Santa Cruz City Council
January 14, 2025

23.5 • One ordinance permanently amending section 18.15 of the municipal code, exempting statewide exemption ADUs from the City’s local amendments to the state energy code for new buildings. These amendments require approval from the California Energy Commission before they can take effect.
• Two ordinances permanently amending sections of the municipal code to implement all proposed changes, including the two new state laws, comments from HCD, removal of owneroccupancy requirements, and separate sale of ADUs. One of these ordinances amends sections of the municipal code within the LCP and will need approval from the Coastal Commission prior to taking effect within the coastal zone.

DISCUSSION:

Removal of Owner Occupancy Requirement
Historically, the City’s ADU regulations required owner occupancy for properties with ADUs.

This means that the property owner was required to live on the property, either in the primary dwelling or in the ADU. In 2019, state 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 eliminating the 2025 sunset date, thus prohibiting local jurisdictions from requiring owneroccupancy for properties with newly proposed ADUs in perpetuity.

At the October 22, 2024 City Council meeting, communications received from state legislators indicated that the intent of the law was to eliminate owner occupancy requirements altogether, not just for those created in 2025 and beyond. In addition, several community members expressed concerns about equity for property owners who had constructed their ADUs prior to 2020 compared to those with ADUs constructed in 2020 and later. The City Council approved the removal of owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs constructed in 2025 and beyond, expanding on the municipal code’s regulations that waived owner-occupancy for properties with ADUs constructed between 2020 and 2025. Council gave staff direction to bring back for review amendments to remove owner occupancy requirements for properties with ADUs constructed prior to 2020, and those changes are included in the proposed ordinances.

Separate Sale of ADUs
In 2023, state bill AB 1033 (Ting) created new legislation that allows local jurisdictions the option to adopt an ordinance permitting ADUs and their associated primary dwellings to be sold separately as condominiums. An AB 1033 implementing ordinance would support the creation of a new type of ownership housing unit that is more affordable by nature. In a time where nearly all new development in Santa Cruz is rental housing, such an ordinance could provide a new opportunity to create smaller ownership units, making the city’s housing market more diverse and accessible.

While Council had originally rejected the proposed AB 1033 implementing ordinance at the October 8, 2024 meeting, at the second reading on October 22, 2024, Council directed staff to return with the proposal for further consideration. While a thorough analysis of the proposed amendments is in the attached reports for the September 5th Planning Commission meeting and October 8th City Council meeting, additional information relating to this topic is provided below.

23.6 The results of the National Community Survey for Santa Cruz, completed earlier this year, were recently released and found the availability of affordable quality housing as one of the City’s lowest performing areas among survey participants, with only three percent finding the cost of housing as either excellent or good. Respondents also had an overall poor view of the variety of housing options, with only 10 percent finding the variety of housing as either excellent or good.

This data points strongly to a desire in the City’s population for more types of, and more affordable, housing.

While the City of San Jose has recently pioneered the sale of ADUs in California, several large cities throughout the nation, including Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas have already had such programs in place for longer. Seattle has especially robust data on this topic. According to the City of Seattle’s Accessory Dwelling Units 2023 Annual Report, the share of ADUs that were developed into condominiums held steady at one to three percent of the total number of ADUs through 2016. However, starting in 2017, that number started to rise, and in 2022, 44 percent of ADU permits were for ADU condominiums.

Importantly, the report found that the median price of an ADU sold as a condominium in 2022 was $757,500, the associated primary dwelling sold for $1.18 million, and newer detached single-family homes sold for a median price of $1.6 million. Given the relatively comparable cost of housing in Seattle, these numbers may provide an approximation of the types of prices that ADU and primary dwelling condominiums could sell for in Santa Cruz.

When the price of the condominium and primary dwelling are combined, they exceed that of a typical single-family home, and this could suggest that this mechanism contributes an unknown amount to the upward pressure on housing prices. Regarding this larger amount, the data does not detail factors such as lot size (where a primary dwelling with a condo ADU may already be on a larger lot than a typical single-family home to better accommodate both units and thus be more expensive than the median to begin with). In any case, the Seattle data clearly shows that the price of an ADU condominium or a primary dwelling condominium alone are each substantially lower than a single-family home and provide new ownership housing options that are more affordable and attainable than single-family homes.

State Law Consistency
The proposed amendments ensure that the City’s ADU regulations continue to be consistent with state law. The proposal brings the regulations into alignment with state law changes made by SB 1211 and AB 2533 and incorporates feedback from HCD on their review of the recently approved, LCP-amending ADU ordinance. One change involves excluding statewide exemption ADUs from the City’s local amendments to the state energy code. Because this specific change needs to be submitted to the California Energy Commission for approval once adopted by City Council, a separate ordinance has been created for this amendment. The attached agenda report for the November 21, 2024 Planning Commission meeting includes a full discussion of these changes and the General Plan and Local Coastal Program consistency analysis for the proposed amendments.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission originally heard and recommended approval of the proposed amendments related to owner occupancy and separate sale of ADUs at the September 5, 2024 meeting. A discussion of their feedback can be found in the attached agenda report for the October 8, 2024 City Council meeting. At the November 21, 2024 Planning Commission

23.7 meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the other components of the proposed amendments that are needed to maintain compliance with state law. Commissioners specifically expressed support for exempting statewide exemption ADUs from the requirements of the energy reach code.

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. In addition, staff gave a presentation to the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors on August 23, 2024 to provide an overview of ADU regulations and potential modifications to the regulations. Staff gave another presentation to the Santa Cruz Women’s Council of Realtors on November 13, 2024 that included information on what had been approved in the initial ADU amendments and what is being considered in the follow-up amendments. Questions and comments from the attendees focused on the Residential Rental Inspection Service, the process for owner-occupancy requirements to be removed from deed restrictions, legalizing unpermitted ADUs, how the separate sale of ADUs would apply to SB 9 developments (both could be utilized on a lot, as long as both sets of regulations are adhered to), and what parking requirement would apply to ADU condominiums.

NEXT STEPS: Should the emergency ordinance be approved by City Council (needing a fivevote majority), the emergency ordinance would remain effective for up to 45 days, until January 24, 2025. Should the regular ordinance in this package that includes the same amendments as those in the emergency ordinance be approved by Council on December 10, 2024 and at a second reading on January 14, 2025, then they would be permanently in effect on February 13, 2025, after the 45 days runs out. Because this hearing was noticed, the emergency ordinance can be extended by Council vote up to a further 22 months and 15 days, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(b). Staff will request that the City Council extend the emergency ordinance at least one month until the regular ordinance can take effect. Should the LCP amending ordinance be approved by City Council at the December 10, 2024 hearing, it would come back for a second reading on January 14th, and if adopted on that date, it would be in effect outside the coastal zone 30 days after final adoption. The ordinance would be in effect within the coastal zone after Coastal Commission approval. Should the ordinance approving amendments to the energy code be approved at the December 10, 2024 hearing, it would come back for a second reading on January 14th, and if adopted on that date, it would be in effect after 30 days and after approval by the California Energy Commission.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: 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. The General Plan contemplates and encourages ADU development, for example in Land Use Policy LU3.8, in various Housing Element goals and objectives, and as further described in the attached November 21, 2024 Planning Commission staff report.

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

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: Proposed updates to clarify and streamline ADU regulations and to ensure continued consistency with state law may result in reduced staff time for permit application review, improving the efficiency of Planning services and thus reducing expenses. Creating a new option for mapping ADUs and their associated primary dwellings as condominiums may result in more permit applications that would generate additional revenue in the form of permit fees, though those fees are structured to cover staff costs associated with such reviews. Reduced permitting fees associated with not requiring a tentative parcel map approval for ADU condominium projects resulting in four or fewer condominium lots would decrease the potential revenue per project but could lower the barrier to obtaining permits, resulting in more permit applications and thus more revenue. Additional property tax revenue associated with new housing units would likely be counteracted by additional costs associated with providing services to the new residents.

Prepared By:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua
AICP Principal Planner
Submitted By:

Lee Butler, AICP, LEED AP
Director of Planning &
Community Development
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENTS - CLEAN.DOCX

2. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENTS - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

3. ORDINANCE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS, LCP - CLEAN.DOCX

4. ORDINANCE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS, LCP - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

5. ORDINANCE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS, NON-LCP - CLEAN.DOCX

6. ORDINANCE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS, NON-LCP - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

7. ORDINANCE FOR CHANGES TO ENERGY CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - CLEAN.DOCX

8. ORDINANCE FOR CHANGES TO ENERGY CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS - TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

23.9 9. AGENDA REPORT FROM SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.DOCX

10. AGENDA REPORT FROM OCTOBER 8, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.PDF

11. AGENDA REPORT FROM NOVEMBER 21, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.DOCX

23.10 23.11

23.12 23.13

23.14 23.15

23.16 23.17

23.18 23.19

23.20 23.21

23.22 23.23

23.24 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 01/04/2025
AGENDA OF: 01/14/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager/Parks and Recreation/Public Works/Economic Development and Housing
SUBJECT: Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Update and Wharf Business Recovery Recommendations (CM/PR/PW/EDH)
LOCATION: District 4
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Update on the partial wharf collapse on December 23, 2024;
2) Adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget in the amount of $155,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund to fund the wharf business recovery recommendations; and 3) Direct staff to implement the wharf business recovery recommendations.

BACKGROUND: On December 23, 2024, a historic swell event caused the collapse of approximately 180 feet of the end of the 2,700 foot Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf (Wharf). The portion of the wharf that collapsed had been undergoing repairs from the 2023-2024 storm seasons and was approximately 50 percent complete. While the end of Wharf that was under construction was closed to the public at the time of the incident and no one was seriously injured, out of an abundance of caution the wharf remained closed to the public from December 23, 2024 - January 3, 2025. During the closure, and with guidance from federal and state partners including the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and others, the City’s independent structural engineer Moffat & Nichol Engineering and construction contractor Power Engineering, evaluated marine debris hazards and the structural integrity of the Wharf as key steps in order to safely reopen to businesses and the community. The City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated immediately in response to the incident and the debris field caused by the partial Wharf collapse.

Following the initial incident response, the City began working on a wharf reopening plan, which outlined critical path actions necessary prior to reopening the Wharf and near and long-term actions related to Wharf operations and emergency preparedness and coordination (see Wharf Reopening Plan attachment).

DISCUSSION: The results of the initial structural assessment determined that the condition of the Wharf is sound, and the Wharf was reopened to the businesses and community Saturday morning, January 4, 2025. Operational changes including limiting vehicular traffic towards the end of the Wharf, delivery truck restrictions, and refuse removal modifications are recommended practices that City staff will be implementing for the foreseeable future. Specific to vehicle

24.1 traffic, a new circulation plan has been established for the Wharf including a vehicular turn around at the East Parking Lot and a pedestrian-only zone beyond the East Parking Lot. Please see Attachment 1 for the new wharf circulation plan. While the Wharf continues to operate in a modified format, refuse collection modifications including temporary use of a portion of the Cowell’s Beach Parking Lot and a smaller and lighter trash compactor vehicle will be implemented and will require additional resources to support.

Next Steps: Roadmap to Recovery
As a result of the damage to the Wharf and the economic losses, recovery will be a substantial undertaking, but significant work and efforts are currently underway. As climate change brings more intense storms coupled with rising sea levels, the City continues to face growing challenges that threaten Santa Cruz’s city-wide infrastructure, including the Wharf. The City is continually reinforcing Wharf infrastructure with preventative maintenance to withstand future storms while developing new thresholds for evaluating and evacuating the Wharf in response to specific weather conditions. While the Phase I structural analysis has been completed confirming the resiliency of the remaining Wharf infrastructure, a Phase II structural analysis will be completed in the months ahead which will guide future decision-making, potential operational changes and other structural improvements and options.

Cost Estimates: While the full cost impacts of the partial collapse of the Wharf cannot be fully determined at this time, significant costs have been incurred and comprehensive estimates are underway which include overall financial impacts and potential replacement estimates. To date, the City has encumbered approximately $480,000 in Wharf disaster related expenses since December 23, 2024. These costs are largely related to debris recovery efforts of over $400,000, an emergency structural assessment of $24,000, and emergency procurement related to disaster recovery and Wharf operational changes of $46,000. Costs to date do not include emergency response City employee staff costs or other recovery efforts that will continue over the weeks ahead. Long term refuse solutions (garbage, mix-recycling, cardboard, and food waste) are still being determined, but will require new equipment and/or staffing resources resulting in higher operational costs.

In addition to the direct emergency costs incurred above, the City has identified to date approximately $115,000 in costs and economic impacts to the City related to the partial Wharf collapse. Costs include approximately $24,000 in lost Wharf parking revenue, over $15,000 associated with 159 tons of wharf debris collection at the Resource and Recovery Center, lost wharf tenant lease revenue to the City over the closure period estimated at approximately $55,000-60,000, and approximately $15,000 for temporary refuse collection efforts through February 2025.

Actual lost business revenue from business closures from December 23, 20024-January 3, 2025 is currently being estimated with input from the wharf tenants and will be compared to actual sales receipts as a comparison over the year before of the same sales quarter. Current estimates indicate loss sales in excess of $800,000.

While any decisions on rebuilding the lost 180 feet of the Wharf will not be fully considered until after the full structural assessment is complete, early structural cost estimates for replacement are estimated in excess of $18 million.

24.2 Debris Removal and Clean Up: Debris removal will be a major multi-agency effort over the next few weeks. The initial assessment and sonar investigation determined that the heavy equipment including a crane that now resides on the seafloor poses no risk to the Wharf or health and human safety and coordination is underway to safely remove equipment in the weeks ahead.

Special equipment to extract the crane is being brought in from San Francisco Bay that is weather dependent on marine conditions to transit and safe harbor equipment. Staff is working quickly to remove all other debris, and communication and public safety announcements have been released to the community asking for compliance with all closure signs and requesting that the marine debris from the Wharf be reported to the City at the following link:
[email protected]. The community has also been asked to contact Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation at [email protected] or 831-420-5270 to report any found Wharf commemorations, memorial benches, or other wharf memorabilia.

Economic Recovery Efforts: Following the incident, staff worked closely with the EOC, structural engineers and agency partners to thoroughly assess the structural integrity of the wharf and surrounding marine area with a priority focus on safely reopening the wharf for businesses and the public as soon as possible. The Community Foundation released a donation link for the community to donate towards wharf disaster recovery through the Santa Cruz County Disaster Recovery Fund and, working with Community Bridges, quickly pulled together debit gift cards for impacted wharf employees most in need. Additional economic recovery efforts underway are as follows:
 Radio, Spotify and social media ads are running throughout the month of January promoting the Wharf, Wharf businesses and encouraging the community to come out to the Wharf to shop and dine.
 Free 2-hour parking throughout the month of January is being offered to the public to encourage visitors and the community to visit the Wharf.  Documentation of physical damages and economic losses are underway including the cost estimates of the partial wharf collapse and cost estimates of business-related impacts.  Supporting documentation is being submitted to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to qualify for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan Declaration that will enable all interested wharf businesses to apply for a 2.75-3.75% low-interest federally supported recovery loan. Technical assistance will be provided for interested wharf businesses.
 A survey was conducted of wharf businesses from January 6th-January 10th to help document business losses, assess economic recovery need and determine recommended recovery efforts including promotional events through February 2005. A summary of the survey results will be provided at the Council meeting on January 14th.

Wharf Business Recovery Recommendations: Based on estimated losses and overall business impacts, staff recommends the following Council actions:
1) Approval of free 2-hour parking on the Wharf to the public during the month of January.

The estimated cost to the City based on parking modeling is approximately $30,000. This cost will be partially offset by visitor trips to the wharf and increased tenant rent revenue (which is a percentage of sales).
2) Approval of recommended rent relief to include percentage sales only rent during the months of December and January for all wharf tenants. Many tenants have minimum monthly rents in addition to percentage sales. Allowing percentage-only rent based on

24.3 actual sales received provides economic relief for the period the Wharf was closed to the public. This would additionally eliminate any minimum rents due and rent payments not reflective of the mandatory closure period. Staff further recommends that all late fees and penalties for the months of December and January be waived. An initial estimate of cost to the City is approximately $40-50,000.
3) Funding up to $25,000 is recommended to fill any fundraising shortfalls in the program being provided through the combined efforts of Community Bridges and Community Foundation in providing additional assistance in the form of debit gift cards to impacted Wharf employees during the closure period.
4) Approval of $50,000 in promotional support to include radio, Spotify and other promotional efforts and events underway and being planned on the Wharf through February 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Accept the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Update on the partial wharf collapse on December 23, 2024, 2) Adopt a resolution to amend the FY 2025 budget in the amount of $155,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund to fund the wharf business recovery recommendations, and 3) Direct staff to implement the wharf business recovery recommendations.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action to accept the wharf update and authorize an economic relief package is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated by this Council action.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The Wharf recommendations support Health in all Policies (HiAP) as the economic recovery recommendations will support 20 wharf businesses and approximately 400 employees on the wharf. Specifically, the debit gift card funding is in alignment with the equity pillar in that it will help close the gap for employees meeting their basic needs and are focused on employees who earn 80% of area median income or below, assuring that Wharf employees most in need receive assistance. Overall economic assistance for wharf businesses will enable the businesses to continue to operate and keep their employees working despite the challenging impact of the closure of the wharf for almost two weeks between December 23, 2024-January 3, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: Yes

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The financial impact of the partial Wharf collapse on the General Fund and Enterprise Funds is not fully known at this time, but current documented costs to date of $580,000 have been incurred. Funding for these costs will include insurance and federal and state disaster relief. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a budget adjustment in an amount up to $155,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund to fund the Wharf economic recovery recommendations.

24.4 Prepared and Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development and Housing
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. WHARF REOPENING PLAN.PDF

2. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

24.5 Wharf Reopening Plan
Ensuring the safe access of city staff, businesses, and the general public in response to the partial collapse of the end of the Wharf on December 23, 2024 Primary Objectives
• First and foremost, ensure the structural stability and safety of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf prior to the return of local businesses and the general public • Maintain a safe operational environment for Wharf-based economic activity and coastal access
• Limit environmental impacts resulting from the partial collapse event on 12/23/24 Critical Tasks for a Safe Reopening
Task Status
To evaluate the location of large equipment and potential risk to the Wharf structure, Power Engineering will contract with the US Coast Guard to complete a sonar assessment of
seafloor near the Wharf.

Complete
Moffat and Nichol Engineering to complete the Phase I
structural assessment of the Wharf
Complete
Businesses and contractors permitted access to the Wharf; businesses will begin preparation for a soft reopening.

Complete
Soft reopening of the Wharf Complete
(1/4/2025)

24.6 Wharf Reopening Plan
Ensuring the safe access of city staff, businesses, and the general public in response to the partial collapse of the end of the Wharf on December 23, 2024 New Wharf Circulation Plan

24.7 Wharf Reopening Plan
Ensuring the safe access of city staff, businesses, and the general public in response to the partial collapse of the end of the Wharf on December 23, 2024 Roadmap to Recovery: Next Steps
2025 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Adjusted Business & Operations Plan: Review operational procedures in light of recommendations received from the Phase I Structural Assessment and implement improvements Extraction of Large Equipment: The City’s contractor will remove equipment and debris from the seafloor with
advisement from USCG and NOAA
Debris Clean-Up: City will lead regionwide debris clean-up in collaboration with federal, state, and local partners.

Wharf Evacuation Thresholds & Action Triggers: Interim
guidance for evacuating the Wharf in response to specific weather conditions will be developed and will include formal thresholds and action triggers
Phase II Structural Assessment: The City will work with its structural engineer to evaluate near-term options to address the damaged portion of the Wharf; will conduct any additional structural assessments necessary; and will develop plans for routine structural inspections for the future
Operational Improvements: The City will collaborate with regulatory agencies and local partners to identify opportunities to optimize wharf maintenance, construction, and operations Contacts
Project Contact: Tony Elliot, 831-420-5270, [email protected] Media Contact: Katie Lee, 831-420-5360, [email protected]

24.8 Wharf Reopening Plan
Ensuring the safe access of city staff, businesses, and the general public in response to the partial collapse of the end of the Wharf on December 23, 2024 Attachment A: Initial Structural Assessment
See next page.

24.9 MEMORANDUM
To: Norm Daly, City of Santa Cruz
From: Brad Porter, PE
Justin Estrada, EIT
Date: January 3, 2024
Subject: Santa Cruz Wharf Condition Assessment
M&N Job No.: 7416-11

1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the findings of the condition assessment of Santa Cruz Wharf (“the Wharf”) following the large wave event on December 23, 2024 that caused the collapse of 180 ft of the end of the Wharf (bent 171-183-see Figure 1). The primary focus is on the condition of the remaining 150 ft (bents 160-171) of the end of the Wharf (Figure 2). The assessment was performed on December 31, 2024 by boat, to observe the substructure (piles, caps, stringers) of the entire length of the wharf, and by walking below deck between bents 160 and 170. This was a follow on, more detailed, investigation than the one performed on December 23, 2024 immediately after the collapse of the end of the Wharf.

There were no observations of damage to the wharf structural capacity (out to Bent 168 ) from storm damage and the Wharf has the same strength that it did before the large wave event on December 23, 2024. Bents 169, 170, 171 do have some damage and should remain closed off.

Figure 1. Plan of Outer End of Santa Cruz Wharf

24.10 Santa Cruz Wharf Condition Assessment January 3, 2025 2 moffatt & nichol
Figure 2-Remaining End of Wharf-Bent 160-171

2. Background of Wharf Structure
Santa Cruz Wharf is a timber pier maintained by the City of Santa Cruz and located on the northern shore of Monterey Bay on the coast of California. This region has been subject to multiple severe storms in the past two years that have caused significant damage to the coastal elements of the region, particularly other piers in the area (e.g., Capitola Wharf and Seacliff Pier). The Wharf was constructed in 1914 and has undergone many repairs and improvements since. The Wharf is approximately 2,700 feet long and varies in width from 55 feet to 250 feet.

The Wharf is supported by Douglas fir, 14-inch diameter (nominal) piles that extend about 15 feet into the seafloor. The piles are nominally spaced at 7 feet on center and the caps are spaced at 15 feet on center.

The piles support timber cap beams (12x12), stringers (4x12, with some 6x12), and decking (3x12). The topside of the wharf has a nominal 2-inch-thick layer of asphalt for the road and parking areas. Some pedestrian walkways are constructed of concrete. The elevation of the wharf deck is approximately 23 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

3. Previous Damage and Reports
The Wharf has been damaged from wave events occurring in December 2023 and early 2024. Large wave events had caused several piles at the head of the Wharf to break, resulting in the deck deflecting at Bents 172 and 180. Previous observations of this damage at the end the Wharf structure were performed as follows:
• January 2, 2024 (Moffatt & Nichol “MN”, Site Visit Report) damage at bent 172,

24.11 Santa Cruz Wharf Condition Assessment January 3, 2025 3 moffatt & nichol
• April 23, 2024 (MN, Memorandum) damage at bent 180,
• December 25, 2024 (MN, Site Visit Report)-collapse bents 170-183 The Wharf was in the process of having the wave damage from 2023/early 2024 repaired when it collapsed on December 23 at around 12:45 pm (see report of Dec 25).

The portion that collapsed is about 15,000 SF or 4.5% of the total Wharf area.

4. Site Investigation
Engineers (Brad Porter, PE) were onsite observing the repairs in progress and observed the collapse of the end from bent 170-183. Immediately following the collapse observations were made of the top wharf structure (see report of Dec 25) at the end and along the length of the wharf for signs of additional damage to the remaining wharf: deflection (“sagging”), cracks opening, significant movement in the high wave climate.

Observation from a boat was not possible due to the high wave conditions. Observations were made from the fire hatches along the wharf that allow access below the deck to observe the substructure supporting the wharf (piles, caps, stringers). No signs of distress or damage that affected the structural capacity were observed.

As recommended in the December 25 report, an inspection of the Wharf was performed by boat on December 31, 2024 (Brad Porter PE, Justing Estrada EIT, Wharf staff). The primary focus of this above water inspection was to observe the condition of the outer end of the Wharf from where it collapsed at bent 171 (Figure 3) back to bent 160 (Figure 4). In addition to boat observations, close up observations were performed from the ledgers below deck from bent 160-171 (Figure 5). In addition, observations were made along the entire perimeter of the Wharf on the West and East sides to identify damage from the wave event (Figure 6).

Observations were made to identify among the following conditions that would indicate damage to the structure:

1. Tilting or out of plumb piles-indicating permanent yielding of the pile or wharf deck

2. Sags of deflection in the deck structure

3. Broken or severed piles above the water line

4. Piles moving or “swinging” indicating breakage below the water line

5. Pile separated from the top connection to the pile cap

6. Splits or large cracks in the structural members—piles, stringers and pile caps

7. Sounds of “creaking” or banging, indicating broken connections At bent 70 there was a pile cap that had partially rotated along with the supporting pile that had broken below the water surface. However it was the lower of 2 pile caps and the top pile cap still has solid bearing at the ends. This is not a significant defect as the top cap is sufficient to carry the load.

Findings:

Based upon the above observations:
1) There were no observations of damage to the wharf structural capacity from storm damage. The remaining Wharf (out to Bent 168 ) has the same strength that it did before the storm 2) Bents 169, 170, 171 do have some damage and should remain closed off

24.12 Santa Cruz Wharf Condition Assessment January 3, 2025 4 moffatt & nichol
Figure 3- End of Damaged Wharf Bent 171
Figure 4 Bents 164-167 Typical Condition

24.13 Santa Cruz Wharf Condition Assessment January 3, 2025 5 moffatt & nichol
Figure 5 Bent 165 View from Ledger-Typical Condition
Figure 6 Typical Condition Near Bent 70

24.14 City of Santa Cruz

BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO
)LVFDO<HDU

ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
255(9(18($&&28177,7/(
ACCOUNT 352-(&71$0(
LIDSSOLFDEOH
25EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TITLE
NET: $

REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD

APPROVAL

BUDGET/ACCOUNTING
5(9,(:('

FINANCE DIRECTOR

APPROVAL

CITYMANAGER

APPROVAL
5HVR

352-(&7
352-(&7
$02817
$02817
&RXQFLO$SSURYDO

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

TOTALREVENUE
'DWH

1VSQPTF
3FWJTFE
/PWFNCFS


 Clear Form
2025
01/14/2025
To fund Wharf business recovery programs initiated after the December 2023 partial collapse. 0 136-51-80-5590-52121 p512503-100-2020-0 Program Services Wharf Business Recovery Programs 155,000 155,000
-155,000
Kathryn
L. Mintz
Digitally signed by
Kathryn L. Mintz
Date: 2025.01.09
09:58:23 -08'00'
Bonnie
Lipscomb
Digitally signed by
Bonnie Lipscomb
Date: 2025.01.09
10:10:02 -08'00'
Emily
Burton
Digitally signed
by Emily Burton
Date: 2025.01.09
10:43:48 -08'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by
Elizabeth Cabell
Date: 2025.01.09
10:54:19 -08'00' 24.15
Brittany Inclan
From: david emery <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 2:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Santa Cruz wharf
Sent from my iPhone
You should think about putting a wedge at the end of the pier to divert the big waves that will be coming in the near future

24.16 Brittany Inclan
From: Jim MacKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 2:32 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council; Matt Huffaker; Scott Newsome; Economic Development; Parks and Rec; Recreation Events; City Plan
Subject: Santa Cruz City Council meeting, January 14, 2025, Agenda Item #24: Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Update and Wharf Business Recovery Recommendations (CM/PR/PW/EDH)
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
Like so many residents of Santa Cruz, I was deeply saddened by the collapse of the end of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf on December 23, 2024. As the City Council, advisory bodies, city administrators and staff, and business and community stakeholders begin the task of envisioning the Wharf's immediate and long-term future, I look forward to the formulation of plans that will include a greater recognition and contextual understanding of the Wharf’s true history and original physical configuration.

As the city moves forward in its planning for the end of the Wharf, it seems that there are at least three basic factors to consider:
• Whether to restore the Wharf’s bayward end to its original dimensions and profile, to pursue a different design altogether, or to simply shore up and stabilize what remains of the structure, post-collapse; • Whether, either in repairing or reconstructing the end of the Wharf, to continue using wood pilings as structural support elements, or elect to use a more contemporary and longer-lasting material like steel-reinforced marine concrete;
• If the end of the Wharf is to be restored to its original dimensions and profile, whether or not to construct any buildings at the end of the Wharf and, if so, what kind of building(s).

If the City determines that restoration of the end of the Wharf to its original dimensions and profile is both desireable and feasible, I strongly recommend restoration of the “Landmark Building” to the Master Plan — especially if much longer-lasting concrete pilings are chosen to support the Wharf’s reconstructed bayward end. The large Municipal Wharf Warehouse, which stood at the end of the Wharf for the first 46 years of its history, was an integral, inseparable part of the Wharf’s original 1914 design. To not recognize this fact is to ignore that history. Regarding the 1914 warehouse building, the inspiration for the Landmark Building, page 5 of the 2014 Wharf Master Plan Report states the following:
"This building was significant, from a historic point of view, because it gave physical expression to the environmental conditions that made deepwater maritime functions possible and that contributed to the configuration of the end of the Wharf to optimize berthing [of marine vessels] relative to wind and wave conditions. The restoration of this building would re-establish a strong visual terminus to the Wharf, would provide an icon tied to its maritime traditions, and create opportunities for activities that would make the end of the Wharf a more significant destination.” It is ironic to me that the Landmark Building — the only one of three 40-foot-tall buildings proposed in the Master Plan to specifically evoke and honor the memory, in physical form, of the original Wharf — was eliminated from the plan.

Doubly ironic is the fact that, were it not for the forced demolition of the original 1914 warehouse in 1960, there would have been no “sea lion viewing holes” — the potential loss of which was perhaps the biggest bone of contention in the "Don’t Morph the Wharf!” lawsuit against the city — nor a Dolphin restaurant.

WHY THE ORIGINAL WHARF WAREHOUSE BUILDING WAS REMOVED AND WHAT REPLACED IT

24.17 In 1960, the Municipal Wharf Warehouse had to be removed from the end of the Wharf in order to replace missing and failed pilings beneath it (the same reason the Dolphin restaurant had to be removed). When the city couldn’t afford to rebuild the warehouse, let alone replace the missing and damaged pilings that had been under it, a state agency, the Wildlife Conservation Board, agreed to provide funding to replace the pilings (but not to rebuild the warehouse) ONLY IF the city agreed to turn the end of the Wharf into a state-sponsored recreational fishing area, the use of which would be free to the public. The city accepted the funding and developed a plan for this area that included eleven “fishing wells” for kids and other inexperienced anglers (a number of the remaining original 1960 fishing wells morphed into what became known as “seal lion viewing holes”). A building containing a bait shop, snack bar, and restrooms was also included in the plan for the fishing area. A number of years later, this building became the Dolphin restaurant, which, as I already pointed out, had the same fate, for the same reason, as the lost Municipal Wharf Warehouse.

As we all know, when the end of the Wharf collapsed on December 23, both the "sea lion viewing holes” and Dolphin were lost. Because neither of these elements were present during the Wharf’s period of historic significance — 1914 through maybe WWII — their complete loss offers a “blank slate” to the city, whether it is determined that the end of the Wharf should be restored to its original dimensions or redesigned entirely. If it is determined that restoration of the end of the Wharf is the desirable outcome of future planning, both from an economic and a historical perspective, it would make sense to reconsider retaining the Landmark Building as an integral part of that restoration.

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A DECISION TO MAINTAIN THE LANDMARK BUILDING A wide variety of photographs exist of the original 1914 Municipal Wharf Warehouse, taken from many different angles, distances, and perspectives during numerous different periods of its 46-year history (I have included a few examples from the UC Santa Cruz library's historical photo collection). As the city considers the future of the Wharf, moving forward, these photographs can provide a compelling body of historic evidence to substantiate a decision to restore the Landmark Building to the Master Plan, with a design that echoes both the design and scale of the 1914 warehouse in its original location at the end of the Wharf. As is shown in a diagram on page — of the revised (October 2023) Wharf Master Plan, it would be quite possible to include in this scenario some sea lion viewing opportunities from the Wharf’s deck — or, possibly, from other, perhaps superior, vantage points elsewhere within the future Wharf’s physical structure.

THE LANDMARK BUILDING AS AN ONGOING SOURCE OF REVENUE TO SUPPORT THE WHARF A number of years ago at UC Santa Cruz, the historic Cowell Ranch Hay Barn, which had been sitting in ruin for decades, was reconstructed and restored to something very close to its original design. This was made possible largely through a substantial monetary donation from the family of an alumni couple. Since then, the Hay Barn has become an extremely popular venue for weddings and other celebrations, lectures, dances, performances, public meetings, etc. I could see a historically referenced “Landmark Building” at the end of the Wharf serving similar purposes — only in a much more spectacular setting. FYI, the current rental rate to hold a wedding in the Hay Barn is $6,500. I’m certain that the city’s Economic Development and Parks and Rec staff would make every effort to ensure that this facility, as well as the Events Pavilion, also envisioned in the Master Plan, would be booked year-round.

24.18 Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf Warehouse, circa 1930
Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, circa 1950s (with Wharf Warehouse at lower left)

24.19 Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, circa 1925-35 (with Wharf Warehouse at top, center) 1940s surfing photo with Municipal Wharf and Wharf Warehouse in background

24.20 Brittany Inclan
From: Renee Flower <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 3:22 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council; Matt Huffaker; Scott Newsome; Parks and Rec; City Plan; Economic Development; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Cc: David McCormic
Subject: Agenda item #24, City Council Agenda, Regular Meeting, January 14, 2025 Re: Agenda item #24, City Council Agenda, Regular Meeting, January 14, 2025.

To: Mayor Keeley, Members of the Santa Cruz City Council, and others:

The collapse of the seaward end of the wharf in December 2024 is distressing and unfortunate. In many ways it is a reprise of the events of 1960, but this time the consequences of deferred maintenance are much worse.

In 1960, when the end of the wharf was near the point of collapse, about 45 years had elapsed since the original construction of the wharf in 1914. In December 2024, about 64 years had elapsed since the reconstruction of the end of the wharf in 1960. In both instances, buildings on the wharf were removed to facilitate replacement of pilings.

Prior to the construction of the wharf in 1914, there were discussions in the city about building a reinforced concrete wharf. Beginning around 1910, many wharf supporters in the city favored the construction of a modern reinforced concrete wharf. The Portland Cement Company was deeply engaged in planning for this project.

Newspaper articles and op-eds published between 1910 and 1912 document this important prehistory of the city’s municipal wharf.

Here are two examples that reveal the proposal for a wharf constructed from concrete:

Santa Cruz Sentinel
Volume 57, Number 264
November 11, 1911
• “The new Santa Cruz wharf, which is to rest on concrete piers, to be constructed by the Santa Cruz Portland Cement Co., will probably be 3000 feet long and end in 30 feet of water. From the council the franchise goes to the voters for adoption or rejection. The city charter provides for a maximum life of 35 years.” Source: https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19111111.1.2
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Volume 57, Number 300
December 24, 1911
• “Tuesday next the wharf franchise is to be sold, and there seems to be no question of the sale. In our minds a 3000 feet wharf, resting on reenforced concrete piers, looks good. Then figure out the train of events that is to follow!”
Source: https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19111224.1.4
In December 1913, a wharf committee, appointed by the city’s mayor, submitted a report to the city on its findings.

The report is published, in part, in the Santa Cruz Evening News (December 1913). The report explains why the committee recommended a wooden wharf instead of a concrete wharf.

The version of the report published in the newspaper refers to a full report submitted to the city that included

24.21 letters from various individuals, as well as to blueprints for the construction of the wharf. Mr. Brunnier, credited with designing the wharf, was one of the many experts that contributed to the committee’s evaluation and recommendations.

Do the city’s archives still contain the full 1913 wharf committee report and blueprints for a wooden wharf? Also, given advances in marine structural engineering and materials, along with the documented prehistory of the wharf (originally proposed to be built with steel reinforced concrete), would the city consider reconstructing the historic seaward end of the wharf using concrete pilings? Would concrete pilings last longer and better withstand future storms and rising sea levels?
Also, I am strongly in favor of revisiting the plans to reconstruct the tragically lost original municipal wharf warehouse, which was an essential element of the wharf when it opened in 1914. Even a smaller version of the warehouse would honor and respect the full historic significance and original purpose of the wharf.

I arrived in Santa Cruz in 1973, about 13 years after the Municipal Wharf Warehouse was demolished in 1960. I didn’t know anything about the existence of the wharf warehouse until 2023, when I looked closely at the history of the city’s wharf. In discussions about the future of the wharf, please consider restoring the end of the wharf and reconstructing the historic warehouse (even a smaller version would be preferable to restoring the small scale 1960s snack bar and bait shop, which are artifacts of tragedy).

Sincerely,
Renée Flower
Santa Cruz
—————————————
Notes:

The original wharf warehouse, an essential element of Mr. Brunnier's 1914 wharf design, was demolished in 1960 only because it was not possible to operate a pile driver inside of the warehouse to replace the missing and rotten wharf pilings underneath. This aspect of the wharf's history is well documented in the comments that I submitted to the recirculated Wharf Master Plan DEIR in May 2023. See letter #5, beginning on page 4-80 and through page 4- 100, in this city document:
“Final Environmental Impact Report Volume 2 Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan” Link to document:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/95646/638291157610870000 --------
Excerpts from December 1913 wharf committee report:

Santa Cruz Evening News
Volume 12, Number 140
October 15, 1913
Article title: “Council Listens to Report of Findings of Municipal Commission” Links to newspaper pages (California Digital Newspaper Collection at UC Riverside):

Excerpt from pages 6-7:
• “This committee is under great obligations to the Santa Cruz Portland Cement company, who have kindly furnished us with the data concerning the feasibility of the construction of a pier in Santa Cruz harbor, which they secured some time ago at considerable expense. These gentlemen have done everything in their power to aid and

24.22 assist this committee and the information secured from them has been exceedingly valuable, as well as a great saving to the city. This committee is also under obligations to Mr. H. J. Brunnier, consulting engineer of San Francisco; The Commonwealth Engineering Co. of Oakland; Mr. Jerome Newman, state engineer of the San Francisco board of harbor commissioners; Mr. C. Stowell Smith, assistant district forester of the U. S. department of agriculture; The International clay products bureau; Mr. Guy Boschke, consulting engineer; Lt. Col. Thos. H.

Rees, of the U. S. engineers in charge of harbor work in this district, and Mr. Homer Hamlin, city engineer of the department of public works of Los Angeles; and Hon. U. S. Webb, attorney-general of San Francisco, and Mr. W. R.

Wheeler, manager of the traffic bureau of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.” Excerpts from page 6:
• “The attention of this committee was first directed to the concrete type of pier. The piers of this kind are built of concrete piles, with concrete cross-beams, and reinforced with steel. We secured the opinions of several competent engineers, among them the state engineer for the San Francisco board of harbor commissioners, as well as several government officials engaged in this branch of work. These men have either built or kept under close observation every pier of this type that has been built in the United States and Europe. They nearly all admit that as yet this type of construction is an experiment.” • “There has been no concrete pier built for any reasonable distance out into the sea that has been standing long enough to determine how it will withstand the action of salt water. Quite a number of piers of this type have proven a failure and the loss has been immense. Some of the concrete docks in San Francisco bay built under the supervision of competent men are now crumbling, and will be a costly failure.” • “There has been no concrete pier built for any reasonable distance out into the sea that has been standing long enough to determine how it will withstand the action of salt water. Quite a number of piers of this type have proven a failure and the loss has been immense. Some of the concrete docks in San Francisco bay built under the supervision of competent men are now crumbling, and will be a costly failure.” • “The engineers who so kindly assisted us, acting on the suggestion of the entire committee, drew plans and gave estimates on a pier of the following dimensions; the total length to be 2756 feet from the mean tide line, the first 825 feet at shore end to have a width of forty-two feet, which would accommodate a railroad track, a double driveway for vehicles and a wide esplanade for pedestrians, the middle 1431 feet to be thirty feet wide, to accommodate track and driveway which could also be used for foot passengers; the outer end of 500 feet to be eighty feet wide to make room for the main track as well as a spur and a warehouse of forty-six by 405 feet. The depth of water at low tide at the docking end of this pier would be thirty feet. The engineers estimate on a concrete pier of these dimensions was $350,000.”
• “Owing to the many unexplained failures of this type of construction it seemed unwise to expend such a large sum of money on a pier of this character taking as well into consideration the advisability of investing as small a capital as possible until a revenue has been created which will provide remunerative return on the investment. We have visited personally a number of the piers on the Pacific coast; namely, at San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Monica, Redondo, San Diego, etc.. and all points on Monterey bay. Through the courtesy of Mr. Guy Boschke of San Francisco we have had the use of a valuable expert engineer's report on nearly every pier on the California coast, as well as many photographs covering the same. We have taken into consideration every patent as to pile protection as well as the stability of the different kinds of wood, and have personally examined many now in use and our exhaustive investigation coincides with the report of Mr. Jerome Newman, state engineer of the board of harbor commissioners of San Francisco, that the creosoted pile type is the best pier for Santa Cruz harbor.” ----------------------------
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Volume 104, Number 57
March 8, 1960

Source (California Digital Newspaper Collection at UC Riverside):

24.23 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19600308.1.5
Title: “SAVE THE WHARF”
Excerpts:
• “We, the undersigned Santa Cruz Municipal Pier lessees, are naturally concerned over the future and disposition of the wharf. We have had many inquiries from interested people locally and nation-wide. We hereby submit a few of the facts and viewpoints relative to this vital issue. […] (3) It is our conviction that the wharf end is anchor for the rest. If outer end is no good, neither is the rest because it is older. The City Council, City Manager have never seen or been given concrete estimate on destruction of wharf's end or its rehabilitation. Has the City Council any figures from a competent underwater engineering firm? Regarding Henry Brunnier's visit: No Survey of new construction was made to our knowledge. A goodly number of new piles have been put into the wharf since the initial construction. Brunnier rode out on the wharf, took a boat ride with group of local officials. His only comment made public was that wharf has outlived its time 20 years. It originally had been designed to last only 25 years. Henry Brunnier was the original designer of the wharf. A few weeks after Brunnier's visit, the end of the wharf was closed to fishermen. At the time the end was roped off, City Hall issued a statement to the effect that Brunnier had declared it structurally unsafe in its present condition.” —————————————
Santa Cruz Wharf Master Plan Draft EIR, 2020, Appendix F March 2020
APPENDIX F: The Historical Resources Reviews
(Note: This document identifies 1914 as the era of historic significance for the wharf.) Excerpt:
memorandum
santa cruz wharf master plan

09.26.2017
To: Stephanie Strelow, Dudek
From: Bridget Maley, Principal, architecture + history, llc Date: September 26, 2017
Excerpt from “memorandum” (page 10):
• “Historically, there was a large, double-height interior warehouse at the south end of the Wharf, as evidenced in historic photographs reproduced in Geoffrey Dunn’s Santa Cruz Wharf, including on pages 63-67, 96, 101, 108.

This building was removed in the late 1950s, but is the model and inspiration for the proposed Landmark Building (further discussed below).”
————————
This photograph, which shows the interior of the original wharf warehouse (1914), appears on page 64 of Geoffrey Dunn’s book, "Santa Cruz Wharf.” The photo caption in the book indicates that the photo is part of the city’s archives. I wrote the city and asked for a copy of the photo, but the photo could not be found. After I contacted his publisher, Geoffrey Dunn graciously sent me a digital copy of the photo.

24.24 —————————————————
Here is another photo of the wharf shot in 1960 that Geoffrey Dunn sent to me. This photo is not published in his book about the wharf, but it is likely in the city’s photo collection. The photo shows the end of the wharf after the warehouse building was removed in 1960. The footprint of the former warehouse is clearly visible. Please note that the warehouse walls were a long distance from the edges of the wharf where people once fished.

24.25 Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 11:25 AM
To: Brittany Inclan
Subject: FW: Santa Cruz Wharf, Item #24 City Council Meeting of January 14, 2025 Bonnie Bush
City Clerk - City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.

From: Elise Casby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 4:51 PM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <[email protected]>; Renee Golder <[email protected]>; Susie O'Hara <[email protected]>; Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>; Scott Newsome <[email protected]>; Gabriela Trigueiro <[email protected]>; Tony Elliot <[email protected]>; Parks and Rec <[email protected]>; City Plan <[email protected]>; Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; City Plan <[email protected]>; Bonnie Lipscomb <[email protected]> Cc: Elise Casby <[email protected]>; Marv Lewis <[email protected]> Subject: Santa Cruz Wharf, Item #24 City Council Meeting of January 14, 2025 ****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.****
To: Mayor Fred Keeley and Council Members
From: "Elise Casby" <[email protected]>
To: Mayor Fred Keeley and Council Members, Tess Fitzgerald and City Planning, Matt Huffaker, Tony Elliott, City of Santa Cruz, Parks and Recreation Department, Bonnie Bush, Economic Development Department and Bonnie Lipscomb,
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025

24.26 Dear Mayor Keeley, Council Members, and Other Department Leaders in the City of Santa Cruz, California, and the Santa Cruz public,
The giant swells that the wharf was impacted by in December of 2024 were not the only, or even the main reason that the 150 feet of wharf was destroyed last year.

Clearly, a lack of maintenance on the part of the City of Santa Cruz was another cause, and probably the main cause for the disintegration of the wharf. Several local media outlets have investigated and reported on this.

As several media outlets have reported, essential maintenance of the wharf was not accomplished, simply did not happen as it should have happened, for years and years, as it would have, if the wharf had been responsibly maintained by the City of Santa Cruz.

It was the duty of the City of Santa Cruz to maintain the wharf, and to make sure it would withstand increasingly stronger and more forceful swells like those that happened in December of 2024.

The city has engaged in attempting to blame the forceful swells, activists, and even seagulls and seals for this preventable destruction of this public asset.

However, it was the city's responsibility and the city must hold itself accountable and stop shifting blame to others.

This is the only way to start afresh and to really satisfy the public's need for a better, repaired and newer future wharf here in Santa Cruz, California.

I am urging that you, Mayor Keeley and all the Council Members, to please call for an investigation into the exact and scientific reasons and a robust evidence-based analysis for the failure of the maintenance of the wharf.

All other causes, such as historical failures of the management of the wharf maintenance must be investigated, in order to inform the public about the true, and evidence-based reasons that this public asset was destroyed.

I am disappointed and rather disgusted that certain parties are being blamed, rather cynically.

Activists who won the CEQA ruling are being blamed by former supervisors of the city's wharf and that alerts me as a red flag that we need an investigation into the real true causes for the wharf's destruction in December.

Please do not only promote certain causes, such as the swells, and please do not cover over the truth about the causes for the destruction of the wharf this past December.

The public deserves a transparent, public investigation by an independent party of the City of Santa Cruz's destroyed wharf, and into the causes for it's destruction in order to reveal the truth about the wharf's destruction this past December, 2024.

We the public have a right to know.

This kind of transparency will result in a much more clear and better future for our future wharf for all of us citizens here in Santa Cruz.

24.27 We will then be able to proceed to make sure we design, rebuild and maintain our future wharf with really positive, clear and better structures not only of the actual wharf but of the city's management of the wharf as well.

Thank you very sincerely for considering my letter to you all and my proposal.

Sincerely,
Elise Casby
[email protected]

24.28 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/20/2024
AGENDA OF: 01/14/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: City Council Measure Z Ad Hoc Committee (CN)
LOCATION: None
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to create a City Council ad hoc committee to recommend an implementation process for Measure Z, the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax and bring back to the council their recommendations for future council approval.

BACKGROUND: On November 5, 2025, the City of Santa Cruz voters approved Measure Z, an unrestricted general purpose tax measure of two cents per fluid ounce on distributors of sugar sweetened beverages. The Measure also includes the formation of a Community Oversight Panel comprised of 7 community members to transmit an annual report and make recommendations to the City Council on the usage of the funds generated by the Measure.

The goal of the measure is to improve community health and support investments that advance community health and wellness in the City of Santa Cruz. Future proceeds from this general tax will support the City’s ability to maintain funding for community-based and safety net services.

DISCUSSION: Following the recent voter approval of Measure Z, Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson, and Councilmember Brunner requested that the City Council form an ad hoc committee to create a detailed plan outlining necessary actions, timelines and resource allocation to implement Measure Z. The ad hoc committee will develop the structure of the oversight committee outlined in Measure Z, as detailed below. They will also be tasked with drafting bylaws and collaborating with the finance department to establish collection procedures.

Measure Z will take effect on May 1, 2025.

As specified in Resolution NS-30,360, the Community Oversight Panel shall be comprised of 7 members in total. The Parks & Recreation Commission may select one person to be a part of the Community Oversight Panel, and the Council may select one City Councilmember to be a part of the Community Oversight Panel. The remaining members shall be recommended by the City Manager’s Office and ratified by the City Council, and shall, to the greatest extent possible, be comprised of community members representing categories that include: healthcare, dental, and/or wellness professional(s); representative(s) from the education industry; and representative(s) from youth organization(s), and low income/BIPOC.

The new ad hoc committee will present its implementation plan and recommendations to the City Council in March.

25.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA because it does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): Measure Z aligns with the Health in All Policies principles by addressing health and equity issues. Children and minority populations are disproportionately affected by the negative health effects associated with the consumption of sugary beverages. By taking measures to reduce sugary beverage consumption, and invest in health initiatives, this Measure will help address health inequities, promote healthier habits and improve the well-being of vulnerable populations. Additionally, Measure Z is in alignment with community values and ensures that programs will be funded that address and promote long-term health and well-being consistent with HiAP’s goal of embedding health considerations into policymaking across all sectors.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: There is no fiscal impact by creating an ad hoc committee.

Submitted By:

Fred Keeley
Mayor
Submitted By:

Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Vice Mayor
Submitted By:

Sonja Brunner
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,360, ADOPTED JUNE 25, 2024.PDF

25.2 25.3

25.4 25.5

25.6 25.7

25.8 25.9

25.10 25.11

25.12 25.13

25.14 25.15

25.16 25.17
Brittany Inclan
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2025 12:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Council Agenda Item 25
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

Regarding use of anticipated Measure Z funds, language in this paragraph in the agenda item Background seems very vague:

The goal of the measure is to improve community health and support investments that advance community health and wellness in the City of Santa Cruz. Future proceeds from this general tax will support the City’s ability to maintain funding for community-based and safety net services.

What services might be included in this? If the intention of taxing sugary beverages is to reduce consumption and educate people to make better choices, and to provide opportunities for residents to partake in programs that provide opportunities for physical exercise, those seem to comply with the intention of the tax. I can see something like subsidized Parks & Rec classes falling into this category for all city residents, not just a specific demographic. We're all paying the tax!
But what are the "safety net services"?
I would appreciate hearing answers from the council members who will serve on the Measure Z advisory committee.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

25.18 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 12/23/2024
AGENDA OF: 01/14/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Communitywide Climate Action Plan 2030 – Year 2 Progress Report Update (CM)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept Progress Report Update and Proposed 2025 Citywide Workplan; and 2) Approve the bylaws for the new Sustainability and Resiliency Committee.

BACKGROUND: The Communitywide Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030), accessed at www.cityofsantacruz.com/climateactionplan, was adopted in September 2022 after nearly 2 years of community engagement, technical analysis and plan development. The CAP 2030 includes both a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) qualified emissions target that is consistent with the State target for 2030 and is deemed reasonable and achievable: a 40% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. The CAP 2030 also recognizes scientific consensus around the need to accelerate beyond the State target and sets an aspirational voluntary target of carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2035. The cost of inaction on climate change in the community is estimated to cost the City at least $25 million annually in the form of adverse impacts to health, infrastructure and the economy.

Table 1 summarizes historical mass community-wide and average per capita (i.e., per person) emissions (in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent [MT CO2e]) as they relate to the 2030 and 2035 emissions targets. The emissions inventories consider only the sectors regulated by the State’s scoping plan. For 2022, overall emissions increased slightly (4.4%). 72% of emissions were from transportation and mobile services such as landscaping, construction equipment (up 3% since 2019), 22% was due to energy use (down 2% from 2019), and 5% attributable to solid waste (down 2% from 2019). It is difficult to determine the cause of changes between 2019 and 2022 emissions output. However, staff presumes that emissions trajectories in 2022 were impacted by the COVID pandemic as is reflected in shifts in all transportation commute mode shares (i.e., since telecommuting increased substantially, all other mode shares decreased).

26.1 Table 1. Mass and Per Capita Historical Emissions and Targets Year Mass Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Per Capita Emission
(MT CO2e)
1990 302,319 6.08
2005 355,669 5.53
2019 274,584 4.22
2022 286,674 4.67
2030 – target 181,391 2.74 CEQA 2030 target

1.32 Carbon Neutral 2035
aspirational target
2035 – target 0 0
It is also important to note that a 2.74 MT CO2e per capita emission reduction target by 2030 is the minimum the community must achieve for CEQA target compliance. The community must go beyond this per capita emissions reduction by 2030 to achieve the aspirational carbon neutrality target in 2035. Considering only emissions from the State Scoping Plan sectors, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035, per capita emissions must be reduced to 1.32 MT CO2e by 2030. As called for by Action W-2, the City was able to complete a consumption-based and supply chain emissions inventory to better characterize the per capita emissions impact of other sectors and activities not regulated by the State scoping plan. This inventory included producing, transporting, using, and disposing of products and services including food. As such, it was found that under this methodology, per capita emissions are about 15.7 MT CO2e, nearly 3.5 times the per capita emissions from the 2022 regulated State Scoping Plan activities alone.

The CAP 2030 contains 31 measures and 152 actions – the programs, policies and projects - to meet the targets and address non-State Scoping Plan sectors, listed by type in Table 2. When considering the cumulative impact of state legislation and implementation of the CAP 2030 measures, the emissions reductions quantified meet the 2030 per capita and mass emissions reduction targets. It is important to highlight that emissions reductions were quantified for those measures that address sectors contained in the California Scoping Plan and where a legally justifiable methodology to determine emissions reductions exists. Some measures are also considered “supportive” meaning that when implemented, they contribute to the success of achieving the quantifiable emissions reduction measures. Those measures that are “supportive” may or may not address a State Scoping Plan sector and may or may not have a means to estimate emissions reduction potential. But, for CEQA purposes, the legal defensibility of those measures is not strong and thus not included in quantification. As data becomes available and more robust methods to estimate the emissions reduction potential of measures outside the State Scoping Plan are established, the City will complete further quantification work.

Table 2. At a Glance: CAP 2030 Measures and Actions
Measure Type No. Measures No. Actions
Sustainable Government 9 43
Climate Mitigation
-Building Energy
-Transportation
-Water, Waste, Wastewater
17 90
Climate Economy 2 4
Climate Restoration 3 15
Total 31 152

26.2 At the time of adoption of the CAP 2030, the Council also adopted a 3-year Implementation Workplan for the City to carry out. Each City department, the City’s internal Sustainability Team and the external Climate Action Task Force also developed 1-year workplans, tiered from the overall citywide workplan, carried out over calendar year 2024. The Climate Action Task Force also met bimonthly and advised staff on key sustainability and resiliency initiatives.

Additionally, the Health in All Policies (HiAP) City Council committee is also apprised and provides input on sustainability initiatives as sustainability is one of the three HiAP pillars with the others being equity and public health. In 2024, the Climate Action Program staff included the Sustainability and Resiliency Officer, one management analyst, a new shared community relations specialist and two interns.

To advise partners and residents to take actions to make maximum impact in reducing emissions, the CAP 2030 identifies the most impactful actions residents can take and encourages residents to commit to actions in the Resilient Santa Cruz community activation platform (https://resilientsantacruzcounty.org/santacruz). The Resilient Santa Cruz platform is part of the Resilient Central Coast campaign, with 12 cities and counties in the Central Coast utilizing the platform and its consistent messaging and outreach. Resilient Santa Cruz platform was selected after a regional assessment by climate practitioners of available activation tools. In addition to the outreach campaign being conducted by Resilient Central Coast’s operational partner, Ecology Action, new funding is committed to expand community engagement on the platform, a key activity needed to optimize use of the platform across the City beyond the 543 households currently utilizing the platform (>1/2 of the goal of 1,000 households).

DISCUSSION: The annual progress update includes 4 sets of performance indicators (as specified by the CAP 2030 or directed by prior Councils): (1) progress toward achieving the adopted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target for 2030; (2) progress on each 3-Year Implementation Workplan activities; (3) progress relative to peer jurisdictions, and (4) funding status.

In sum, in terms of GHG emissions reductions, it is too early to know the impact of the CAP 2030 3-Year Implementation Workplan on the emissions trajectory. Progress on the activities modeled to reach the emissions reduction target for 2030 is mixed. This is due to the fact that while several activities were initiated, many have not been fully implemented in the modeled timeframe. Lags and availability of data also hamper quantitative reporting of the progress on the activities modeled to reach the emissions reduction target for 2030. To the City’s credit, every activity in the 3-Year Implementation Workplan has been started, is ongoing or has been completed. Overall, the City remains a national leader in its climate action work and, relative to other jurisdictions, the City is fairly well resourced to address climate change. Progress in each performance indicator area is described in fuller detail as follows.

Performance Indicator 1: Progress toward achieving the adopted GHG emissions target for 2030 Specifically, the CAP 2030 activities that contribute to achievement of the CAP 2030 targets are tracked both quantitatively and qualitatively. There are 16 quantitative activities being tracked that, when completed, will ensure the City meets its 2030 CEQA target. These activities and progress made on each are included in Attachment: Progress on Quantitative Measures and Actions to Reach CAP 2030 Target. The City has achieved over 50% progress on five of the 16 measures and actions since the CAP 2030 adoption in 2022. Eleven of the 16 activities are high impact activities, those that have the largest impact on emissions reductions, which are denoted by an asterisk (*). High impact activities include choosing renewable electricity from Central

26.3 Coast Community Energy, reducing air travel, eating more plant-based meals, taking public transportation, buying or leasing an electric vehicle, electrifying: installing electric heat pump water heater or space heating, using active transportation: bike, walk, skateboard, or scooter, and installing solar panels.

Successful achievement of the quantifiable CAP 2030 activities is modeled to reach the 2030 emissions target. To track emissions targets, the CAP 2030 calls for the City to prepare a GHG emissions inventory every 3 years. The calendar year 2022 inventory was prepared by staff in 2024. However, only 2 years into CAP 2030 implementation, measure achievement and emissions reductions from these combined efforts are difficult to quantify across all measures.

The transition from planning to implementation of carbon reducing projects and lag in data availability prevents thorough and accurate accounting. For example, the City’s newest citywide emissions inventory for 2022 is the same year the CAP 2030 was adopted and thus comparing to the 2019 inventory does not provide an indication of how CAP 2030 implementation is going.

Performance Indicator 2: Progress on each 3-Year Implementation Workplan activities Qualitatively. Table 3 includes the implementation year and status of each of the projects and initiatives contained in the adopted CAP 2030 3-year Implementation Workplan. The 3-year Implementation Workplan includes planning and implementation, organizational change and accountability related projects, policies and initiatives. The City has made substantial progress on the adopted CAP 2030 3-year Implementation Workplan, having started and/or completed each of the 16 activities to be completed by the end of FY26. In addition to the formal workplan, there were many other actions and activities that were addressed in 2024 as described in the Attachment: Other CAP 2030 Actions and Activities Update.

Table 3. Three-Year CAP 2030 Implementation Workplan Status Year to be
Project/ Implemented
Initiative
FY
23 FY
24 FY
25 FY
26 Status
Responsible
Department
*Implement fossil fuel
divestment policy •
In progress FN
*Completion of Active
Transportation Plan •
Grant funds secured; to
be completed in early
2026
PW
*Fleet Electrification Master
Plan •
Complete. Substantial
fleet electrification and
charging infrastructure
planned/installed
PW
Update food waste to energy
feasibility and design
facilities
•
Will begin end of 2025
as part of overall WWTF
master planning
PW
*Adopt equitable
electrification ordinance/
programs for existing
residential and commercial
buildings by 2024
• • •
Partially Complete. CMO, PL

26.4 Integrate CAP into Master
Investment Strategy,
Financial Plan Development,
Master Fee and Cost
Evaluation Study
• •
Partially completed FN, CMO
Evaluate state compost
application requirement and
obtain funding for tree
projects
• •
Evaluation complete.

Tree planting is ongoing:
$1M grant for tree
planting in
implementation
PW, PR
*Complete municipal
building electrification/
decarbonization master plan
•
Project scoping complete
for grant applications,
RFP.

PW, CMO
Fund/hire an Energy Manager
•
Evaluated need. Likely
not possible to fund until
FY 26

PW, CMO,
FN, HR
Update Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Policy •
Complete and align other
policies.

FN
* Municipal Transportation
Demand Management Plan • •
All GO Santa Cruz
incentives in progress
and available to all City
employees (with 61
BCycle passes
distributed to staff in
2024)

PW, HR,
CMO
* Develop remote work
program plan • • • •
Ongoing IT, HR,
CMO
* Plan to electrify and
improve health and safety of
affordable housing stock by
2035
• •
Completed scoping of
Affordable Housing
Decarbonization Plan;
Applied for grant to
prepare plan / stand up
affordable housing
decarbonization fund

CMO, PL,
ED
Pursue green workforce
development opportunities • • • •
Ongoing. Led regional
grant effort for pathways
to green jobs

PW, WT,

ED, CMO,
PR
Develop Urban Forest Master
Plan and plant ~400 trees per
year
•
$1M grant for tree
planting awarded;
building capacity for
master plan
PR
* Complete Rail trail
Bikeways and plan light
transit to Rail Line
• • •
Priority rail trail
segments in City limits
funded. Construction and
planning underway.

PW

26.5 Segment 7 phase 3 lower
priority for future date.

Ongoing rail planning
* Indicates a High Impact Measure in terms of emissions reduction potential.

Performance Indicator 3: Progress relative to peer jurisdictions The City is performing well in implementing high impact emissions activities relative to many other jurisdictions, likely due to its dedicated resourcing, community and leadership support, and success in accessing resources for emissions reduction activities. The City retains an A or Ascore for the past 5 years by disclosing the City’s climate risk and progress on emissions mitigation with the Carbon Disclosure Project (cdp.net). Submission to CDP fulfills the City’s reporting commitment to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, which the City joined in 2018. City staff hold leadership roles in the Central Coast Community Energy Operations Board, Central Coast Climate Collaborative, Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group and Green Cities California among other peer network groups.

Performance Indicator 4: Funding Update
The City substantially ramped up its applications for an award of grant funding for climate action. In calendar year 2023, with 4 other Monterey Bay jurisdictions, the City stood up the Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG) via charter and the City’s Sustainability and Resiliency Officer currently serves as chair of the working group. The RCPWG's mission is to collaborate among groups and organizations in the Monterey Bay Area region, including Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties, to develop, prioritize, secure funding for, and effectively and equitably advocate for and implement regionally beneficial climate mitigation and adaptation projects and programs. Through nominal contribution of funds by each jurisdiction, the RCPWG hired a governance and grant writing firm, submitted 6 joint grant applications, and has over $15M in grant funding pending decision.

The City itself has had great success in applying for and accessing funding for implementing emissions reductions actions which include the following efforts in 2024, among others:
 The Waste Recovery division secured and has pending funding from CalRecycle for field trips and education as well as food recovery
 $250,000 from Uplift California for the Monterey Bay Green Jobs and Workforce Training Pathway Stack Development (submitted and pending decision)  $125,770 from Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant for a City of Santa Cruz employee electric vehicle incentives pilot program (landed in 2024, development and implementation beginning in 2025)  $4M from Housing and Urban Development PRO Housing Grant Round 2 to fund a comprehensive anti-displacement, housing decarbonization, active transportation citywide project. (Submitted October 2024 and pending award announcement in 2025).  The City applied to the first round of the Pacific Gas and Electric Microgrid Incentive Program but was not awarded funding for the Harvey West Business District Microgrid project to benefit Housing Matters, the Tannery and the Corporation yard. Staff are revising the application for a round 2 submission in 2025.  The City led a regional proposal to the Federal Highway Administration to expand public EV charging ($15M total; City share at $2M is pending a decision).

26.6  The City received $350,000 in grants through the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities grant program from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to administer a workforce development program that could involve green jobs and is tied to two 100% affordable housing projects currently in development:

Pacific Station South, and Pacific Station North, a 128 unit affordable housing project and new bus transit center
In addition to grant funding, through the City’s internal Carbon Fund, the City annually invests in internal grants as a way to engage and catalyze employee driven climate efforts. Since its first grant round in 2016, the Carbon Fund has awarded over $350,000 to 36 projects, funding fleet ebikes, streetlight assessments, expansion of electronic plan review systems, an urban tree inventory CalFire grant match, Harvey West pool pump controls, microgrants for Green Business certification, employee alternative commute incentives, and much more.

Sustainability and Resiliency Committee
In June, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to convene a new committee as an 18- month pilot to replace the Climate Action Task Force that was originally convened in 2008. This new committee would advise the City Manager and City Council on a select subset of climate, sustainability, and resiliency topics as directed by City Council in the CAP 2030, its 3-year Implementation Workplan and Climate Adaptation Plan and not already within the purview of other City commissions and committees. The Attachment: Draft Sustainability and Resiliency Committee Bylaws includes details on purpose, membership and roles. At the conclusion of the 18-month pilot, the City Manager will draft a report for the City Council evaluating the effectiveness of the committee in achieving its purpose and make any recommendations about the future need and/or format of a sustainability and resiliency advisory body. 2025 Proposed Work Plan
The internal Sustainability Team, other departmental staff and directors, and Climate Action Task Force met to identify the following new activities the City will initiate and/or complete in calendar year 2025 to advance progress on CAP 2030 implementation, in addition to the ongoing work described above and in the attachments:

Sustainable Government
 Launch new Sustainability and Resiliency Committee (CMO)  Develop the FY27 – FY 29 CAP 2030 3-Year Workplan (CMO)  Hire an Energy Manager (CMO, HR + PW)
 Evaluate need for Environmental Compliance staffing (CMO + HR)  Finalize and conduct training on revised Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (CMO + FN)
Building Energy
 Evaluate a Low Carbon Concrete Ordinance and/or Green Building Program Modifications (CMO + PL)
 Promote and enforce Gas Leaf Blower, Energy Efficient Renovations for Existing Single Family Homes Ordinances (CMO+PL)
 Evaluate Energy Efficient Renovations Ordinance for Existing Multifamily Housing (CMO+PL)

26.7 Transportation
 Implement Public EV Charger Expansion Project (if funded) (PW)  Fund and complete Municipal Decarbonization Roadmap (CMO + PW)  Prepare a refined fleet EV charging plan (PW)
 Develop and launch pilot employee EV purchase rebate program (CM+PW)  Develop a standard detail for bulb outs for traffic calming with tree and green stormwater features (PW + PR)
 Evaluate further opportunities for remote and satellite work options (IT + HR) Climate Restoration
 Implement Street Tree Master Plan and tree planting grant (PR)  Develop a standard detail for bulb outs for traffic calming with trees, green stormwater features (PW + PR)
Climate Economy
 Complete regional green jobs workforce development planning project (with grant funding; CMO).

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: This item is exempt from CEQA under the general rule, 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that providing progress update on the City's CAP 2030 does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The CAP 2030 and its focus on the nexus of equity, public health and sustainability epitomizes the intention of the City’s HiAP initiative. The CAP 2030 was developed through the use of an equity screening tool, ensuring no actions result in a negative impact on equitable community well-being outcomes. Measures and actions were linked to the adopted HiAP community well-being outcome metrics they support such that indicators related to equity and public health could be tracked in addition to the GHG emissions reduction progress. The adopted HiAP community well-being outcome metrics are updated biannually and will be included in the HiAP progress update to City Council in early 2025, denoting those that support the CAP 2030. As computed during CAP 2030 development, 70% of the 152 actions support improvement in community health.

The dedication of resources to prioritize equity in climate work is demonstrated by recent grant foci, e.g., Green and Healthy Low Income Homes (funded by Department of Energy), the Preserving and Promoting Equitable Housing Affordability and Climate Resilience in Santa Cruz, CA grant proposal (pending with the Department of Housing and Urban Development) and the Monterey Bay Green Jobs Pathway Stack Development grant proposal (pending with Uplift Central Coast). Additionally, the City helped stand up, and participates in, the Monterey Bay Area Climate Justice Collaborative (MBACJC), a working group of public agencies, nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations and tribal organizations that seek to develop equitable climate response programs and grant proposals that quickly reduce emissions and promote health, economic stability and community well-being for all.

FISCAL IMPACT:

1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No

2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No

3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No

26.8 FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: There is no fiscal impact associated with this annual progress update. Whereas, implementation of the CAP 2030 is partially funded by grants, enterprise funds and the General Fund. However, it is not possible to quantify the impact on the General Fund since CAP 2030 implementation activities are diffused broadly across departments. Nevertheless, implementation of the CAP 2030 requires substantial investment and resources from the City, its partners, and residents to achieve the targets specified. Public and private climate investment could create up to 2,400 jobs by 2030 as per the CAP 2030 Green Economy appendix. Those jobs help generate revenue for the City that can be reinvested into climate work. Staff have estimated a low and high five-year projection for CAP 2030 implementation that is being integrated into future budgets and financial planning. In FY26, climate and equity will be decision making priorities in the city budget. The funding and financing implementation appendix to the CAP 2030 provides guidance to facilitate implementation in a rapid and focused way.

Prepared By:

Tiffany Wise-West
Sustainability and Resiliency
Officer
Submitted By:

Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. PROGRESS ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURES AND ACTIONS TO REACH CAP 2030 TARGET.PDF

2. OTHER CAP 2030 ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES UPDATE.PDF

3. DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCY COMMITTEE BYLAWS.PDF

26.9 Attachment: Progress on Quantitative Measures and Actions to Reach CAP 2030 Target Measure Unit Goal Data
Year
%
Progress Notes
*Measure BE-1: Enforce the
City’s new construction
natural gas prohibition
ordinance (SCMC 6.100)
and inform the community
regarding the available
technology and benefits of
electrification.

Number of
employees
working in new
all electric
buildings
5,251 -- --
Replaced natural gas ban with
ultra efficient new
construction ordinance in
2024.

Unable to track until new land
management system comes
online. >1,275 units
somewhere in planning
pipeline
*Measure BE-1: Enforce the
City’s new construction
natural gas prohibition
ordinance (SCMC 6.100)
and inform the community
regarding the available
technology and benefits of
electrification. Funding:

Grants, Grants/Accelerator
Number of all
electric
residential units
built
1,851 -- --
Replaced natural gas ban with
ultra efficient new
construction ordinance in
2024.

Unable to track until new land
management system comes
online. >1,275 units
somewhere in planning
pipeline
*Measure BE-2: Electrify
31% of existing residential
buildings by 2030 and 53%
by 2035.

Therms below
forecast 2,660,343 -- --
No measurable progress
although state energy code is
driving electrification
naturally; energy efficient
renovations ordinance adopted
in 2024 and goes into effect in
2025
*Measure BE-3: Electrify
26% of existing commercial
buildings by 2030 and 45%
by 2035.

Therms below
forecast 1,257,239 -- --
No measurable progress No
measurable progress although
state energy code is driving
electrification naturally
Measure CS-1: Develop an
Urban Forest Master Plan
and plant 3,000 new trees by
2030.

Trees Planted 3,000 2023 23% On track
*Action M1.3 - Electrify
100% of municipal buildings
by 2040
% Municipal
Buildings
Electrified
100 2023 3% 1 building: City Hall Annex
Action M1.4 - Implement
plan to retrofit all remaining
streetlights, facility lighting,
and traffic signals to LEDs
by 2040
% Municipal
lighting
converted to
LEDs
100 2024 96% On track
Action M5.1 - Decarbonize
municipal fleet by 2035
% Municipal
fleet
decarbonized
100 2024 4%
Not on track but compliance
with state rules will accelerate
progress starting in 2025

26.10 Action M5.3 - Procure 100
percent renewable diesel as a
transition fuel until complete
fleet electrification in 2035.

Funding: N/A
% of municipal
fleet fuel
purchased that is
renewable diesel
100 2024 57%
6% decrease from 2023
(63%) due to more unleaded
fuel vehicles than diesel
vehicles during this year as
compared to prior year
*Measure T-1: Implement
programs for active
transportation (walking and
biking) that achieve 23% of
bicycle mode share by 2030
and 30% by 2035.
% of Passenger
Transportation
by Bicycle (%)
23 2022 66%
Baseline was 19.5% (2019).

In 2022 (latest year data
available) at 15.2%; active
mode shifts have not
recovered yet from pandemic
reductions due to increases in
telecommuting
*Measure T-2: Implement
programs for public
transportation that achieve
8% of public transportation
mode share by 2030 and
12% by 2035.

Percentage of
Passenger
Transportation
by Public
Transit (%)
8 2022 51%
Baseline was 7% (2019).

In 2022 (latest year data
available) at 4.1%; has not
recovered yet from pandemic
reductions due to increased
telecommuting
*Measure T-4: Increase
passenger electric vehicle
(EV) adoption to 35% by
2030 and 40% by 2035.

Electric Vehicle
Adoption as
Percentage of
Passenger Fleet
(%)
35 2024 11% In 2022, 3.1%
Currently at 4%
*Action T4.1 - Increase the
number of public electric
vehicle (EV) chargers
installed to support EV
adoption goal - Install at
least 1,247 new public EV
charging stations prioritizing
frontline neighborhood and
high usage areas by 2030.

Funding: Taxes, Fees,
Private, Grants,
Grants/Accelerator, Bonds,
Private
Total Public EV
Chargers
Installed
1,247 2024 9%
Currently
116 EV charging stations.

Not on track; but pending
grant funding will increase
progress
*Measure T-5: Increase
commercial EV adoption to
25% by 2030 and 35% by
2035.

Electric Vehicle
Adoption as
Percentage of
Commercial
Fleet (%)
25 2024 1.48% Not on track
*Measure T-6: Electrify or
otherwise decarbonize 50%
of off-road equipment by
2030 and 75% by 2035.

Percentage of
off-road
equipment
decarbonized
50 data unavailable
Measure W-2: Reduce
organic waste by 75% by
2030 and 90% by 2035; and
reduce inorganic waste by
Metric Tons of
Organic Waste
Diverted per
Service Person
(MT)
0 2023 65%
Metric will be revised in 2025
since organic waste collection
is now increasing due to state
law

26.11 35% by 2030 and 40% by
2035.
* Indicates a High Impact Measure in terms of emissions reduction potential.

26.12 Attachment: Other CAP 2030 Actions and Activities Update While not on the CAP 2030 3-Year Workplan (FY23-FY26), the City has initiated and/or completed the following other actions from the CAP 2030:

Building Energy:
* BE-1.1: Enforce the new construction natural gas prohibition. Suspended in June, 2023; Staff prepared and Council adopted an alternative energy reach code for new buildings in November, 2023 that went into effect in May, 2024.
* BE-2.5: Incentivize Electrification. Staff promoted electrification incentives provided by the State, PG&E, Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District; fact sheet on federal and state energy incentives in preparation.

BE-5.1 Weatherization and Health Retrofits for low-income homeowners and rental units.

Funding obtained and project in progress; HUD PRO Housing grant for affordable housing/climate resilience fund pending.
* BE-6.2: Partner with CCCE to develop all electric rates by income level and incentive equitable all electric retrofits; All electric rate adopted but not based on income level. * BE-6.6. Facilitate equitable access to accurate and current information about electrification programs, incentives and opportunities. Develop induction cooktop loaner program; In a partnership with the Library system, 9 induction cooktop kits were put into circulation at City branches and are popular with over 75 checkouts over 2024.

BE-6.8 Work with partners to establish a Regional Energy Network; City supported Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments to establish REN in 2024; it will be in operation in 2025.

Transportation
*T1.1 Active Transportation Planning: Fund, staff and implement the Active Transportation Plan Update, Vision Zero, Safe Routes to School and the 2030 General Plan update; funded and to be complete start of 2026..
* T-1.4 Re-establish citywide e-bike share. Launched in spring 2023; expanded countywide in 2024.

T-1.6 Pilot Neighborhood Greenways; West Cliff Drive closure enabled pilot through half of 2023.
*T1.7 Efficient and Equitable Land Use Accelerate housing development and support commercial and industrial development in city limits, concentrating the most intensive growth in transit corridors and central areas of the city to promote walking and biking to nearby jobs, entertainment, goods, services, and public transportation, through the General Plan Housing Element Update to be approved in 2023. Prioritize expansion of affordable housing stock.

Partner to incentivize 15-minute neighborhoods, particularly within frontline neighborhoods communities, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services; Updates to the City’s ADU requirements in 2024 expanded opportunities for the creation of ADUs, further promoting development of a compact city with reduced vehicle miles traveled and therefore reduced GHG emissions.
* T-2.4 Free Public Transit for youth; City advocated to METRO to provide free public transit to youth, enacted in 2023.

T3.1 Equitable Single-Passenger Vehicle Discouragement Partner with community groups to develop programs and policies that discourage singlepassenger vehicles while addressing equity concerns and tracking through equity metrics: Go Santa Cruz: 2,488 members, total alternative trips logged =123,498 for a total of 525,460 miles. 161 tons of CO2 reduced.

26.13 T-3.4 Reduce Off-Street Parking requirements; completed in 2023 due to state requirements that pre-empt local requirements for development within ½ mile of transit T3.9 Multimodal Improvements: Remove parking to accommodate multimodal improvements, including protected bike lanes and transit improvements, taking into account business impacts; multiple projects ongoing including Rail Trail.
* T-4.5 Partner with community groups to increase adoption rates of EVs in frontline neighborhoods; Staff supported funding of Ecology Action to carry out a EVs for everyone/EVs para todos campaign as a concierge service to frontline groups.

T-6.5 Ban Gas Powered Small Off-Road Engines; gas leaf blower ban ordinance adopted in June 2024 and will go into effect July 1, 2025; robust engagement campaign planned for first half of 2025.

Waste
W-1.1 and 1.2 Continue to provide free water conservation education, devices and rebates; ongoing
W-2: Reduce organic waste by 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2035; and reduce inorganic waste by 35% by 2030 and 40% by 2035. Food scrap collection launched to comply with SB 1383. With respect to rescuing edible food, working with regional partners to recover up to 20% of edible food and give to people who are food insecure. Ongoing in nature. 7 of 10 other Waste related Actions are ongoing in nature.

W-3.4, Complete a consumption-based and supply chain emissions inventory. Complete W3.5 Launch a Community Activation Platform. Complete and ongoing.

Climate Economy
CE-1.2 Complete consumption-based emissions inventory. Complete.

CE-2.2 Support regional collaboration. Chair of the Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (see Fiscal section for details). Staff participate on the steering committee of the Central Coast Climate Collaborative and co-chair the Green Cities California Network. Green Business hosted two mixers in collaboration with County; Monterey Bay Green Business quarterly meetings. State grant provided rebates to network for businesses. Santa Cruz County Solid Waste Task Force met quarterly and preparing to launch subcommittee to align packaging practices
Municipal Activities
M-1: Decarbonize municipally owned buildings by 2030 and remaining municipal facilities by 2045. Civic solar (complete), HW Park solar at ballfields (installed), and Soquel Front garage (installed); upgraded lights at HW Park ballfields (complete) *M-3.3. Identify and implement near term microgrid opportunities that align with resiliency objectives; Submitted unsuccessful grant application to PGE for a Harvey West Business District Micrgrid partnership with the Tannery Arts Work Live space and Housing Matters on energy resiliency and microgrid; will revise and resubmit in spring 2025 M-4.2 City Staff Commute Data; annual employee commute survey completed and data analyzed/reported.
* M-5.2 EV Charger installation for municipal fleet; substantial EV charging for municipal fleet completed including at Libraries and the Corporation Yard and, in 2025, EV charging at the Landfill will be complete

26.14 1
Sustainability and Resiliency Committee
Draft BYLAWS
Approved by the City Council: January xx, 2025
Approved by the Committee: March xx, 2025
Article I. Purpose of Committee
(a) Description
The Sustainability and Resiliency Committee (“SRC”, or “Committee”) is a pilot committee that serves as an advisory body to the Santa Cruz City Council (“City Council”) on climate and resiliency issues.
(b) Purpose
(i) Advisory Role: Advising the City Council on selected sustainability and resiliency topics related to the goals the City has adopted in its Climate Action Plan and Climate Adaptation Plan (e.g., important projects and policies in progress). (ii) Monitoring Progress: Guiding the operationalization and implementation of activities to reach climate and resiliency goals (e.g., annual progress report and workplan). (iii) Cross-Committee Integration: Facilitating collaboration and communication across existing City commissions to integrate sustainability and resiliency goals into citywide efforts.
(iv) Study Sessions: Recommending climate and resiliency study sessions for the City Council to consider for specific topic areas as needed. (c) Term
The term of the SRC is 18-months. At the conclusion of the 18-month term, the Committee shall draft a report for the City Council evaluating the effectiveness of the Committee in achieving its purpose and make any recommendations about the future need and/or format of a sustainability and resiliency advisory body. (d) Schedule
The SRC shall meet beginning around Earth Day in April, 2025 and conclude in October, 2026.

26.15 2
Article II. Authority and Establishment of the Committee (a) Authority
The Committee was established by Santa Cruz City Council on June X, 2024 and seated on or before March xx, 2025. The Committee is subject to the Brown Act and the public is invited to participate in meetings. The Committee is established for 18 months from the time of the first meeting, after which the City Council shall determine whether the Committee will continue as a pilot committee, or whether adjustments should be made. (b) Committee Composition
(i) Three (3) At-Large Members:

At Large 1: City resident with expertise in climate advocacy, transportation, water, trees, waste, buildings, energy, or resiliency.

At Large 2: City resident with expertise in climate advocacy, transportation, water, trees, waste, buildings, energy, or resiliency.

At Large 3: City youth resident up to age 24 with an interest in climate advocacy, transportation, water, trees, waste, buildings, energy, or resiliency. (ii) Four (4) Representatives from the Existing Commissions: One member from each of the following City commissions (“Existing Commissions”), nominated by their respective bodies:

Transportation and Public Works Commission
Planning Commission
Water Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
(c) Appointment Process
(i) At-Large Members: At large members must be residents of the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and shall be recruited using the City’s standard application for advisory committees and commissions. The City shall promote the at-large member openings through social media, the City Manager’s Weekly Update, and at other events and webinars. Applications shall be accepted January 20, 2025 through February 19, 2025 and may be submitted to the City’s Sustainability and Resiliency Officer electronically or manually. The Sustainability and Resiliency Officer shall compile the applications, provide an initial eligibility and qualifications review of the applicants, and recommend, in memorandum format, 3 at-large members from the eligible applicants

26.16 3
to the City Manager to consider. The City Manager shall review, provide feedback and adjustments as necessary, and take the appointment of the at-large members to City Council for approval.
(ii) Commission Representatives: The staff to each of the 4 Existing Commissions shall distribute these Bylaws to their respective commission, make a call for nominations from their respective commissioners in late January 2025, agendize discussion of nominations in February or March 2025, and recommend a commission representative by March 31, 2025.
(d) Dissolution
At the end of the Committee term, the Committee shall produce a report that includes an evaluation of the efficacy of the Committee in reaching its purpose and recommendations for the City Council to determine the continuation, restructuring, or dissolution of the SRC.

Article III. Organization of the Committee
(a) Membership Terms
(i) At-Large Members: At-large members shall serve an 18-month term concurrent with the term of the Committee.
(ii) Commission Representatives: Commission representatives shall serve concurrently with their respective commission appointments during the Committee term. Should a commission representative resign or complete their term of service on their commission, staff to the commission shall select a new commission representative to serve on the SRC.
(b) Compensation
Should Committee members require compensation due to a hardship, they must “opt in” as provided in Council Policy 5.19 by coordinating with staff assigned to the Committee.
(c) Committee Member Withdrawal
(i) The Members may withdraw from the Committee at any time by providing a letter of resignation to the City Council and City Manager, with copies to City staff to be distributed to the other Members.
(ii) Committee members shall adhere to the attendance policy specified in the Handbook for City Advisory Bodies.

26.17 4
(d) Chair and Vice Chair
The Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting of the Committee The Chair shall establish meeting agendas, with staff support, and preside over Committee meetings to ensure the Committee conducts its business efficiently and in compliance with the Handbook for City Advisory Bodies and these Bylaws. The Vice Chair shall preside over meetings in the absence of the Chair. (e) Quorum
A meeting of the Committee shall be considered to have sufficient members present for it to function if there are at least 4 members at the meeting.

Article IV. Roles and Communications
(a) Committee - City Council
(i) The Committee expects that City Council members will not speak or actively participate in Committee meetings unless input is specifically requested by the Committee.
(ii) The Committee shall communicate with the City Council by letter or written report which may be accompanied by an oral communication as authorized by the Committee.
(iii) Reasons for the Committee to report to the City Council include:
1) To provide updates on status of work; and
2) To make recommendations based on Committee review.
(iv) Individual Committee Members may communicate personally with City Council members. Individual Committee Members who communicate personally with City Council members shall only do so on their own behalf, not as representatives of the Committee.
(b) Committee Member - Committee Members
(i) Collaboration with an open outlook: Committee members shall commit to participate collaboratively and maintain an outlook that is open to new information and new outcomes.
(ii) Existing Commission Committee members shall communicate relevant information to their respective commission at its next meeting and provide any questions or comments from their commission back to the Committee.

26.18 5
(c) Committee - Public
(i) Committee members may fully engage with the public to describe their experience as Committee members, the information that they have learned, any changes to their perspectives, et cetera.
(ii) Committee members will always make it clear when they speak or write in public that they speak for themselves, and not as a spokesperson for or representative of the Committee.
(d) City Staff
City staff shall:
(i) Support the Committee’s work by ensuring that appropriate resources are made available to the Committee in a timely manner.
(ii) Engage in the same level of collaborative participation as specified for the Committee members.

Article V. Workplan
(a) Workplan
The Committee shall agree on a work plan, facilitated by staff. This workplan shall be set annually and will guide the work of the Committee.

Article VI. Decision-making process
(a) General Decision Process
In general, the Committee will follow the Handbook for City Advisory Bodies and Council Policies for procedural rules. The Committee’s decision-making process will differ from that of the City Council or Existing Commissions in that the Committee is expected to reach consensus through a collaborative process. The Committee shall use the following hierarchy of decision tools:
(i) The preferred decision tool is for the Committee to arrive at a “sense of the meeting.” (See glossary for definition of this term)
(ii) Consensus is highly desirable.
(iii) Informal voting may only be used to explore the decision space.

26.19 6
(iv) Formal voting may be used as a fallback when consensus fails as long as there is consensus that a vote should take place. Any decision resulting from a vote shall be determined by a 2/3 majority.
(v) Should a 2/3 majority not be met, a majority vote by roll call, included in the meeting minutes, may take place, but a minimum of seven votes shall be recorded to make a decision.

Article VII. Meeting Procedures
(a) Brown Act
This Committee shall comply with the Brown Act.
(b) Location and Format
Meetings shall be held at Santa Cruz City Hall or virtually, as decided by the Chair and approved by the Committee. The meeting times and virtual access links shall be posted on the City’s website 3 days in advance of the meeting. (c) Committee Meetings shall occur quarterly.
(i) Committee members who cannot attend shall notify City staff in advance pursuant to the attendance policy in the Handbook for City Advisory Bodies (d) Meeting Materials.
(i) City staff shall prepare meeting materials, including the agenda, in consultation with the Committee Chair.
(ii) City staff shall ensure that an e-mail containing the agenda will be sent to Members at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting, except in extraordinary circumstances. (iii) City staff shall prepare action-only meeting minutes, which shall be reviewed for accuracy by the Committee at the following Committee meeting. 1) The meeting minutes shall include a record of attendance at the meeting, including Committee Members and members of the public who choose to identify themselves.
(e) Involvement of the Public in Meetings
In addition to providing public oral communication for items on the agenda, Council Policy 5.11 permits an opportunity for public oral input on matters of public concern which are not listed on the agenda.

26.20 7
Glossary
Action-only minutes: Minutes that show decisions made by the Committee and prescribed forward actions.

Consensus: Consent of all the members. Consensus may include “standing aside,” in which one or more members may convey the sentiment “I am not going to block this, but I am willing to let it go. However, I want my non-agreement to be noted.” Sense of the Meeting: After discussing an issue, often at some length, there is a palpable feeling in the room that a wise and stable decision has been reached. At this point, the Chair will confirm with the group what that decision is and that a sense of the meeting has been achieved.

26.21