds with laser beams, avoiding the crop plants. These methods further reduce negative impacts and allow the growers to continue producing high quality agricultural products.[7] Findings
F1. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is developing a new system of notification for agricultural pesticide applications statewide and the proof of concept shows promise of being a good solution for notifying the public of pesticide application information in a timely manner.

F2. The Active and Passive modes of notification will allow access to members of the public in a manner of their choosing. Some people are comfortable signing up for notifications, others are not and would prefer to look up the information anonymously. This appears to provide most people the option to choose the method with which they are most comfortable.

F3. Because project delays have put off the release of the new system until the Spring of 2025, rather than 2024 as originally proposed, it is even more important that the public be made aware of what the new system will provide to them.

F4. As science progresses, less toxic pesticides are being developed and released regularly, and growers are finding acceptable alternatives to many pesticides.

Less toxic pesticide use in Santa Cruz county is leading to lower risks to human and environmental health.

F5. Communication between the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and other south county officials concerning pesticide management is not adequate, leading to a higher risk to human health.

Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 6 of 14

16.8 Recommendations
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner makes known to City of Watsonville officials and various governmental agencies information about advances in agricultural pest control, including less toxic pesticides and alternative methods of pest eradication. This information should be shared by September 30, 2024. (F4, F5)
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner inform the public about advances in agricultural pest control, particularly to residents in areas commonly exposed to pesticide applications. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F4, F5)
R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner makes known to City of Watsonville officials and various governmental agencies, information about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR. Information should be shared by September 30, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5)
R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner communicate information to the public about the “Spray Days Now” notification system being developed by the state DPR, especially in areas impacted by pesticide use. This should be completed by October 15, 2024. (F1, F2, F3, F5)

2. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz
The Grand Jury of 2020-21 investigated the high risk probability of wildfires, especially in areas surrounding the City of Santa Cruz known as the Wildland Urban Interface Area (WUI). The Grand Jury wanted to know how the high risk of wildfires was being addressed and our level of preparedness. The 2020-21 report specifically addressed the issue of homeless encampments and how they contributed to wildfire risk in WUI areas of the city.[2]
2020-21 Grand Jury Report, Recommendation R2
In the next three months, the City Council needs to have more transparent and formal coordination with the county on management of homeless resources.[2] 2020-21 R2: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future.

The 2x2 Committee, consisting of the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as the County Supervisors from Districts 3 & 5, meets every other week on homelessness issues. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provide a verbal report on those discussions at Council meetings on a monthly basis. County/City coordination through the Homeless Action Partnership has not been as transparent as it could be; however, the County has proposed a new charter to regional participants and it should increase transparency. It has been adopted by the HAP and is proceeding with consideration by cities and the county.[2] Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 7 of 14

16.9 2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R2 The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz:

City and County representatives began informally meeting in 2016. In January of 2018, both the City and the County formalized their respective agencies' participation and communication through a committee known as the 2x2. The 2x2 was composed of two members from the County Board of Supervisors and two members from the City Council to improve coordination between the agencies regarding homelessness issues. The goal was to form a regional response, in partnership with the County, to strengthen City efforts to improve how we respond to the homelessness crisis.

In January of 2022, the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership (H4HP) Policy Board was created to replace the Homeless Action Partnership (HAP) oversight groups. The newly created H4HP serves as the federally designated Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Board for Santa Cruz County and coordinates resources, programs, and services focused on preventing and ending homelessness.[10] [11] Prior to the creation of the H4HP Policy Board, the HAP CoC oversight groups included staff from the County's four cities, the County, a member of the health sector, members from various non-profits serving the homeless community, and those with lived experience. The HAP groups did not include elected officials.

Subsequently, changes were made to the CoC governance structure to ensure broader and deeper engagement of City and County leaders in the CoC planning and decision-making process, with the additional option to include elected officials from the cities and the County on the Policy Board. The current Policy Board membership overlaps with individuals historically involved with the 2x2 and HAP. The City of Santa Cruz has two seats on the policy board, which may be filled by elected officials, government staff, or other citizens. Therefore, the 2X2 was eliminated, however staff continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis. to collaborate on projects of mutual interest related to homelessness.[12] [13] [14] Grand Jury research found that the Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership is in place. This group is a collaboration between the County’s Human Services Department and a coalition of partners and resources for the purpose of preventing and ending homelessness within our County. The partnership includes a wide variety of members from the community including Santa Cruz City Council members, Board Supervisors, agency representatives, and County senior-level employees.

In March 2019 the Partnership began developing the Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework. The Framework contains steps aimed to reduce “unsheltered and overall homelessness countywide by January 2024.” The Framework outlines a detailed plan to accomplish this goal.[15]
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 8 of 14

16.10 With regard to the City Manager’s response to 2020-2021 Recommendation R2, the City has met its commitment to formally collaborate with the County for the purpose of managing homeless resources and reducing homelessness in our County. 2020-21 R8: Recommendation by Grand Jury
In the next six months, the City Council should produce a detailed plan and accounting of how the federal and state homeless funds are used.[2] 2020-21 R8: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz City Council Has not yet been implemented but will be in the future.

The City has detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent. The City received additional, direct funding from the state as part of the current state budget, and the requirements for how that will be spent and what that will fund are still to be determined. Similarly, direct funding from the American Rescue Act will go towards homelessness, but specifics related to that spending and the associated limitations are still to be determined.

City staff are working with a consultant to provide a consolidated report on various City expenditures, including prior and upcoming state and federal fund expenditures.
2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and City Response to R8
The following is an excerpt from the Office of the City Manager of Santa Cruz in response to the Grand Jury’s request for their follow-up to recommendations made in the 2020-21 Grand Jury report Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz:

A detailed plan for the use of funds was originally developed in March of 2022.

The cost projections were revised in May of 2022. Further updates to the budget were presented to the City Council in December of 2022. During the budget presentations to the City Council for FY24, a summary of expenditures was presented to the City Council on May 23, 2023.[12] [16] The City’s response to the Grand Jury’s 2020-21 report states that the City has “detailed information on how all state and federal funds received to date have been spent.” Yet no such information appears to have been provided.

The City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget attached to the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting contains only high level revenue and expenditure line items for Homeless Response Program Funds. Revenues of $14M in 2022 appear to be a lump sum to be spread over an unknown number of years. Overall expenditure figures for 2022 (actual), 2023 (adopted budget), and 2024 (adopted budget) total approximately $20M.

Finding
F6. With regard to the City Manager’s response to Recommendation R8, the City’s FY 2024 Annual Budget does not provide a detailed plan and accounting of how homeless funds have been used. The City’s response only partially fulfilled its commitment to make related budget figures available.

Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 9 of 14

16.11 Recommendations
R5. Within 90 days the City Manager should publish the figures that their initial response indicated were available for prior for years. (F6) R6. Within 90 days the City should publish the summary of expenditures as presented to the City Council in May 2023 that expand on the figures provided in the FY 2024 Annual Budget. (F6)

3. The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn...or Burn?
The CZU Lightning Complex fires of August 2020 were ignited by over three hundred lightning strikes in the counties of Santa Cruz and San Mateo. The fires burned for thirty seven days creating the largest wildfire in the history of Santa Cruz County. The 2020-21 Grand Jury wanted to know how the governmental response to the fire measured up and whether it could be deemed prepared for the next wildfire eventuality.[3]
2020-21 R3: Recommendation by Grand Jury
Within the next six months, the Board of Supervisors should require that CAL FIRE produce timely after-action reports for all major incidents.[3] 2020-21 R3: Response and Explanation from Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors
Requires further analysis
CAL FIRE, as County Fire has participated in County after action reviews and participates in monthly coordination meetings with law enforcement, CAO, and The County Fire Chiefs Association met to discuss lessons learned and continues to meet and work together. Substantive concerns at the State level are outside the local span of control to address. County Fire and its State CAL FIRE partners provided a professional response under considerable strain from the magnitude of this incident.[3] [17]
2023-24 Grand Jury Follow-up and Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors Response to R3
The following is the response from the Director of the Office of Response, Recovery and Resiliency (OR3), David Reid, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors 2023-24:

CAL FIRE has and will participate in After Action Reviews conducted by the County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience for all major incidents that impact the County. OR3 is coordinating closely with CAL FIRE as County Fire on Wildfire Prevention activities, the County of Santa Cruz Emergency Operations Plan update, and alert and warning practices.[17] [18]
In addition to the above statement from the Office of Response, Recovery and Resiliency, the Grand Jury acquired a copy of a report titled 2020 CZU Lightning Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 10 of 14

16.12 Complex Fire: After-Action Report and Improvement Plan, published on December 7, 2021.[19] The purpose of the report was to provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Emergency Operation Center’s (EOC) core capabilities and identify improvement strategies.

The County of Santa Cruz and coordinating response partners held feedback sessions in order to assess the successes and failures of the CZU response. CAL FIRE is listed in Appendix C of the After-Action Report as a contributing partner although it is difficult to determine to what extent CAL FIRE participated.

These sessions produced an extensive list of emergency management program opportunities for improvement and functional gaps. At the time the report was published, working groups had been meeting weekly to bi-weekly to address the prioritized improvement goals. At that time several process improvements had been completed.

Several others were under development or not yet started.

The 2023-24 Grand Jury is pleased with the thoroughness and completeness of the response to the Grand Jury’s recommendation.

Finding
F7. The joint effort between CAL Fire and OR3, as well as many other partners listed in the report, to improve preparedness for future wildfires is well-documented in the above-mentioned After-Action Report and Improvement Plan. Furthermore, the Grand Jury’s recommendation that this undertaking commence within 6 months of the Grand Jury report publication did take place in the allotted time period. However, the Grand Jury did not find the original report or any published updates to the initial report that included progress towards the report’s stated objectives. Such publications would reassure the public that wildfire preparedness is a priority and is being addressed.

Recommendation
R7. The Grand Jury requests an update as to the progress to date of the objectives outlined in the December 2021 After-Action Report in Appendix A: CORE CAPABILITIES / IMPROVEMENT PLAN and further requests that the OR3 publish this update on its website. (F7)
Conclusion
As previously mentioned in the Summary, the 2023-24 Grand Jury reviewed responses to three of the nine 2020-21 reports and found that, to varying degrees, commitments were kept. In some cases, the agencies are implementing recommendations but it’s not clear if the actions are in response to the Grand Jury or whether they were instigated by the agencies. The Grand Jury continues to recommend that all organizations create and regularly update formal records of the actions they take to address Grand Jury recommendations, and to share those records with the public, in accordance with CA Penal Code section 933(c).

Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 11 of 14

16.13 Required Responses
Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond Within/
Respond By
Santa Cruz County
Board of Supervisors F1–F5, F7 R1–R4, R7 90 daysSeptember 16, 2024 Santa Cruz City
Council F6 R5, R6 90 daysSeptember 16, 2024
Invited Responses
Respondent Findings Recommendations Respond Within/
Respond By
Santa Cruz County
Agricultural Commissioner F1–F5 R1–R4 90 daysSeptember 16, 2024 Santa Cruz City Manager F6 R5, R6 90 days
September 16, 2024
Director, Santa Cruz County
Office of Response,
Recovery and Resiliency
F7 R7 90 days
September 16, 2024
Definitions
CAO: Chief Administrative Office
EOC: Emergency Operation Center
DPR: Department of Pesticide Regulation
H4HP: Housing for Health Partnership
HUD: US Department of Housing and Urban Development
OR3: Office of Response, Recovery and Resiliency
WUI: Wildland Urban Interface area
HAP: Homeless Action Partnership
Sources
References

1. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury. June 29, 2021. 2020-21 Grand Jury Report. Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2021_final/7_ AgComm_Report.pdf
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 12 of 14

16.14 2. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury. June 24, 2021. 2020-21 Grand Jury Report. Wildfire Threat to the City of Santa Cruz. Accessed February 25, 2024. https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2021_final/2_ CityWildfire_Report.pdf

3. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury. June 24, 2021. 2020-21 Grand Jury Report. The CZU Lightning Complex Fire – Learn...or Burn? Accessed February 25, 2024.
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2021_final/8_ AfterCZU_Report.pdf

4. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury. June 29, 2021. 2020-21 Grand Jury Report. Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2021_final/7_ AgComm_Report.pdf

5. 2020-2021 Santa Cruz Civil Grand Jury. June 29, 2021. 2020-21 Grand Jury Report. Santa Cruz County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Can Get By with a Little Help from Its Friends. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/0/County/GrandJury/GJ2021_final/7_ AgComm_Report.pdf

6. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. March 1, 2024. “Statewide Pesticide Notification System (SprayDays California).” cdpr.ca.gov. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pesticide_notification_network/

7. Confidential Grand Jury interview.

8. Confidential Grand Jury interview.

9. Confidential Grand Jury interview.

10. Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership. (no date). “Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz.” housingforhealthpartnership.org. Accessed April 25, 2024. https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/About/HousingforaHealthySantaCruzCou nty.aspx

11. Confidential Grand Jury document.

12. Confidential Grand Jury document.

13. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (no date). “CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM.” hud.gov. Accessed April 25, 2024.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/coc

14. Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership. (no date). “Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz.” housingforhealthpartnership.org. Accessed April 25, 2024. https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/About/HousingforHealthPartnershipPolicy Board.aspx
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 13 of 14

16.15 15. Santa Cruz County Housing for Health Partnership. January 1, 2021. “Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz: A Strategic Framework for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Cruz County.” housingforhealthpartnership.org. Accessed May 5, 2024. https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/Portals/29/hap/pdf/2021_HousingForHeal th-Framework.pdf

16. Confidential Grand Jury document.

17. County of Santa Cruz Fire Department Advisory Commission. (no date). “Minutes of March 16, 2022 Meeting.” Santa Cruz County Fire Department. Accessed April 26, 2024.
https://santacruzcountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/fdac_min_3-16-22.pdf

18. Confidential Grand Jury document.

19. Confidential Grand Jury document.

Websites
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Statewide Pesticide Application Notification System https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pesticide_notification_network/ Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz County Strategic Framework https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/Portals/29/hap/pdf/2021_HousingForHe alth-Framework.pdf
City of Santa Cruz FY 2024 Annual Budget
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/93316/638283 949368870000#page=367
Honoring Commitments to the Public published June 17, 2024 Page 14 of 14

16.16 Housing For Whom? Published on June 21, 2024 Page 1 of 9 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Requires the
Santa Cruz City Council
to Respond by September 19, 2024
to the Findings and Recommendations listed below
which were assigned to them in the report titled
Housing For Whom?
An Investigation of Inclusionary Housing
in the City of Santa Cruz
Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. The California Penal Code (PC) §933(c) requires you to respond as specified below and to keep your response on file.

Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report.

Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response.

16.17 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Instructions for Respondents
Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations.

Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05:

1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. AGREE with the Finding, or
b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.

2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.

3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses:

We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated ________________.

4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both
The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected].

If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected].

16.18 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 3 of 9 Findings
F1. The contradictory entries on the City’s website and in the City’s legal documents on whether Inclusionary Housing is restricted to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low-income levels or whether it includes the Moderateincome level is a major discrepancy with consequences about who is eligible for and who obtains Inclusionary Housing.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The process for determining income eligibility depends on the governing resolution that was approved by the City Council at the specific point in time that the affordable housing agreement between the City and the Developer was executed. This does not change over time for units in a specific project, so a project approved in 2007 would have different requirements and governing resolutions than a project approved in 2024. On the City’s Measure O Resolutions and Ordinances web page, eight resolutions are posted that govern the calculation of income eligibility for Inclusionary Housing /Measure O units in the City of Santa Cruz. Measure O is a voter-approved initiative originally adopted in 1979 that requires developers of residential projects to provide a certain percentage of the total number of units as affordable to income eligible households. The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 24.16, Part One) codifies the requirements of Measure O. Each resolution was approved by Santa Cruz City Council at different times to establish the income, monthly housing cost guidelines, and asset limits for the inclusionary units throughout the City of Santa Cruz. Additionally, each project has specific requirements related to the affordability threshold depending on the project type. The applicable resolution for an available Inclusionary Unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively.

16.19 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 4 of 9 F2. The City has no data on whether Inclusionary Housing is occupied by income-verified local residents and local workers. Both groups are given preference for housing as required by Ordinance. Without data, neither the City nor the community can be assured that such housing is meeting its intended purpose.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

Generally, the intended purpose for inclusionary housing is to serve low-income households (with exceptions allowing moderate-income housing for some projects). Local preferences are not required by Measure O; they were initially adopted in October 2006, and some projects are not subject to the preferences.

Our annual compliance monitoring verifies income eligibility of occupants of rental inclusionary housing. We also confirm eligibility of homebuyers when a for-sale unit is purchased. The Santa Cruz Housing Authority reviews the actual applications and confirms income eligibility for Measure O units, and the City reviews the Housing Authority’s determination and associated documentation. However, in 100 percent affordable projects, the City’s agreements generally allow the property manager to review and certify tenant applications, because those projects are subject to the requirements of multiple funding sources and then the property manager sends this reporting to the City for annual review and verification. In some cases, conditions placed on federal, or state funds may not be consistent with the City’s preferences. However, at initial lease-up, where permitted, typically the developer establishes a lottery system with rankings based on the required preferences.

Staff has recently initiated a new compliance form for developers/property managers to sign prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, when the units are getting ready to be leased up or sold, verifying that the developer or property manager is complying with the City’s local preference policy. In addition, the affordable housing agreements entered into between the City and the Developer at the time of building permit issuance require the Developer to comply with the City’s local preferences, and these agreements are recorded on title.

The City believes that the mechanisms in place effectively enforce the City’s preferences to the extent possible given existing agreements and state and federal laws, while avoiding excessive administrative burdens on property managers.

16.20 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 5 of 9 F3. The City has no data on the percentage of units in Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing projects that are rented to UCSC students. This leaves the City and the public unable to assess the impact of UCSC on the local affordable housing supply. Such data is important for the City’s ongoing negotiations with UCSC to build more on-campus housing. __ AGREE
_x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The City does not currently track the percentage of UCSC students occupying Inclusionary Units or 100% affordable housing projects. The City does recommend that UCSC track where their students live. The impact of UCSC students on the availability of inclusionary units is likely fairly limited as the income eligibility requirements would disqualify UCSC students who are claimed as dependents by their parents.

At this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary unit

16.21 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 6 of 9 Recommendations
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council state exactly which HCD Income Levels are covered by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Resolutions, and make that information public by December 31, 2024. (F1)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The HCD income is listed in each linked resolution on the City’s Measure O Rents and Incomes webpage. Please note that State HCD updates the income limits annually and these are the incomes that the City uses to determine the City’s Measure O calculations as specified by each resolution.

Additionally, the specific resolution for an available inclusionary unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively.

The chart below summarizes the number of units monitored by affordability level in the City of Santa Cruz since 1964. Staff will post a more comprehensive breakdown by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year.

16.22 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 7 of 9 Total
Units
Afford.

Units Ex Low
Very
Low Low Mod
TOTALS: 5769 2642 117 1275 996 254
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council develop an ongoing system to track, document and verify within 30 days of occupancy whether a unit is occupied by an income-verified local resident or local worker as required by the Ordinance, specifying which category the renter fulfills, and have such a system in place by January 31, 2025. (F2)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The City local preference only applies to the following resolutions: NS-29,463, NS-27,885, NS27,629, and NS-27,383; the earliest resolution was adopted in October 2006. The City’s practice is generally not to reveal personally identifiable information for residents of inclusionary units and so does not provide preference information for a specific unit address that is rented or sold. Please refer to the City’s response to Finding #2 for more information on the City’s compliance monitoring.

Please note per the previous response which included the breakdown of affordable units by affordability level that staff will post a comprehensive breakdown of affordable units by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year.

16.23 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 8 of 9 R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council document the percentage of the City’s Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing units that are rented to UCSC students, making that data public by February 28, 2025 with annual updates. (F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

As previously stated in the response for F3, at this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary units.

16.24 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 9 of 9 R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The City does not want to stigmatize tenants of Inclusionary/Measure O units by publicly releasing their addresses. Specific units available for rent or sale are listed on the City’s Measure O website. The City currently curates an interactive map, which notes the inclusionary requirement for larger projects, but does not directly display which specific units are affordable. Please refer to the website link here:
https://www.choosesantacruz.com/resources/affordable-housing-projects-map

16.25 Housing For Whom? Published on June 21, 2024 Page 1 of 9 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Requires the
Santa Cruz City Council
to Respond by September 19, 2024
to the Findings and Recommendations listed below
which were assigned to them in the report titled
Housing For Whom?
An Investigation of Inclusionary Housing
in the City of Santa Cruz
Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. The California Penal Code (PC) §933(c) requires you to respond as specified below and to keep your response on file.

Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report.

Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response.

16.26 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Instructions for Respondents
Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations.

Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05:

1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. AGREE with the Finding, or
b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.

2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.

3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses:

We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated ________________.

4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both
The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected].

If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected].

16.27 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 3 of 9 Findings
F1. The contradictory entries on the City’s website and in the City’s legal documents on whether Inclusionary Housing is restricted to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low-income levels or whether it includes the Moderateincome level is a major discrepancy with consequences about who is eligible for and who obtains Inclusionary Housing.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The process for determining income eligibility depends on the governing resolution that was approved by the City Council at the specific point in time that the affordable housing agreement between the City and the Developer was executed. This does not change over time for units in a specific project, so a project approved in 2007 would have different requirements and governing resolutions than a project approved in 2024. On the City’s Measure O Resolutions and Ordinances web page, eight resolutions are posted that govern the calculation of income eligibility for Inclusionary Housing /Measure O units in the City of Santa Cruz. Measure O is a voter-approved initiative originally adopted in 1979 that requires developers of residential projects to provide a certain percentage of the total number of units as affordable to income eligible households. The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter

24.16, Part One) codifies the requirements of Measure O. Each resolution was approved by Santa Cruz City Council at different times to establish the income, monthly housing cost guidelines, and asset limits for the inclusionary units throughout the City of Santa Cruz. Additionally, each project has specific requirements related to the affordability threshold depending on the project type. The applicable resolution for an available Inclusionary Unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively.

16.28 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 4 of 9 F2. The City has no data on whether Inclusionary Housing is occupied by income-verified local residents and local workers. Both groups are given preference for housing as required by Ordinance. Without data, neither the City nor the community can be assured that such housing is meeting its intended purpose.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

Generally, the intended purpose for inclusionary housing is to serve low-income households (with exceptions allowing moderate-income housing for some projects).

Local preferences are not required by Measure O; they were initially adopted in October 2006, and some projects are not subject to the preferences.

Our annual compliance monitoring verifies income eligibility of occupants of rental inclusionary housing. We also confirm eligibility of homebuyers when a for-sale unit is purchased. The Santa Cruz Housing Authority reviews the actual applications and confirms income eligibility for Measure O units, and the City reviews the Housing Authority’s determination and associated documentation. However, in 100 percent affordable projects, the City’s agreements generally allow the property manager to review and certify tenant applications, because those projects are subject to the requirements of multiple funding sources and then the property manager sends this reporting to the City for annual review and verification. In some cases, conditions placed on federal, or state funds may not be consistent with the City’s preferences.

However, at initial lease-up, where permitted, typically the developer establishes a lottery system with rankings based on the required preferences.

Staff has recently initiated a new compliance form for developers/property managers to sign prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, when the units are getting ready to be leased up or sold, verifying that the developer or property manager is complying with the City’s local preference policy. In addition, the affordable housing agreements entered into between the City and the Developer at the time of building permit issuance require the Developer to comply with the City’s local preferences, and these agreements are recorded on title.

The City believes that the mechanisms in place effectively enforce the City’s preferences to the extent possible given existing agreements and state and federal laws, while avoiding excessive administrative burdens on property managers.

16.29 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 5 of 9 F3. The City has no data on the percentage of units in Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing projects that are rented to UCSC students. This leaves the City and the public unable to assess the impact of UCSC on the local affordable housing supply. Such data is important for the City’s ongoing negotiations with UCSC to build more on-campus housing. __ AGREE
_x_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The City does not currently track the percentage of UCSC students occupying Inclusionary Units or 100% affordable housing projects. The City does recommend that UCSC track where their students live. The impact of UCSC students on the availability of inclusionary units is likely fairly limited as the income eligibility requirements would disqualify UCSC students who are claimed as dependents by their parents.

At this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary unit

16.30 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 6 of 9 Recommendations
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council state exactly which HCD Income Levels are covered by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Resolutions, and make that information public by December 31, 2024. (F1)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The HCD income is listed in each linked resolution on the City’s Measure O Rents and Incomes webpage. Please note that State HCD updates the income limits annually and these are the incomes that the City uses to determine the City’s Measure O calculations as specified by each resolution.

Additionally, the specific resolution for an available inclusionary unit is noted when a unit is available either under the “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR PURCHASE” or “AVAILABLE MEASURE O UNITS FOR RENT” lists respectively.

The chart below summarizes the number of units monitored by affordability level in the City of Santa Cruz since 1964. Staff will post a more comprehensive breakdown by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year.

16.31 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 7 of 9 Total
Units
Afford.

Units
Ex
Low
Very
Low Low Mod
TOTALS: 5769 2642 117 1275 996 254
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council develop an ongoing system to track, document and verify within 30 days of occupancy whether a unit is occupied by an income-verified local resident or local worker as required by the Ordinance, specifying which category the renter fulfills, and have such a system in place by January 31, 2025. (F2)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The City local preference only applies to the following resolutions: NS-29,463, NS27,885, NS-27,629, and NS-27,383; the earliest resolution was adopted in October 2006. The City’s practice is generally not to reveal personally identifiable information for residents of inclusionary units and so does not provide preference information for a specific unit address that is rented or sold. Please refer to the City’s response to Finding #2 for more information on the City’s compliance monitoring.

Please note per the previous response which included the breakdown of affordable units by affordability level that staff will post a comprehensive breakdown of affordable units by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year.

16.32 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 8 of 9 R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council document the percentage of the City’s Inclusionary and 100% Affordable Housing units that are rented to UCSC students, making that data public by February 28, 2025 with annual updates. (F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

As previously stated in the response for F3, at this time, the City is unaware of UCSC students renting inclusionary units. Most undergraduate students (nearly 90% of USCS students) are likely to be claimed as dependents. If the students are dependents, then the entire household’s income must be shown on the Measure O application and all household members must reside in the unit as their principal place of residence. This likely excludes most students from being deemed eligible for inclusionary housing. The City recommends that UCSC track where their students live, which would allow the City to determine if they are residing in inclusionary units.

16.33 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Housing For Whom? Due by September 19, 2024 Page 9 of 9 R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz City Council create an Inclusionary Housing public dashboard that covers the data called for in this report by February 28, 2025. (F1, F2, F3)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The City does not want to stigmatize tenants of Inclusionary/Measure O units by publicly releasing their addresses. Specific units available for rent or sale are listed on the City’s Measure O website. The City currently curates an interactive map, which notes the inclusionary requirement for larger projects, but does not directly display which specific units are affordable. Please refer to the website link here:
https://www.choosesantacruz.com/resources/affordable-housing-projects-map

16.34 Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Published on June 27, 2024 Page 1 of 30 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Requires the
Santa Cruz City Council
to Respond by September 25, 2024
to the Findings and Recommendations listed below
which were assigned to them in the report titled
City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic
Violence
Where’s The Priority?
Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. The California Penal Code (PC) §933(c) requires you to respond as specified below and to keep your response on file.

Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report.

Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response.

16.35 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 2 of 30 Instructions for Respondents
Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations.

Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05:

1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. AGREE with the Finding, or
b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.

2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.

3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses:

We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated ________________.

4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both
The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected].

If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected].

16.36 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 3 of 30 Findings
F1. Since 2016, the lack of comprehensive Annual Reports with detailed metrics on rape, including the tracking of stranger rape, leaves the community less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Santa Cruz City Council (“the Council) disagrees with the assertion that the community is less informed due to the Annual Report lacking detailed metrics. The Annual report includes both current and historical data on rape and domestic violence. While dDetailed metrics on rape such as stranger rape, age, gender, location, etc.. are not mandated, however, the CPVAW has voted to receive detailed metrics on the type of crimes committed which it has determined to be more useful to their efforts to prevent rape & domestic violence. the Annual Report is required by Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5.(d), requires the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women (“the Commission”) to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” Up until 2016 the Annual Reports contained demographic information which included reporting on stranger versus acquaintance rape. From approximately 2017-2022 there was significant turnover in staff to the commission, the commission members, and a world-wide pandemic which impacted the commissions receipt of rape and domestic violence data. In addition, there was not an annual report prepared by the Commission during that time. Over the years, the reports have included relevant data on rape and domestic violence, includingThe most recent Annual Report for 2023.

The 2023 Report includes details from the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for rape as well as data from 2010-2023 on the following California Penal Code Sections relating to rape: 220 Attempted Rape; 261/262 Rape; 286 Sodomy; 387/288 Oral Copulation and 289 Penetration with a foreign object. Additionally, the 2023 report also includes domestic violence statistics from 2015 to 2023.

16.37 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 4 of 30 The Council disagrees with the Grand Jury’s claim that a lack of detailed metrics on rape leaves the community more vulnerable and less safe. The absence of specific metrics in the Annual Report, or its contents, does not correlate to increased vulnerability or decreased safety. In fact, the FBI Uniformed Crime Report shows a 26% reduction in rape from 2022 to 2023, along with a 34% decrease in Domestic Violence cases by from 2020 to 2021 and a decline of 14% between 2022 and 2023. The Commission voted in November 2023 to accept a revised reporting format for rape and domestic violence statistics to include all FBI UCR Data, and various California Penal Code Sections on rape and domestic violence. In August of 2024, the Commission began receiving rape data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). If the Commission chooses to reassess the metrics it requests from SCPD, including stranger rape data, the SCPD is prepared to provide the requested information. However, the Commission must decide what metrics it needs to review and how the Commission will utilize the information in relation to prevention and education. When the Commissioners request various information and try to compare it to UCR data and/or National Incident-Based Reporting System/California IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS/CIBRS) the information may not be consistent because the methodology for collecting the data sets are not the same, which causes confusion and leads to the perception of deception which is not accurate.

In 2024, in an effort to better inform the community, and keep people safe, the Commission has enhanced their outreach and education to the community by collaborating with other Community Based Organizations to raise awareness about prevention and available services to victims of rape and domestic violence. This includes co-sponsoring the “Stronger Together” Fun Run/5K Race with Monarch Services in September 2023 & 2024, participating in both the Dyke and Pride Parades, the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race.

Additionally, the Commission partnered with Monarch Services by providing $6,000 to support their efforts to end domestic violence and provide assistance to victims of rape.

16.38 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 5 of 30 F2. By highlighting a generic national statistic on stranger rape, rather than assessing local metrics in the CPVAW 2023 Report, the City is minimizing stranger rape and misleading the public into a possible false sense of security.
__ AGREE
_X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The CPVAW 2023 Annual Report includes, as approved by the Commission on November 1, 2023, data from the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Report on Rape, which is data specific to the City of Santa Cruz. The Annual Report also includes specific data on 5 types of Sexual Assault violations committed in the City of Santa Cruz. It is correct that this data does not distinguish between a stranger and an acquaintance. While this type of distinction may be useful, there is no data supporting that this is misleading the public into a false sense of security. The data cited in the Annual Report is from a nationally recognized association; Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN) and is consistent with previous data analysis as reported in the 2005-07 Annual Report.

The data shows that the City is safer in 2023 than in previous years. The Uniformed Crime Report shows a decrease in rape by 26% from 2022 to 2023, and a decrease in Domestic Violence cases by 34% from 2020 to 2021 and a decrease of 14% between 2022 and 2023.

If the Commission chooses to reconsider its previous decision on which metrics SCPD should provide to the Commission, including stranger rape, SCPD will provide that information. SCPD supports the collection of this information but would prefer the Commission decide on all the metrics they are interested in and show how it will be useful towards the prevention and education mission of CPVAW. SCPD feels both national statistics on stranger rape and local metrics are important to provide the public with a local view as well as a broader perspective.

16.39 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 6 of 30 F3. The lack of attention to long-time Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coaster program leaves residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission believes in leveraging their funds to partner with community-based organizations who specialize in providing victims of domestic violence and rape with much needed financial support to continue their successful programs and services.

These organizations provide tangible resources that the Commission could not provide nor have the expertise to provide. In 2024, the Commission provided the following with sponsorships to support local non-profit organizations: $2,000 to Walnut Ave Women’s Center, a non-profit organization based in Santa Cruz that provides direct services to survivors of domestic violence including prevention and education and $6,000 to Monarch Services, another local non-profit that offers immediate crisis response to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.

The Commission has created new programs to promote personal safety. In 2023, the Commission partnered with the Santa Cruz City School district to provide high school students with an on-line course through Vector Solutions. This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which reached approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program enabled the school to extend its reach, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster healthy relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Wellbeing, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

The City is the only local agency to have a Victim Advocate on staff in the Police Department. This important resource keep victims informed of their rights in the legal system and makes referrals to local agencies. The Advocate works with victims to ensure they are treated with fairness and respect.

With regards to the Bar Coaster Program, the Commission agrees with continuing this program. As of July 1st, State Law requires all bars that do not provide food to provide drug testing kits to customers. The Commission supports this new law. In June of 2024, the Commission purchased an additional 500 drug testing coasters to distribute to bars located in the City of Santa Cruz.

16.40 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 7 of 30 The Commission had a program entitled Safe Place Network which is no longer active. The program began over 25 years ago by providing a window sticker to businesses stating they were a “Safe Place”; however, there was very little to no training provided for businesses and their staff. The program also lacked a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan to inform visitors and the community of its existence. There are no metrics or data to substantiate the claim that not having this program has left residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety. However, the Commission could consider re-establishing the program if it chooses to do so in the future.

16.41 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 8 of 30 F4. The loss of the in-person self-defense program for boys and girls in Santa Cruz City Schools lessens students’ ability to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence, inconsistent with the mandate of Ordinance 81-29. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission has offered self-defense classes either through City Schools and/or the Parks and Recreation Department. Over the years, participation in the Parks & Recreation program significantly declined, leading to the cancellation of classes.

In FY2023, the City Council approved a budget of $15,000 for self-defense classes to be administered by the Commission. In November of 2023, the Commission considered how best to use the funds at a regularly scheduled public meeting. The Commission considered two options: 1) Self Defense program through the City Parks & Recreation Department, or 2) A proposal by City Schools for an on-line course through a private contractor, Vector Solutions. The Commission chose the City Schools proposal.

This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which reached approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program enabled schools to extend their reach significantly, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster healthy relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Well-being, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

Vector Solutions is already being used in other school districts across the country to reduce violence against women. This valuable program will help prevent violence against women by providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to make healthy choices and build positive relationships.

In addition, the Commission authorized an additional $5,000 to enable one Commissioner to work with the Parks and Recreation department to offer a selfdefense course. Unfortunately, the program never came to fruition, and the funds were not spent.

In the FY25 Budget, the City Council approved re-authorization of $15,000 to continue offering these types of programs. The Commission will consider how to utilize those funds at their meeting on September 4, 2024.

16.42 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 9 of 30 F5. The City’s replacement of a dedicated 20-hour per week Commission staff position with rotating staff with minimal hours has resulted in a loss of visibility for the prevention of rape and domestic violence, a loss of community connections, a lack of programs, inadequate resource distribution and less public awareness.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The part-time Events Coordinator position was eliminated in 2016/2017 and replaced with a more senior staff member to provide enhanced support to the Commission.

From 2017 to 2020, there were three staffing changes involving personnel from both the City Manager’s Office and the Police Department. The Commission also saw turnover among its members during this same period. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic severely limited the Commission’s ability to organize and participate in public events, as well as to support local non-profits and schools until 2022.

In 2023, as the community began to recover from the pandemic, the Commission resumed its participation in and organization of events.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2024, the City Council also approved funding for an Administrative Assistant III staff position that will dedicate half of their work week (20 hours per week) to supporting the Commission’s work. With the addition of this new position, the Commission will have more staff support than it has had for the last several years.

Notably, crime data indicates that the city is safer in 2023 than in previous years. The Uniformed Crime Report reveals a 26% decrease in rape incidents from 2022 to 2023, as well as a 34% drop in domestic violence cases from 2020 to 2021, and a further decline of 14% between 2022 and 2023.

16.43 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 10 of 30 F6. The City’s refusal to allow the Commission continued access to redacted police reports prevents the Commission from making recommendations for police training and evaluating community complaints as required by Ordinance.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission’s inability to review redacted police reports does not prevent the Commission from either making recommendations for police training or evaluating community complaints. The Commission does not require redacted police reports to fulfill its duty to hear citizen’s complaints about the City Police Department’s service to women who have been raped or battered (Ordinance #81-29 Section 5.(d) 4) or to make recommendations to the City Council regarding police training in the areas of rape and domestic violence (Ordinance #81- 29 Section 5.(d)5).

Police reports documenting instances of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence are extremely sensitive. These reports provide intimate details about horrific crimes. Even if heavily redacted, it is likely the reports would still include details that would enable some to identify the victim or parties involved.

The Commission received redacted police reports from approximately 1984 to 2010.

However, around 2010-2017 the Commission began to receive summary demographic data from SCPD. From approximately 2017-2022 there was significant turnover in staff to the commission and a world-wide pandemic which impacted the commissions receipt of rape and domestic violence data. In 2023, a request was made by the Commission for the City Attorney to attend a CPVAW meeting to discuss and provide a recommendation to them regarding the ability to receive redacted police reports. Given the extremely sensitive nature of these police reports, even when redacted, the City Attorney’s Office recommendeds not to provide redacted police reports to the Commission for the following reasons:
(1) Under the Brown Act, there is no legal basis for the Commission (or the Commission’s Police Subcommittee) to review the redacted police reports in a confidential or closed session (see Gov't Code § 54962).
(2) While the Commission is not permitted to meet in closed session, the Commission could hypothetically meet in open session to review the reports. However, review of police reports in open session would waive any applicable exemption under the Public Records Act (Gov’t Code § 7921.505), and the City would be required to release those redacted reports to any member of the public that requests them. In other words, if the Commission were to review the redacted police reports in open session, the City would be waiving the future confidentiality of those reports, without the consent of the individuals who are referenced in that report, and without input as to how that lack of confidentiality might impact their lives.
(3) The City is legally prohibited from releasing some reports, even in redacted form. For example, state law prohibits the release of a police report where a juvenile is the subject of the report (Wel & Inst Code § 827.95), or reports involving mandated reports

16.44 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 11 of 30 of suspected child abuse and neglect (Penal Code § 11167.5). Various Constitutional provisions, such as The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution, or the right to privacy afforded by Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution may also be considered when determining whether to release a police report. Even for reports that the City is not legally prohibited from releasing, all of the referenced police reports are generally exempt from disclosure to the public pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600.

Based on the foregoing, including the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the Commission voted to not require the SCPD provide redacted police reports to the Commission or the Commission’s Police Sub-Committee. However, the Commission did vote to include additional California Penal Code Sections, all Domestic Violence cases, and the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data in the monthly data SCPD reports to the Commission.

The Commission still retains the ability to hear citizen complaints regarding the SCPD’s service to women who have been raped or battered. With improvements in technology and changes in state law and City Council requirements, citizen complaints go directly to the SCPD Professional Standards Unit, the Chief of Police, and the Independent Police Auditor. Any concerns about a Police Department employee’s conduct, actions or service are investigated by the Police Department’s Professional Standards Unit. All completed investigations are reviewed by the Independent Police Auditor to provide an independent review of the citizen complaint process. The Independent Police Auditor provides an annual report to the City Council in a public meeting on the level of thoroughness and objectivity of these investigations. The process to file a complaint can either be started in person at the Police Department, online on the SCPD website, or directly through the Independent Police Auditor.

The City also employs a Victim Advocate and is the only one in the county that does so. The Advocate provides information to victims about their rights and the criminal legal system and makes referrals to local agencies when appropriate. The Advocate works alongside SCPD personnel to ensure all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are treated with fairness and respect. The Victim Advocate also provides training to officers and detectives to provide the highest level of professional service to the victims.

With regards to Police Training, the CPVAW Police Subcommittee received a presentation on November 1, 2023, from SCPD on their training standards. This provided an opportunity for the Commission to review and provide input on SCPD’s training program. The Police Subcommittee intends to conduct an annual review of the SCPD training program. All SCPD training records are kept up to date and in accordance with State law and Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) standards.

16.45 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 12 of 30 F7. The SCPD’s decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates leaves the community unaware about this serious crime and therefore less safe.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

SCPD has not made the decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates. If there was a stranger rape case and an alert to the community was appropriate, SCPD would not hesitate to make the community aware. SCPD is very active on social media, and transparently shares valuable information with the community.

16.46 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 13 of 30 F8. The inconsistencies the Grand Jury found in SCPD’s rape numbers means the public, the CPVAW and the City have no accurate metrics about reported rape, leaving the community ill-informed and Annual Commission Reports unreliable.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_x_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

City of Santa Cruz Ordinance No. 81-29 establishes specific responsibilities and cooperation between SCPD and CPVAW:
 Section 5(e): The Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, in carrying out its duties shall have the authority to call upon members of the Police Department to present information which is not defined as confidential by State law.

The Santa Cruz Police Department shall offer full and open cooperation to the Commission.
 Section 6(b): The Police Department shall create a separate statistical report form to document and consolidate all domestic violence and women beating calls. This shall be compiled monthly.

The SCPD has adhered to these requirements, explicitly providing data as the Commission requested. Before the February 7, 2024, CPVAW meeting, where the SCPD’s statistical report (Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table) was first presented, the SCPD had been producing a simplified statistical monthly report. This report included data on domestic violence calls, domestic violence cases, rape cases, sexual assaults, stalking cases, and intimate partner homicide cases.

At the November 1, 2023, CPVAW meeting, upon a specific commissioner’s request and approved by the Commission, sodomy and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object were separated from the generalized rape column, and assault to commit rape was added. In the following two meetings (February 1, 2024, and May 1, 2024), SCPD complied and continued to make improvements to provide an accurate and comprehensive statistical report.

Improvements included updating all the monthly summary values to reflect the addition of any cold cases when they occurred, not when reported, and footnotes were added to provide clarifying language. This was to try and explain why the old numbers had changed from previous reports.

Discrepancies in Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table were due to the removal of cases involving minors during the development of the new table format and improper communication of this omission. The oversight was corrected in the following report (Appendix B – Figure 9 Full Table), presented to CPVAW on May 1, 2024, and included up-to-date data encompassing all genders, adults, and minors.

The SCPD would like to respond to the Grand Jury’s assessment of the SCPD’s statistical report (Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table). The Grand Jury compared the year 2021 Case Totals to SCPD’s website UCR figure of reported rape totals for the same year and

16.47 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 14 of 30 questioned why the two values - 34 vs. 26 did not match and therefore concluded the statistical report was inaccurate. As defined in the SCPD response to the Grand Jury's R4 question, UCR data reports out monthly victim counts, while NIBRS reports on the total number of rape-related offenses.

In effect, the SCPD's monthly statistical report does both, but special consideration is needed when summing values. Rape cases can involve multiple offenses, and a case typically involves only one victim. The SCPD statistical report breaks out rape-related offenses but places an asterisk next to any offense that is already associated with another offense listed in the same case. By excluding any value with an asterisk while summing values, the SCPD statistical report will provide a rape case count similar to UCR Summary data. If all raperelated values are summed, ignoring the presence of asterisks, the SCPD statistical report will generate a rape offense count similar to NIBRS data.

Due to the confusion reported in the grand jury report, the SCPD has reservations regarding the effectiveness of the current format of the monthly statistical report in keeping the community well-informed. The SCPD requests that the Commission review what data is needed to better understand the nature and extent of rape-related crimes in the community and asks the Commission to provide details on how it intends to use the data to tailor prevention and intervention strategies. A better understanding of the Commission’s work plan will help improve the collaborative work between the Commission and the SCPD.

To add to the confusion, one member of the Commission has requested certain metrics not consistent with the other members of the Commission. The SCPD, trying to be collaborative and responsive, provided this information but it has been taken out of context, creating confusion and the perception the SCPD is changing the data. The SCPDt recommends, prior to producing any future data or metrics, the Commission decides exactly what information they are looking for and what they will do with the information in the world of prevention and education. There are many different means to produce the data, but it will be clearer to the Commission and the public if we can agree on one methodology and then understand the nuisances of that data.

The SCPD remains committed to providing accurate and comprehensive statistical reports, ensuring transparency and continuous improvement in response to the Commission's needs.

16.48 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 15 of 30 F9. The SCPD and the Commission’s lack of a consistent definition of rape leads to public confusion and potential undercounting of rape crimes in the City.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

When the Federal Government changed the definition of rape in 2013, SCPD immediately included the additional penal codes that now fall under the new definition and have been reporting these numbers since this change. The lack of consistency is more related to the different data collected and methodologies between UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS, and specific metrics requested by the Commission.

16.49 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 16 of 30 F10. The Five Year Strategic Plan’s failure to include the prevention of rape and domestic violence leaves the community less aware and less safe. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The absence of rape and domestic violence prevention from the Public Safety focus area of the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not lessen its significance as a priority for the City. The recently adopted strategic plan serves as a framework that balances community needs with the City's resource capacity. It reflects the policy priorities set by the City Council and acts as a high-level roadmap for future actions. The plan includes a vision to guide future focus, seven focus areas to direct organizational efforts, goal statements, strategies for achieving these goals, and a workplan for implementation.

The lack of specific mention of the Commission in the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not imply that the community is less informed or safe regarding the prevention of rape and domestic violence. Moreover, it does not undermine the Council's commitment to these issues. Notably, the Commission is the only advisory body that receives a dedicated budget and staffing from the City Council. The Council has demonstrated its commitment by increasing the Commission's budget by over 150% for FY25, enabling additional staff support and resources to further the Commission’s goals in preventing rape and domestic violence in Santa Cruz.

16.50 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 17 of 30 F11. The City Manager’s Weekly Update to the community has not highlighted the work of the CPVAW for the past two years, effectively relegating the prevention of rape and domestic violence to a low priority, leaving the public uninformed.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of the Commission’s activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion.

The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public.

Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence.

Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about the initiatives of the Commission.

16.51 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 18 of 30 Recommendations
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
_X_ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

As part of the FY25 Budget, the City Council has approved a part-time (20 hours per week) Administrative Assistant III to support the work of the Commission. The recruitment is scheduled to begin in late August or early September 2024.

16.52 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 19 of 30 R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council reevaluate the legal ability of CPVAW commissioners to access redacted police reports of rape as described in this investigation, and present the results of that research by December 31, 2024. (F6)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
X__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

Police reports documenting instances of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence are extremely sensitive. These reports provide intimate details about horrific crimes.

Even if heavily redacted, it is likely the reports would still include details that would enable some to identify the victim or parties involved.

Given the extremely sensitive nature of these police reports, even when redacted, the City Attorney’s Office recommends not to provide redacted police reports to the Commission for the following reasons:
(1) Under the Brown Act, there is no legal basis for the Commission (or the Commission’s Police Subcommittee) to review the redacted police reports in a confidential or closed session (see Gov't Code § 54962). (2) While the Commission is not permitted to meet in closed session, the Commission could hypothetically meet in open session to review the reports.

However, review of police reports in open session would waive any applicable exemption under the Public Records Act (Gov’t Code § 7921.505), and the City would be required to release those redacted reports to any member of the public that requests them. In other words, if the Commission were to review the redacted police reports in open session, the City would be waiving the future confidentiality of those reports, without the consent of the individuals who are referenced in that report, and without input as to how that lack of confidentiality might impact their lives.
(3) The City is legally prohibited from releasing some reports, even in redacted form. For example, state law prohibits the release of a police report where a juvenile is the subject of the report (Wel & Inst Code § 827.95), or reports involving mandated reports of suspected child abuse and neglect (Penal Code § 11167.5). Various Constitutional provisions, such as The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution, or the right to privacy afforded by Section 1 of Article I of the

16.53 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 20 of 30 California Constitution may also be considered when determining whether to release a police report. Even for reports that the City is not legally prohibited from releasing, all of the referenced police reports are generally exempt from disclosure to the public pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600.

Based on the foregoing, including the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the Commission voted to not require the SCPD to provide redacted police reports to the Commission or the Commission’s Police Sub-Committee.

16.54 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 21 of 30 R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council begin evaluating options with the Santa Cruz City School District to reinstate the in-person self-defense program for middle and high school students of all genders by January 31, 2025. (F4)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
_X_ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Commission has previously offered self-defense classes either through City Schools and/or the Parks and Recreation Department. Over the years, participation in the Parks & Recreation program significantly declined, leading to the cancellation of classes. Based on the lack of participation, free classes sponsored by the Commission are no longer offered through Parks and Recreation.

In FY2023, the City Council approved a budget of $15,000 for self-defense classes to be administered by the Commission. In November of 2023, the Commission considered how best to use the funds at a regularly scheduled public meeting. The Commission considered two options: 1) Self Defense program through the City Parks & Recreation Department or 2) A proposal by Santa Cruz City Schools for an on-line course through a private contractor, Vector Solutions. The Commission chose the City Schools proposal.

This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which would reach approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program would enable the school to extend its reach, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster health relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Wellbeing, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

Vector Solutions is already being used in other school districts across the country to reduce violence against women. This valuable program will help prevent violence against women by providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to make healthy choices and build positive relationships.

16.55 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 22 of 30 In addition, the Commission authorized an additional $5,000 to enable one Commissioner to work with the Parks and Recreation department to offer a selfdefense course. Unfortunately, the program never came to fruition, and the funds were not spent.

In the FY25 Budget, the City Council approved re-authorization of $15,000 to continue offering these types of programs. Consideration of how to utilize these funds will be considered by the Commission at its meeting on September 4,November 6, 2024.

16.56 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 23 of 30 R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The publication of metrics on rape incidents from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS) would introduce an additional data set to the two preexisting data sets regularly published by the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) – Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data and its own monthly statistical data report provided to the Commission. SCPD believes this would increase public confusion regarding rape incidents within the City of Santa Cruz. All three data sets report on rape occurrence, but variations in methodology, scope, and level of detail make direct comparisons unsound.

Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR)
The UCR Summary system reports are based on when a crime is reported, not when the crime occurs. For example, in many rape-related cases, individuals come forward weeks, months, or even years after being victimized. This limitation can distort monthly victim counts and create erroneous trends within a community. Another constraint lies in how the data is prioritized. UCR Summary data reflects the hierarchy rule, which states that only the most severe crime contributes to an agency’s monthly crime totals when more than one offense occurs within an incident. For example, an incident involving a murder, robbery, and rape, the stats only reflect the homicide for the monthly totals, as homicide is the highest offense on the hierarchy.

UCR data is calculated by the number of victims and does not account for multiple offenses committed against one victim during one incident. For example, a victim of rape (261 pc) could also be a victim of oral copulation (288a pc) and sodomy (286 pc). All of these offenses fall under the definition of rape per the new definition in 2013 but there are different penal code sections and charges. UCR data will calculate this example as one incident because it only includes one victim. However, in other reporting methodologies like NIBRS or metric collecting like CPVAW has requested, the one incident can be counted multiple times depending on the number of penal code sections or charges brought forward on the perpetrator.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

16.57 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 24 of 30 NIBRS collects detailed data on each reported crime incident, including information on the victim, offender, location, weapon used, and circumstances surrounding an incident. Unlike UCR Summary, NIBRS captures all offenses reported in a single incident, providing a more complete picture of criminal activity. NIBRS’ labile data set allows for constant updates to monthly summaries as cold cases are reported.

Publishing static monthly NIBRS/CIBRS data on SCPD’s website or through the Commission’s meetings immortalizes data designed to change over time, offering little added benefit to the public. NIBRS/CIBRS data is not updated until several weeks after the end of each month, producing the data monthly would cause more confusion and provide inaccurate data to the public.

The level of detailed data provided by NIBRS allows law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and researchers to better understand the nature and extent of crime in their communities, identify emerging trends, and tailor prevention and intervention strategies accordingly, but may not be suitable for public consumption without proper analysis and a simplified synopsis.

Additionally, unlike UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS data will change based on when a crime occurred versus when the crime was reported. Therefore NIBRS/CIBRS data is fluid and could constantly change. However, UCR data is locked once each month is complete. This adds to the confusion and perception of the inaccuracies to the data.

16.58 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 25 of 30 R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD reinstate community alerts for incidents of stranger rape, with case-by-case updates, by December 31, 2024. (F7)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

SCPD never stopped executing community alerts for incidents of stranger rape when the circumstances were necessary to keep the community safe and well-informed.

16.59 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 26 of 30 R6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Commission and the SCPD submit comprehensive annual reports as called for in Ordinance 81-29, using the 2005-07 reports as a model, with the 2024 Annual Report placed on the Commission's agenda by December 31, 2024 and future reports submitted on a consistent, annual basis. (F1)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Annual Report as required by Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5.(d), requires the Commission to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” The Ordinance does not require the Annual Report to provide detailed metrics on rape. However, various Annual Reports over the years have included data on rape and domestic violence, including the most recent Annual Report for 2023. The 2023 Report includes details the FBI Uniform Crime Report for Rape and Domestic Violence from 2015 to 2023, and data from 2010-2023 on the following California Penal Code Sections relating to Rape: 220 Attempted Rape; 261/262 Rape; 286 Sodomy; 387/288 Oral Copulation and 289 Penetration with a foreign object. The Commission will continue to provide comprehensive reports as required by the Ordinance.

The 2023 Annual Report is modeled after the 2005-2007 and the 2008-2010 Annual Report. Both of those reports were a Joint Report by the Commission and the Santa Cruz Police Department, same as the 2023 Report. Both reports contain data on sexual assault including incidents by Penal Code Violations. However, the previous reports did not contain information on Domestic Violence which the 2023 report contains. The previous reports include an analysis of demographics within each rape case which has not been conducted since 2017. The Commission, not individual commissioners, must decide what information or metrics they would like to see and how the information will be used towards prevention and education. There needs to be an agreement of what set of data and metrics will be evaluated because the combination of different sets of data causes confusion and the perception of deception.

The Annual Report should include a full years’ worth of data, therefore presenting an annual report in December would not include a full years’ worth of data. In order to provide the community with a comprehensive report, with a full year’s worth of data, the report will be presented at the February meeting of the following year.

16.60 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 27 of 30 R7. The Grand Jury recommends that the 2023 Report be amended to remove the national entry on stranger rape, replacing it with accurate data for the City of Santa Cruz by December 31, 2024. (F2)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
X__ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The 2023 Annual Report provides a comprehensive data analysis over a 14-year period on rape and 16 years’ worth of data on domestic violence cases in the City of Santa Cruz. While the Annual Report does not distinguish between acquaintance and stranger rape, the data is accurate. The Ordinance does not require the Annual Report to provide crime data, however, because the data on the number of cases is readily available and is compiled by the SCPD it is included in the Annual Report.

Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5.(d), requires the Commission to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” SCPD supports the collection of this information if the Commission decides on all the metrics they are interested in and shows how it will be useful towards the prevention and education mission. SCPD feels both national statistics on stranger rape and local metrics are important to provide the public with a local view as well as a broader perspective. The data SCPD has presented is accurate, but some confusion has arisen based on the different methodologies of UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS, and specific requests from the Commission.

16.61 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 28 of 30 R8. The Grand Jury recommends that the CPVAW update the status of the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coasters program. If the programs are to be discontinued, a public CPVAW meeting is advised for that decision. If the programs are to be continued, the date of January 31, 2025 is recommended for the full reinstatement of these programs. (F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Commission will agendize the Safe Place Network at their September 4, 2024February 5, 2025 meeting to consider whether or not to continue the program.

The Bar Coaster program is in place. As of June 2024, an additional 500 coasters were purchased to be distributed to local bars.

16.62 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 29 of 30 R9. The Grand Jury recommends that Focus Area 5, Public Safety of the 2023-28 Five Year Strategic Plan include an entry prioritizing the prevention of rape and domestic violence, as mandated by Ordinance 81-29, and published by February 28, 2025. (F10)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The absence of rape and domestic violence prevention from the Public Safety focus area of the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not lessen its significance as a priority for the City. The recently adopted strategic plan serves as a framework that balances community needs with the City's resource capacity. It reflects the policy priorities set by the City Council and acts as a high-level roadmap for future actions. The plan includes a vision to guide future focus, seven focus areas to direct organizational efforts, goal statements, strategies for achieving these goals, and a workplan for implementation.

The lack of specific mention of the Commission in the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not imply that the community is less informed or safe regarding the prevention of rape and domestic violence. Moreover, it does not undermine the Council's commitment to these issues. Notably, the Commission is the only advisory body that receives a dedicated budget and staffing from the City Council. The Council has demonstrated its commitment by increasing the Commission's budget by over 150% for FY25, enabling additional staff support and resources to further the Commission’s goals in preventing rape and domestic violence in Santa Cruz.

16.63 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 30 of 30 R10. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of the Commission’s activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion when appropriate.

The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public.

Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence.

Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about the initiatives of the Commission.

16.64 Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Published on June 27, 2024 Page 1 of 30 The 2023–2024 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury
Requires the
Santa Cruz City Council
to Respond by September 25, 2024
to the Findings and Recommendations listed below
which were assigned to them in the report titled
City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic
Violence
Where’s The Priority?
Responses are required from elected officials, elected agency or department heads, and elected boards, councils, and committees which are investigated by the Grand Jury. The California Penal Code (PC) §933(c) requires you to respond as specified below and to keep your response on file.

Your response will be considered compliant under PC §933.05 if it contains an appropriate comment on all findings and recommendations which were assigned to you in this report.

Please follow the instructions below when preparing your response.

16.65 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 2 of 30 Instructions for Respondents
Your assigned Findings and Recommendations are listed on the following pages with check boxes and an expandable space for summaries, timeframes, and explanations.

Please follow these instructions, which paraphrase PC §933.05:

1. For the Findings, mark one of the following responses with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. AGREE with the Finding, or
b. PARTIALLY DISAGREE with the Finding – specify the portion of the Finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons why, or c. DISAGREE with the Finding – provide an explanation of the reasons why.

2. For the Recommendations, mark one of the following actions with an “X” and provide the required additional information:
a. HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – provide a summary of the action taken, or b. HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – provide a timeframe or expected date for completion, or c. REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – provide an explanation, scope, and parameters of an analysis to be completed within six months, or d. WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – provide an explanation of why it is not warranted or not reasonable.

3. Please confirm the date on which you approved the assigned responses:

We approved these responses in a regular public meeting as shown in our minutes dated ________________.

4. When your responses are complete, please email your completed Response Request as a PDF file attachment to both
The Honorable Katherine Hansen, Grand Jury Supervising Judge [email protected] and
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury [email protected].

If you have questions about this request form, please contact the Grand Jury by calling 831-454-2099 or by sending an email to [email protected].

16.66 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 3 of 30 Findings
F1. Since 2016, the lack of comprehensive Annual Reports with detailed metrics on rape, including the tracking of stranger rape, leaves the community less informed, more vulnerable, and less safe. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Santa Cruz City Council (“the Council) disagrees with the assertion that the community is less informed due to the Annual Report lacking detailed metrics. The Annual report includes both current and historical data on rape and domestic violence. Detailed metrics on rape such as stranger rape, age, gender, location, etc.. are not mandated, however, the CPVAW has voted to receive detailed metrics on the type of crimes committed which it has determined to be more useful to their efforts to prevent rape & domestic violence.

Up until 2016 the Annual Reports contained demographic information which included reporting on stranger versus acquaintance rape. From approximately 2017-2022 there was significant turnover in staff to the commission, the commission members, and a world-wide pandemic which impacted the commissions receipt of rape and domestic violence data. In addition, there was not an annual report prepared by the Commission during that time. The most recent Annual Report for 2023 includes details from the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for rape as well as data from 2010- 2023 on the following California Penal Code Sections relating to rape: 220 Attempted Rape; 261/262 Rape; 286 Sodomy; 387/288 Oral Copulation and 289 Penetration with a foreign object. Additionally, the 2023 report also includes domestic violence statistics from 2015 to 2023.

16.67 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 4 of 30 The Council disagrees with the Grand Jury’s claim that a lack of detailed metrics on rape leaves the community more vulnerable and less safe. The absence of specific metrics in the Annual Report, or its contents, does not correlate to increased vulnerability or decreased safety. In fact, the FBI Uniformed Crime Report shows a 26% reduction in rape from 2022 to 2023, along with a 34% decrease in Domestic Violence cases by from 2020 to 2021 and a decline of 14% between 2022 and 2023. The Commission voted in November 2023 to accept a revised reporting format for rape and domestic violence statistics to include all FBI UCR Data, and various California Penal Code Sections on rape and domestic violence. In August of 2024, the Commission began receiving rape data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). If the Commission chooses to reassess the metrics it requests from SCPD, including stranger rape data, the SCPD is prepared to provide the requested information. However, the Commission must decide what metrics it needs to review and how the Commission will utilize the information in relation to prevention and education. When the Commissioners request various information and try to compare it to UCR data and/or National Incident-Based Reporting System/California IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS/CIBRS) the information may not be consistent because the methodology for collecting the data sets are not the same, which causes confusion and leads to the perception of deception which is not accurate.

In 2024, in an effort to better inform the community, and keep people safe, the Commission enhanced their outreach and education to the community by collaborating with other Community Based Organizations to raise awareness about prevention and available services to victims of rape and domestic violence. This includes co-sponsoring the “Stronger Together” Fun Run/5K Race with Monarch Services in September 2023 & 2024, participating in both the Dyke and Pride Parades, the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race.

Additionally, the Commission partnered with Monarch Services by providing $6,000 to support their efforts to end domestic violence and provide assistance to victims of rape.

16.68 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 5 of 30 F2. By highlighting a generic national statistic on stranger rape, rather than assessing local metrics in the CPVAW 2023 Report, the City is minimizing stranger rape and misleading the public into a possible false sense of security.
__ AGREE
_X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The CPVAW 2023 Annual Report includes, as approved by the Commission on November 1, 2023, data from the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Report on Rape, which is data specific to the City of Santa Cruz. The Annual Report also includes specific data on 5 types of Sexual Assault violations committed in the City of Santa Cruz. It is correct that this data does not distinguish between a stranger and an acquaintance. While this type of distinction may be useful, there is no data supporting that this is misleading the public into a false sense of security. The data cited in the Annual Report is from a nationally recognized association; Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN) and is consistent with previous data analysis as reported in the 2005-07 Annual Report.

The data shows that the City is safer in 2023 than in previous years. The Uniformed Crime Report shows a decrease in rape by 26% from 2022 to 2023, and a decrease in Domestic Violence cases by 34% from 2020 to 2021 and a decrease of 14% between 2022 and 2023.

If the Commission chooses to reconsider its previous decision on which metrics SCPD should provide to the Commission, including stranger rape, SCPD will provide that information. SCPD supports the collection of this information but would prefer the Commission decide on all the metrics they are interested in and show how it will be useful towards the prevention and education mission of CPVAW. SCPD feels both national statistics on stranger rape and local metrics are important to provide the public with a local view as well as a broader perspective.

16.69 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 6 of 30 F3. The lack of attention to long-time Commission programs such as the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coaster program leaves residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission believes in leveraging their funds to partner with community-based organizations who specialize in providing victims of domestic violence and rape with much needed financial support to continue their successful programs and services.

These organizations provide tangible resources that the Commission could not provide nor have the expertise to provide. In 2024, the Commission provided the following with sponsorships to support local non-profit organizations: $2,000 to Walnut Ave Women’s Center, a non-profit organization based in Santa Cruz that provides direct services to survivors of domestic violence including prevention and education and $6,000 to Monarch Services, another local non-profit that offers immediate crisis response to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.

The Commission has created new programs to promote personal safety. In 2023, the Commission partnered with the Santa Cruz City School district to provide high school students with an on-line course through Vector Solutions. This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which reached approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program enabled the school to extend its reach, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster healthy relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Wellbeing, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

The City is the only local agency to have a Victim Advocate on staff in the Police Department. This important resource keep victims informed of their rights in the legal system and makes referrals to local agencies. The Advocate works with victims to ensure they are treated with fairness and respect.

With regards to the Bar Coaster Program, the Commission agrees with continuing this program. As of July 1st, State Law requires all bars that do not provide food to provide drug testing kits to customers. The Commission supports this new law. In June of 2024, the Commission purchased an additional 500 drug testing coasters to distribute to bars located in the City of Santa Cruz.

The Commission had a program entitled Safe Place Network which is no longer active. The program began over 25 years ago by providing a window sticker to

16.70 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 7 of 30 businesses stating they were a “Safe Place”; however, there was very little to no training provided for businesses and their staff. The program also lacked a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan to inform visitors and the community of its existence. There are no metrics or data to substantiate the claim that not having this program has left residents and visitors without important resources for their personal safety. However, the Commission could consider re-establishing the program if it chooses to do so in the future.

16.71 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 8 of 30 F4. The loss of the in-person self-defense program for boys and girls in Santa Cruz City Schools lessens students’ ability to prevent sexual assault and interpersonal violence, inconsistent with the mandate of Ordinance 81-29. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission has offered self-defense classes either through City Schools and/or the Parks and Recreation Department. Over the years, participation in the Parks & Recreation program significantly declined, leading to the cancellation of classes.

In FY2023, the City Council approved a budget of $15,000 for self-defense classes to be administered by the Commission. In November of 2023, the Commission considered how best to use the funds at a regularly scheduled public meeting. The Commission considered two options: 1) Self Defense program through the City Parks & Recreation Department, or 2) A proposal by City Schools for an on-line course through a private contractor, Vector Solutions. The Commission chose the City Schools proposal.

This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which reached approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program enabled schools to extend their reach significantly, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster healthy relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Well-being, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

Vector Solutions is already being used in other school districts across the country to reduce violence against women. This valuable program will help prevent violence against women by providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to make healthy choices and build positive relationships.

In addition, the Commission authorized an additional $5,000 to enable one Commissioner to work with the Parks and Recreation department to offer a selfdefense course. Unfortunately, the program never came to fruition, and the funds were not spent.

In the FY25 Budget, the City Council approved re-authorization of $15,000 to continue offering these types of programs. The Commission will consider how to utilize those funds at their meeting on September 4, 2024.

16.72 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 9 of 30 F5. The City’s replacement of a dedicated 20-hour per week Commission staff position with rotating staff with minimal hours has resulted in a loss of visibility for the prevention of rape and domestic violence, a loss of community connections, a lack of programs, inadequate resource distribution and less public awareness.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The part-time Events Coordinator position was eliminated in 2016/2017 and replaced with a more senior staff member to provide enhanced support to the Commission.

From 2017 to 2020, there were three staffing changes involving personnel from both the City Manager’s Office and the Police Department. The Commission also saw turnover among its members during this same period. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic severely limited the Commission’s ability to organize and participate in public events, as well as to support local non-profits and schools until 2022.

In 2023, as the community began to recover from the pandemic, the Commission resumed its participation in and organization of events.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2024, the City Council also approved funding for an Administrative Assistant III staff position that will dedicate half of their work week (20 hours per week) to supporting the Commission’s work. With the addition of this new position, the Commission will have more staff support than it has had for the last several years.

Notably, crime data indicates that the city is safer in 2023 than in previous years. The Uniformed Crime Report reveals a 26% decrease in rape incidents from 2022 to 2023, as well as a 34% drop in domestic violence cases from 2020 to 2021, and a further decline of 14% between 2022 and 2023.

16.73 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 10 of 30 F6. The City’s refusal to allow the Commission continued access to redacted police reports prevents the Commission from making recommendations for police training and evaluating community complaints as required by Ordinance.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The Commission received redacted police reports from approximately 1984 to 2010.

However, around 2010-2017 the Commission began to receive summary demographic data from SCPD. From approximately 2017-2022 there was significant turnover in staff to the commission and a world-wide pandemic which impacted the commissions receipt of rape and domestic violence data. In 2023, a request was made by the Commission for the City Attorney to attend a CPVAW meeting to discuss and provide a recommendation to them regarding the ability to receive redacted police reports. Given the extremely sensitive nature of these police reports, even when redacted, the City Attorney’s Office recommended not to provide redacted police reports to the Commission for the following reasons:
(1) Under the Brown Act, there is no legal basis for the Commission (or the Commission’s Police Subcommittee) to review the redacted police reports in a confidential or closed session (see Gov't Code § 54962).
(2) While the Commission is not permitted to meet in closed session, the Commission could hypothetically meet in open session to review the reports. However, review of police reports in open session would waive any applicable exemption under the Public Records Act (Gov’t Code § 7921.505), and the City would be required to release those redacted reports to any member of the public that requests them. In other words, if the Commission were to review the redacted police reports in open session, the City would be waiving the future confidentiality of those reports, without the consent of the individuals who are referenced in that report, and without input as to how that lack of confidentiality might impact their lives.
(3) The City is legally prohibited from releasing some reports, even in redacted form. For example, state law prohibits the release of a police report where a juvenile is the subject of the report (Wel & Inst Code § 827.95), or reports involving mandated reports of suspected child abuse and neglect (Penal Code § 11167.5). Various Constitutional provisions, such as The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution, or the right to privacy afforded by Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution may also be considered when determining whether to release a police report. Even for reports that the City is not legally prohibited from releasing, all of the referenced police reports are generally exempt from disclosure to the public pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600.

Based on the foregoing, including the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the Commission voted to not require the SCPD provide redacted police reports to the Commission or the Commission’s Police Sub-Committee. However, the Commission did vote to include additional California Penal Code Sections, all Domestic Violence cases, and the FBI Uniform Crime

16.74 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 11 of 30 Reporting data in the monthly data SCPD reports to the Commission.

The Commission still retains the ability to hear citizen complaints regarding the SCPD’s service to women who have been raped or battered. With improvements in technology and changes in state law and City Council requirements, citizen complaints go directly to the SCPD Professional Standards Unit, the Chief of Police, and the Independent Police Auditor. Any concerns about a Police Department employee’s conduct, actions or service are investigated by the Police Department’s Professional Standards Unit. All completed investigations are reviewed by the Independent Police Auditor to provide an independent review of the citizen complaint process. The Independent Police Auditor provides an annual report to the City Council in a public meeting on the level of thoroughness and objectivity of these investigations. The process to file a complaint can either be started in person at the Police Department, online on the SCPD website, or directly through the Independent Police Auditor.

The City also employs a Victim Advocate and is the only one in the county that does so. The Advocate provides information to victims about their rights and the criminal legal system and makes referrals to local agencies when appropriate. The Advocate works alongside SCPD personnel to ensure all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are treated with fairness and respect. The Victim Advocate also provides training to officers and detectives to provide the highest level of professional service to the victims.

With regards to Police Training, the CPVAW Police Subcommittee received a presentation on November 1, 2023, from SCPD on their training standards. This provided an opportunity for the Commission to review and provide input on SCPD’s training program. The Police Subcommittee intends to conduct an annual review of the SCPD training program. All SCPD training records are kept up to date and in accordance with State law and Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) standards.

16.75 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 12 of 30 F7. The SCPD’s decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates leaves the community unaware about this serious crime and therefore less safe.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

SCPD has not made the decision to drop stranger rape alerts and case-by-case updates. If there was a stranger rape case and an alert to the community was appropriate, SCPD would not hesitate to make the community aware. SCPD is very active on social media, and transparently shares valuable information with the community.

16.76 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 13 of 30 F8. The inconsistencies the Grand Jury found in SCPD’s rape numbers means the public, the CPVAW and the City have no accurate metrics about reported rape, leaving the community ill-informed and Annual Commission Reports unreliable.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_x_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

City of Santa Cruz Ordinance No. 81-29 establishes specific responsibilities and cooperation between SCPD and CPVAW:
 Section 5(e): The Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, in carrying out its duties shall have the authority to call upon members of the Police Department to present information which is not defined as confidential by State law.

The Santa Cruz Police Department shall offer full and open cooperation to the Commission.
 Section 6(b): The Police Department shall create a separate statistical report form to document and consolidate all domestic violence and women beating calls. This shall be compiled monthly.

The SCPD has adhered to these requirements, explicitly providing data as the Commission requested. Before the February 7, 2024, CPVAW meeting, where the SCPD’s statistical report (Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table) was first presented, the SCPD had been producing a simplified statistical monthly report. This report included data on domestic violence calls, domestic violence cases, rape cases, sexual assaults, stalking cases, and intimate partner homicide cases.

At the November 1, 2023, CPVAW meeting, upon a specific commissioner’s request and approved by the Commission, sodomy and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object were separated from the generalized rape column, and assault to commit rape was added. In the following two meetings (February 1, 2024, and May 1, 2024), SCPD complied and continued to make improvements to provide an accurate and comprehensive statistical report.

Improvements included updating all the monthly summary values to reflect the addition of any cold cases when they occurred, not when reported, and footnotes were added to provide clarifying language. This was to try and explain why the old numbers had changed from previous reports.

Discrepancies in Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table were due to the removal of cases involving minors during the development of the new table format and improper communication of this omission. The oversight was corrected in the following report (Appendix B – Figure 9 Full Table), presented to CPVAW on May 1, 2024, and included up-to-date data encompassing all genders, adults, and minors.

The SCPD would like to respond to the Grand Jury’s assessment of the SCPD’s statistical report (Appendix A – Figure 8 Full Table). The Grand Jury compared the year 2021 Case Totals to SCPD’s website UCR figure of reported rape totals for the same year and

16.77 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 14 of 30 questioned why the two values - 34 vs. 26 did not match and therefore concluded the statistical report was inaccurate. As defined in the SCPD response to the Grand Jury's R4 question, UCR data reports out monthly victim counts, while NIBRS reports on the total number of rape-related offenses.

In effect, the SCPD's monthly statistical report does both, but special consideration is needed when summing values. Rape cases can involve multiple offenses, and a case typically involves only one victim. The SCPD statistical report breaks out rape-related offenses but places an asterisk next to any offense that is already associated with another offense listed in the same case. By excluding any value with an asterisk while summing values, the SCPD statistical report will provide a rape case count similar to UCR Summary data. If all raperelated values are summed, ignoring the presence of asterisks, the SCPD statistical report will generate a rape offense count similar to NIBRS data.

Due to the confusion reported in the grand jury report, the SCPD has reservations regarding the effectiveness of the current format of the monthly statistical report in keeping the community well-informed. The SCPD requests that the Commission review what data is needed to better understand the nature and extent of rape-related crimes in the community and asks the Commission to provide details on how it intends to use the data to tailor prevention and intervention strategies. A better understanding of the Commission’s work plan will help improve the collaborative work between the Commission and the SCPD.

To add to the confusion, one member of the Commission has requested certain metrics not consistent with the other members of the Commission. The SCPD, trying to be collaborative and responsive, provided this information but it has been taken out of context, creating confusion and the perception the SCPD is changing the data. The SCPD recommends, prior to producing any future data or metrics, the Commission decides exactly what information they are looking for and what they will do with the information in the world of prevention and education. There are many different means to produce the data, but it will be clearer to the Commission and the public if we can agree on one methodology and then understand the nuisances of that data.

The SCPD remains committed to providing accurate and comprehensive statistical reports, ensuring transparency and continuous improvement in response to the Commission's needs.

16.78 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 15 of 30 F9. The SCPD and the Commission’s lack of a consistent definition of rape leads to public confusion and potential undercounting of rape crimes in the City.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
_X_ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

When the Federal Government changed the definition of rape in 2013, SCPD immediately included the additional penal codes that now fall under the new definition and have been reporting these numbers since this change. The lack of consistency is more related to the different data collected and methodologies between UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS, and specific metrics requested by the Commission.

16.79 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 16 of 30 F10. The Five Year Strategic Plan’s failure to include the prevention of rape and domestic violence leaves the community less aware and less safe. __ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

The absence of rape and domestic violence prevention from the Public Safety focus area of the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not lessen its significance as a priority for the City. The recently adopted strategic plan serves as a framework that balances community needs with the City's resource capacity. It reflects the policy priorities set by the City Council and acts as a high-level roadmap for future actions. The plan includes a vision to guide future focus, seven focus areas to direct organizational efforts, goal statements, strategies for achieving these goals, and a workplan for implementation.

The lack of specific mention of the Commission in the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not imply that the community is less informed or safe regarding the prevention of rape and domestic violence. Moreover, it does not undermine the Council's commitment to these issues. Notably, the Commission is the only advisory body that receives a dedicated budget and staffing from the City Council. The Council has demonstrated its commitment by increasing the Commission's budget by over 150% for FY25, enabling additional staff support and resources to further the Commission’s goals in preventing rape and domestic violence in Santa Cruz.

16.80 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 17 of 30 F11. The City Manager’s Weekly Update to the community has not highlighted the work of the CPVAW for the past two years, effectively relegating the prevention of rape and domestic violence to a low priority, leaving the public uninformed.
__ AGREE
__ PARTIALLY DISAGREE
X__ DISAGREE
Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):

There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of the Commission’s activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion.

The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public.

Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence.

Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about the initiatives of the Commission.

16.81 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 18 of 30 Recommendations
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council fund a dedicated staff person for the Commission with skills commensurate to the need for program and resource development, community outreach and visibility, data research and report writing and have such position advertised by December 31, 2024. (F5, F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
_X_ HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

As part of the FY25 Budget, the City Council has approved a part-time (20 hours per week) Administrative Assistant III to support the work of the Commission. The recruitment is scheduled to begin in late August or early September 2024.

16.82 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 19 of 30 R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council reevaluate the legal ability of CPVAW commissioners to access redacted police reports of rape as described in this investigation, and present the results of that research by December 31, 2024. (F6)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
X__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

Police reports documenting instances of rape, sexual assault, or domestic violence are extremely sensitive. These reports provide intimate details about horrific crimes.

Even if heavily redacted, it is likely the reports would still include details that would enable some to identify the victim or parties involved.

Given the extremely sensitive nature of these police reports, even when redacted, the City Attorney’s Office recommends not to provide redacted police reports to the Commission for the following reasons:
(1) Under the Brown Act, there is no legal basis for the Commission (or the Commission’s Police Subcommittee) to review the redacted police reports in a confidential or closed session (see Gov't Code § 54962). (2) While the Commission is not permitted to meet in closed session, the Commission could hypothetically meet in open session to review the reports.

However, review of police reports in open session would waive any applicable exemption under the Public Records Act (Gov’t Code § 7921.505), and the City would be required to release those redacted reports to any member of the public that requests them. In other words, if the Commission were to review the redacted police reports in open session, the City would be waiving the future confidentiality of those reports, without the consent of the individuals who are referenced in that report, and without input as to how that lack of confidentiality might impact their lives.
(3) The City is legally prohibited from releasing some reports, even in redacted form. For example, state law prohibits the release of a police report where a juvenile is the subject of the report (Wel & Inst Code § 827.95), or reports involving mandated reports of suspected child abuse and neglect (Penal Code § 11167.5). Various Constitutional provisions, such as The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution, or the right to privacy afforded by Section 1 of Article I of the

16.83 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 20 of 30 California Constitution may also be considered when determining whether to release a police report. Even for reports that the City is not legally prohibited from releasing, all of the referenced police reports are generally exempt from disclosure to the public pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600.

Based on the foregoing, including the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, the Commission voted to not require the SCPD to provide redacted police reports to the Commission or the Commission’s Police Sub-Committee.

16.84 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 21 of 30 R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council begin evaluating options with the Santa Cruz City School District to reinstate the in-person self-defense program for middle and high school students of all genders by January 31, 2025. (F4)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
_X_ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Commission has previously offered self-defense classes either through City Schools and/or the Parks and Recreation Department. Over the years, participation in the Parks & Recreation program significantly declined, leading to the cancellation of classes. Based on the lack of participation, free classes sponsored by the Commission are no longer offered through Parks and Recreation.

In FY2023, the City Council approved a budget of $15,000 for self-defense classes to be administered by the Commission. In November of 2023, the Commission considered how best to use the funds at a regularly scheduled public meeting. The Commission considered two options: 1) Self Defense program through the City Parks & Recreation Department or 2) A proposal by Santa Cruz City Schools for an on-line course through a private contractor, Vector Solutions. The Commission chose the City Schools proposal.

This program offered targeted courses for grades 6-8 and 9-12, which would reach approximately 2,000 students. This mandatory program would enable the school to extend its reach, empowering more students to make informed choices, resist peer pressure, and foster health relationships. Topics included: Dealing with Stress and Anxiety; Self-Harm Awareness and Resolving Disagreements. Additional content included Mental Health and Wellbeing, Healthy Relationships & Inclusion, Personal & Community Safety and Student Safety and Wellness.

Vector Solutions is already being used in other school districts across the country to reduce violence against women. This valuable program will help prevent violence against women by providing students with the knowledge and skills they need to make healthy choices and build positive relationships.

16.85 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 22 of 30 In addition, the Commission authorized an additional $5,000 to enable one Commissioner to work with the Parks and Recreation department to offer a selfdefense course. Unfortunately, the program never came to fruition, and the funds were not spent.

In the FY25 Budget, the City Council approved re-authorization of $15,000 to continue offering these types of programs. Consideration of how to utilize these funds will be considered by the Commission at its meeting on November 6, 2024.

16.86 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 23 of 30 R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD update its website to include the detailed metrics on Rape Incidents submitted to NIBRS and CIBRS, ensuring all data entries are accurate and available at each meeting of the CPVAW, and have this in place by January 31, 2025. (F8, F9)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_x_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The publication of metrics on rape incidents from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS) would introduce an additional data set to the two preexisting data sets regularly published by the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) – Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data and its own monthly statistical data report provided to the Commission. SCPD believes this would increase public confusion regarding rape incidents within the City of Santa Cruz. All three data sets report on rape occurrence, but variations in methodology, scope, and level of detail make direct comparisons unsound.

Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR)
The UCR Summary system reports are based on when a crime is reported, not when the crime occurs. For example, in many rape-related cases, individuals come forward weeks, months, or even years after being victimized. This limitation can distort monthly victim counts and create erroneous trends within a community. Another constraint lies in how the data is prioritized. UCR Summary data reflects the hierarchy rule, which states that only the most severe crime contributes to an agency’s monthly crime totals when more than one offense occurs within an incident. For example, an incident involving a murder, robbery, and rape, the stats only reflect the homicide for the monthly totals, as homicide is the highest offense on the hierarchy.

UCR data is calculated by the number of victims and does not account for multiple offenses committed against one victim during one incident. For example, a victim of rape (261 pc) could also be a victim of oral copulation (288a pc) and sodomy (286 pc). All of these offenses fall under the definition of rape per the new definition in 2013 but there are different penal code sections and charges. UCR data will calculate this example as one incident because it only includes one victim. However, in other reporting methodologies like NIBRS or metric collecting like CPVAW has requested, the one incident can be counted multiple times depending on the number of penal code sections or charges brought forward on the perpetrator.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

16.87 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 24 of 30 NIBRS collects detailed data on each reported crime incident, including information on the victim, offender, location, weapon used, and circumstances surrounding an incident. Unlike UCR Summary, NIBRS captures all offenses reported in a single incident, providing a more complete picture of criminal activity. NIBRS’ labile data set allows for constant updates to monthly summaries as cold cases are reported.

Publishing static monthly NIBRS/CIBRS data on SCPD’s website or through the Commission’s meetings immortalizes data designed to change over time, offering little added benefit to the public. NIBRS/CIBRS data is not updated until several weeks after the end of each month, producing the data monthly would cause more confusion and provide inaccurate data to the public.

The level of detailed data provided by NIBRS allows law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and researchers to better understand the nature and extent of crime in their communities, identify emerging trends, and tailor prevention and intervention strategies accordingly, but may not be suitable for public consumption without proper analysis and a simplified synopsis.

Additionally, unlike UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS data will change based on when a crime occurred versus when the crime was reported. Therefore NIBRS/CIBRS data is fluid and could constantly change. However, UCR data is locked once each month is complete. This adds to the confusion and perception of the inaccuracies to the data.

16.88 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 25 of 30 R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the SCPD reinstate community alerts for incidents of stranger rape, with case-by-case updates, by December 31, 2024. (F7)
_x_ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done __
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

SCPD never stopped executing community alerts for incidents of stranger rape when the circumstances were necessary to keep the community safe and well-informed.

16.89 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 26 of 30 R6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Commission and the SCPD submit comprehensive annual reports as called for in Ordinance 81-29, using the 2005-07 reports as a model, with the 2024 Annual Report placed on the Commission's agenda by December 31, 2024 and future reports submitted on a consistent, annual basis. (F1)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Annual Report as required by Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5.(d), requires the Commission to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” The Ordinance does not require the Annual Report to provide detailed metrics on rape. However, various Annual Reports over the years have included data on rape and domestic violence, including the most recent Annual Report for 2023. The 2023 Report includes details the FBI Uniform Crime Report for Rape and Domestic Violence from 2015 to 2023, and data from 2010-2023 on the following California Penal Code Sections relating to Rape: 220 Attempted Rape; 261/262 Rape; 286 Sodomy; 387/288 Oral Copulation and 289 Penetration with a foreign object. The Commission will continue to provide comprehensive reports as required by the Ordinance.

The 2023 Annual Report is modeled after the 2005-2007 and the 2008-2010 Annual Report. Both of those reports were a Joint Report by the Commission and the Santa Cruz Police Department, same as the 2023 Report. Both reports contain data on sexual assault including incidents by Penal Code Violations. However, the previous reports did not contain information on Domestic Violence which the 2023 report contains. The previous reports include an analysis of demographics within each rape case which has not been conducted since 2017. The Commission, not individual commissioners, must decide what information or metrics they would like to see and how the information will be used towards prevention and education. There needs to be an agreement of what set of data and metrics will be evaluated because the combination of different sets of data causes confusion and the perception of deception.

The Annual Report should include a full years’ worth of data, therefore presenting an annual report in December would not include a full years’ worth of data. In order to provide the community with a comprehensive report, with a full year’s worth of data, the report will be presented at the February meeting of the following year.

16.90 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 27 of 30 R7. The Grand Jury recommends that the 2023 Report be amended to remove the national entry on stranger rape, replacing it with accurate data for the City of Santa Cruz by December 31, 2024. (F2)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
X__ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The 2023 Annual Report provides a comprehensive data analysis over a 14-year period on rape and 16 years’ worth of data on domestic violence cases in the City of Santa Cruz. While the Annual Report does not distinguish between acquaintance and stranger rape, the data is accurate. The Ordinance does not require the Annual Report to provide crime data, however, because the data on the number of cases is readily available and is compiled by the SCPD it is included in the Annual Report.

Ordinance No. 81-29, Section 5.(d), requires the Commission to “…submit annually, and the City Council review and act upon a report documenting, in detail, City, community, and police efforts to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.” SCPD supports the collection of this information if the Commission decides on all the metrics they are interested in and shows how it will be useful towards the prevention and education mission. SCPD feels both national statistics on stranger rape and local metrics are important to provide the public with a local view as well as a broader perspective. The data SCPD has presented is accurate, but some confusion has arisen based on the different methodologies of UCR data, NIBRS/CIBRS, and specific requests from the Commission.

16.91 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 28 of 30 R8. The Grand Jury recommends that the CPVAW update the status of the Safe Place Network and the Bar Coasters program. If the programs are to be discontinued, a public CPVAW meeting is advised for that decision. If the programs are to be continued, the date of January 31, 2025 is recommended for the full reinstatement of these programs. (F3)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
__ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The Commission will agendize the Safe Place Network at their February 5, 2025 meeting to consider whether or not to continue the program.

The Bar Coaster program is in place. As of June 2024, an additional 500 coasters were purchased to be distributed to local bars.

16.92 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 29 of 30 R9. The Grand Jury recommends that Focus Area 5, Public Safety of the 2023-28 Five Year Strategic Plan include an entry prioritizing the prevention of rape and domestic violence, as mandated by Ordinance 81-29, and published by February 28, 2025. (F10)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

The absence of rape and domestic violence prevention from the Public Safety focus area of the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not lessen its significance as a priority for the City. The recently adopted strategic plan serves as a framework that balances community needs with the City's resource capacity. It reflects the policy priorities set by the City Council and acts as a high-level roadmap for future actions. The plan includes a vision to guide future focus, seven focus areas to direct organizational efforts, goal statements, strategies for achieving these goals, and a workplan for implementation.

The lack of specific mention of the Commission in the Five-Year Strategic Plan does not imply that the community is less informed or safe regarding the prevention of rape and domestic violence. Moreover, it does not undermine the Council's commitment to these issues. Notably, the Commission is the only advisory body that receives a dedicated budget and staffing from the City Council. The Council has demonstrated its commitment by increasing the Commission's budget by over 150% for FY25, enabling additional staff support and resources to further the Commission’s goals in preventing rape and domestic violence in Santa Cruz.

16.93 Required Response from the Santa Cruz City Council Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Due by September 25, 2024 Page 30 of 30 R10. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Manager increase the visibility of the CPVAW programs and events by publishing relevant information, at least quarterly, in the City Manager’s Weekly Update and that the first article be published by December 31, 2024. (F11)
__ HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done
__
HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe
__
REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain the scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months)
_X_ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why
Required response explanation, summary, and timeframe:

There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of the Commission’s activities in the City Manager’s Weekly Updates has left the public uninformed or perceived as a low priority. The Weekly Update is a communication tool that shares relevant city activities and projects, drawing information from City Departments and highlighting key city council actions and significant projects. The Commission is encouraged to submit updates about its work to the City Manager’s office for inclusion when appropriate.

The Commission focuses on partnering with community-based organizations that specialize in supporting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2024, the Commission provided funding to local non-profits, including $2,000 to the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center, which offers direct services to survivors, and $8,000 to Monarch Services, which provides crisis response for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. These organizations have a broader reach than the City Manager’s Weekly Update, effectively disseminating more information to the public.

Furthermore, the Commission has significantly increased its community presence by participating in events such as co-sponsoring the "Stronger Together" Fun Run/5K with Monarch Services in September 2023 and 2024, marching in the Dyke March and the 2024 Pride Parade, and taking part in the 2024 March to End Homelessness and the “She is Beautiful” race. These events enhance awareness and provide crucial information on preventing rape and domestic violence.

Additionally, the Commission has launched a dedicated newsletter to highlight its events and activities, allocating funds for two publications in FY25. It also uses social media platforms to promote and inform the community about the initiatives of the Commission.

16.94 From: Gillian Greensite
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; City Council Subject: Rebuttal to Council Response to Grand Jury reports Date: Sunday, October 6, 2024 6:13:38 PM
Attachments: HOUSING FOR WHOM- Response to City Staff"s Responses.docx PREVENTING RAPE & DV, staff responses & rebuttals.docx
Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Golder and City Council members, After the pleasant surprise of your forming a subcommittee to develop a City Council response to the two Grand Jury reports, I was surprised, not to mention disappointed, that you have made essentially no changes to the staff response.

At the very least I had expected your response would reflect consideration of the rebuttal to the staff response; that the text would demonstrate some revision based on the facts. There is no evidence of that. Given that some responses continue to be a misreading of the Findings and Recommendations and many contain inaccuracies, I ask that you more closely read and consider the attached rebuttals, one on Housing for Whom? and the other on Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence. Where’’s the Priority?
Thank you,
Gillian

16.95 GRAND JURY REPORT 2023-2024
HOUSING FOR WHOM?
REBUTTALS to CITY REPONSES to GRAND JURY FINDINGS (F) and RECOMMENDATIONS (R) Rebutal to City Response on F1
The City’s explana�on that Inclusionary Housing income eligibility depends on the governing Resolu�on at a specific point in �me begs the ques�on that all eight City council Resolu�ons

16.96 between 1985 and 2018 mandate that such housing be restricted to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low- income categories. There is no explana�on offered for the inclusion of Moderate Income, neither on the City’s website nor in specific, cited market-rate projects.

Rebutal to City Response on F2

16.97 The City response sidesteps the main issue: the lack of data to verify whether Inclusionary Housing since 2006 is occupied by residents and local workers as required by the Municipal Code. Income-verifica�on is a separate issue and was not of concern in the Grand Jury Findings. Nor of concern were the condi�ons imposed by federal and state funds.

Of concern is the lack of data to verify whether the mandated preferences for residents and local workers are being followed: whether in developers’ rankings or in affordable housing agreements, including the new Compliance Form. The mechanisms in place do not provide any data to track and verify, let alone enforce the City’s preferences.

How exactly does the City know that the developer is complying with the signed agreements? Which mechanism enforces the City’s preferences? “To the extent possible” leaves a wide gap for non-compliance.

Rebutal to City Response on F3

16.98 The City’s response punts the issue to UCSC. It is the City, not UCSC that has a stake in knowing whether UCSC students are occupying the city’s Inclusionary Housing.

The Grand Jury report documented that the City is unaware whether UCSC students occupy Inclusionary Housing, hence the Recommenda�on that this data be tracked. The assump�on by the City that most undergraduate students, “nearly 90%” are not income eligible for Inclusionary Housing since they are likely to be dependents fails to acknowledge the sizable percentage of re-entry undergraduates (over 25 years of age) who are likely independent and likely eligible for Inclusionary Housing.

16.99 Rebutal to City Response on R1
This Recommenda�on has not been implemented. The Recommenda�on is not concerned with numbers of units at different affordability levels. It is concerned with which affordability levels are eligible for Inclusionary Housing.

All City Resolu�ons limit eligible Income levels for Inclusionary Housing to Low, Very Low and Extremely Low. However, the City’s website adds Moderate Income and in prac�ce allows Moderate Income eligibility. Given these contradic�ons, the Grand Jury Recommenda�on is for the City to determine and state defini�vely, which Income levels are legally eligible for Inclusionary Housing.

16.100
Please note per the previous response which included the breakdown of affordable units by affordability level that staff will post a comprehensive breakdown of affordable units by project to the City’s website during the current calendar year.

Rebutal to City Response on R2
This Recommenda�on has not been implemented. The Grand Jury is aware that local and worker preferences were adopted in 2006 and states so in its report. This Recommenda�on is for the City to develop a system to track preferences going forward.

There is no need for revealing personally iden�fiable informa�on, nor specific unit addresses in a tracking system for preference verifica�on. To suggest this as a reason to not track preferences is a red herring. Similarly, there is no publicly available personal tax or income iden�fica�on revealed in the Housing Authority’s tracking and verifica�on of individual incomes for Inclusionary Housing eligibility,

16.101
Rebutal to City Response on R3
The City’s response punts the issue to UCSC. It is the City, not UCSC that has a stake in knowing whether UCSC students are occupying the City’s Inclusionary Housing.

The statement in the City’s response that most undergraduate students, “nearly 90%” are not income eligible for Inclusionary Housing since they are dependents ignores the sizable percentage of re-entry undergraduates (over 25 years of age) who are likely independent and likely eligible for Inclusionary Housing.

16.102
Rebutal to City Response on R4
Recommenda�on 4 has not been implemented.

The Recommenda�on does not require nor call for the public release of Measure O tenants’ addresses. That is alarmist and a misreading of the Recommenda�on.

The Recommenda�on is not asking for the number of Inclusionary units in specific projects nor the availability of such units, both of which are available on the City’s website.

Recommenda�on 4 is for the crea�on of a public dashboard that includes the numbers or percentage of Inclusionary Units occupied by residents and local workers which are preferences required since 2006, as well as to track the percentage of such units occupied by UCSC students.

16.103
Grand Jury Reports 2023-2024
City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence Where’s The Priority?
Rebutal to the City Council response to the Grand Jury Findings (F) F1 & F2 The public is likely to disagree with the City Council and agree with the Grand Jury that the failure to track rapes commited by un-apprehended strangers in CPVAW reports since 2016 indeed leaves the community less informed and more vulnerable. The earlier Reports included the areas of town where such rapes were commited. This is crucial informa�on for public safety, par�cularly for women and girls.

The sole data point in the 2023 CPVAW Report on rape (separated by specific Penal Codes) is the total numbers of rapes over �me.

The City Council is incorrect in sta�ng that the average na�onal data on stranger rape from RAINN is consistent with the local data on stranger rape in the 2005-07 Annual Report. The local data for stranger rape was (and perhaps s�ll is) significantly higher than the na�onal average.

City Council entry notes a decrease in reported rape from 2022 to 2023 and claims this indicates the city is safer. This omits the fact that by August 2024, the number of reported rapes for the City (34) has already passed the total for the full year of 2023. Numbers alone do not measure safety. But informing the public of the numbers of rapes by strangers s�ll at large and the areas of town where such rapes were commited may prevent another rape through increased awareness. Basic commonsense.

The City Council entry that comparing UCR data with NIBRS causes confusion reveals a lack of awareness of the readily available research from the FBI documen�ng that the difference between the former UCR numbers and updated NIBRS numbers on reported rape is negligible.

The City Council entry states that CPVAW has “enhanced its outreach and educa�on” by cosponsoring a Fun Run and “She is Beau�ful” Race and par�cipa�ng in a Dyke and Pride Parade

16.104
plus giving money to Monarch Services. This is not an enhanced effort but is a vastly reduced effort compared to the years of outreach and educa�on documented in the Grand Jury report.

F4 The Vector Solu�ons well-being video is not a replacement for in-person self-defense classes. The Grand Jury report documents this dis�nc�on and the popularity and success of the in-person self-defense classes in the schools. “Healthy choices and building posi�ve rela�onships” while important issues, are not consistent with or a replacement for skills on defending oneself against an aggressive assailant.

F5 Again, the entry that the city is safer in 2023 due to a decrease in reported numbers of rape from 2022 omits the fact that by August 2024, reported rape numbers have already exceeded the total for 2023.

It is insul�ng to the skills and accomplishments of past Commission Coordinator Kathy Agnone for the City Council to state that: “The part-�me Events Coordinator posi�on was eliminated in 2016/2017 and replaced with a more senior staff member to provide enhanced support to the Commission.” It is also inaccurate. Support to the Commission was vastly reduced with Agnone’s replacement.

F6 You may disagree with gran�ng the Commission access to redacted police reports, which it has had for the past 30 years, but this lack of access prevents it from evalua�ng which areas of police response, if any, require further training. Similarly, the Commission cannot evaluate ci�zens’ complaints if it can’t review the report on which the complaint is based.

F7 Regarding public alerts for rapes by strangers, if SCPD claims it has not ended issuing public alerts of reported stranger rapes (unapprehended), please have SCPD provide the date of the most recent public alert of a rape by a stranger, including the text of the alert, manner and range of its distribu�on, and ar�st rendering of the suspect. What criteria does SCPD use to determine whether a public alert of an at- large, unknown suspect of rape is “appropriate”? F8 This response is overly complicated and therefore unclear. To quote from the Grand Jury report: “One example: In Figure 8, the number entered for 2023 is eight rapes. In Figure 9, using the same definition, the number entered for 2023 is seventeen rapes.” So, is the difference due to the omission of minors in Figure 8? If so, why was that difference not brought to the Commission’s and the public’s attention at the meeting? Why no asterisk? Why is F8 checked by staff as Disagree rather than Agree or Partially Agree? F10 The City’s Five-Year Strategic Plan is a statement of its priori�es. It includes a sec�on on Public Safety. To exclude any men�on of rape and domes�c violence preven�on which are mandated to be one of the city’s highest priori�es is a significant oversight that should be acknowledged. The push back from staff is defensive rather than correc�ve. To men�on the Commission’s budget and staffing as ra�onale to demonstrate its priori�za�on is misleading.

The modest budget and staffing are because the Commission has no department atached to it to provide resources.

16.105
F11 By disagreeing with this Finding, Council is missing an opportunity for correc�ve ac�on.

Rebutal to the City Council response to the Grand Jury Recommenda�ons (R) R2 As someone who read over three hundred redacted police reports on rape while serving three terms on CPVAW, I can atest that the claim made against this Recommenda�on is inaccurate. The reports are heavily redacted. There is no ability to iden�fy a vic�m, the loca�on of the crime or other par�es involved.

An alterna�ve would be for Council to require that all SCPD reports of rape not under current inves�ga�on are reviewed by the City’s Independent Police Auditor, Michael J. Gennaco with his report submited to Council annually.

R3 See earlier rebutal to F4.

R4 City Council’s reasoning to reject the Grand Jury recommenda�on to use NIBRS data and replace obsolete UCR data is hard to fathom. It doesn’t “introduce an addi�onal data set” but rather uses the current data gathering tool that is used na�onwide and which SCPD is already using. NIBRS gathers important metrics for community awareness such as whether the assailant is a stranger to the vic�m. Such metrics should be made available to the Commission and the community. To suggest they may not be suitable for public consump�on is not in keeping with the intent of NIBRS. The fact that NIBRS data is fluid and is updated is not an argument against its usage.

R5 See rebutal to F7
R6 It is inaccurate to claim that the 2023 Report is modeled a�er the 2005-2007 Report. A further inaccuracy is to state that the earlier report did not include Domes�c Violence informa�on, which it did.

R7 If both na�onal and local data on rapes by strangers are important, as claimed in the response, then the local data (not available since 2016) should be released and made publicly available. The Grand Jury is not confused by UCR, NIBRS/CIBRS and neither should CPVAW.

R9 The City’s Five-Year Strategic Plan is a statement of its priori�es. It includes a sec�on on Public Safety. To exclude any men�on of rape and domes�c violence preven�on which are mandated to be one of the city’s highest priori�es is a significant oversight that should be acknowledged and corrected. To men�on the Commission’s dedicated budget and staffing to demonstrate its priori�za�on by the City is misleading. The modest budget and staffing are because the Commission has no department atached to it to provide resources.

16.106
R10 A disappoin�ng response. Agreeing with this recommenda�on would go a long way towards correc�ng the Grand Jury documented marginaliza�on of the preven�on of rape and domes�c violence in the City of Santa Cruz
Gillian Greensite
October 6, 2024

16.107
From: Fred Keeley
To: Gillian Greensite; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; City Council
Subject: RE: Rebuttal to Council Response to Grand Jury reports Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:33:57 PM
Ms. Greensite,
Thank you.

A question to you: Are you corresponding as a Grand Jury member or private citizen? Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 6:12 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Shebreh KalantariJohnson <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Rebuttal to Council Response to Grand Jury reports ****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.**** Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Golder and City Council members, After the pleasant surprise of your forming a subcommittee to develop a City Council response to the two Grand Jury reports, I was surprised, not to mention disappointed, that you have made essentially no changes to the staff response.

At the very least I had expected your response would reflect consideration of the rebuttal to the staff response; that the text would demonstrate some revision based on the facts. There is no evidence of that. Given that some responses continue to be a misreading of the Findings and Recommendations and many contain inaccuracies, I ask that you more closely read and consider the attached rebuttals, one on Housing for Whom? and the other on Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence. Where’’s the Priority? Thank you,
Gillian

16.108
From: Gillian Greensite
To: Fred Keeley
Cc: Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; City Council
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Council Response to Grand Jury reports Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:36:57 PM
Mayor Keeley,
As I clarified at the last council meeting, I am responding as a private citizen.

Gillian
On Oct 7, 2024, at 1:33 PM, Fred Keeley <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Greensite,
Thank you.

A question to you: Are you corresponding as a Grand Jury member or private citizen?
Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 6:12 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Sandy Brown <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Martine Watkins <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Rebuttal to Council Response to Grand Jury reports ****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.****
Mayor Keeley, Vice-Mayor Golder and City Council members, After the pleasant surprise of your forming a subcommittee to develop a City Council response to the two Grand Jury reports, I was surprised, not to mention disappointed, that you have made essentially no changes to the staff response.

At the very least I had expected your response would reflect consideration of the rebuttal to the staff response; that the text would demonstrate some revision based on the facts. There is no evidence of that. Given that some responses continue to be a misreading of the Findings and Recommendations

16.109
and many contain inaccuracies, I ask that you more closely read and consider the attached rebuttals, one on Housing for Whom? and the other on Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence. Where’’s the Priority?
Thank you,
Gillian

16.110