Santa Cruz City Council
April 22, 2025

OVERVIEW
California State Assembly Bill (AB) 481, effective January 1, 2022, establishes requirements for the funding, acquisition, and use of items deemed “military equipment” (Gov’t Code § 7070(c)) in law enforcement and state agencies. The bill’s intent installs enforceable safeguards, including transparency, accountability, and oversight to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body via ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy prior to purchasing, raising funds for, or acquiring military equipment. Gov’t Code § 7071(a)(1).

On May 10, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz City Council adopted Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.90, approving the military equipment use policy set forth in Santa Cruz Police Department Policy 705. Pursuant to AB 481, the Santa Cruz Police Department (“Department”) will publish an annual report for each type of military equipment approved by the Santa Cruz City Council within one year of approval and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. Gov’t Code § 7072(a). The annual military equipment report must include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (3) The results of any internal audits, information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken inresponse. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual military equipment report, the Department will hold a well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting. Gov’t Code § 7072(b). The community engagement meeting will allow the public to discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

This Annual Report provides available data for each type of military equipment approved by the Santa Cruz City Council for the 2024 calendar year (January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024).

33.37 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 1 - Robot
Inventory
Recon Robotics “Throw bot”; Quantity: 1
Recon Robotics “Throw bot II”; Quantity 1
Robotex AVITAR II; Quantity: 0 (the Department has access to two AVITAR II robots maintained by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office) Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency
Assist? Use Summary Complaint
Summary Audit
1 2/21/2024 Training N/A Throw bot used during Emergency Services Unit training

N/A N/A
2 8/13/24 Training N/A Throw bot used during Emergency Service Unit Training N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire a Throw bot in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Training personnel costs ($5,721.66).

No annual cost to the Department for the Robotex AVITAR II.

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.38 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 1 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Inventory
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs); Quantity: 3
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency Assist? Use Summary Location Complaint
Summary
Audit/Shared
with Outside
Agency
1 1/20/2024
Crime in
Progress SCSO Search for Suspect 100 Blk Manor Pl. No No 2 1/25/2024
Crime in
Progress SCSO Search for Suspect 1000 Blk River St. No No 3 3/4/2024
Crime in
Progress SCSO Search for Suspect 200 Blk Water St. No No 4 4/24/2024
Crime in
Progress CPD Search for Suspect 1000 Blk River St. No No 5 5/10/2024
Traffic
Collision SCSO Traffic Investigation Arial Footage W Cliff/Almar Av No No 6 5/10/2024
Investigation
SCSO Search for Evidence 1000 Blk Cedar St. No No
7 6/10/2024
Crime in
Progress SCSO Search for Suspect 1000 Blk River St. No No

33.39 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

8 6/29/2024 Training No Department Training
Santa Cruz Police
Station No No
9 7/10/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary 300 Blk Market St. No No
10 7/10/2024
Traffic
Collision No Traffic Investigation Arial Scan
Mission St./Laurel
St. No No
11 7/12/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD - Fire
Encinal St./
Sylvania Ave. No No
12 7/14/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCSO – Fleeing Suspect Boulder Creek No No 13 7/15/2024
Traffic
Collision No Traffic Investigation Arial Scan
High St./Laurent
St. No No
14 7/28/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
Broadway St./
Riverside Ave. No No
15 7/28/2024
Training
No Department Training
Santa Cruz
Corporation Yard No No
16 8/4/2024
Crime in
Progress No Shooting 1000 Blk Ocean St. No No
17 8/5/2024
Crime in
Progress No Domestic Violence - Fleeing Suspect
400 Blk Ocean St.

No No
18 8/6/2024 Demonstration No National Night Out
Kaiser Permanente
Arena No No

33.40 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

19 8/8/2024
Outside
Agency
Assist
No SCFD - Fire
Pogonip Open
Space No No
20 8/8/2024
Outside
Agency
Assist
No SCFD - Fire
Pogonip Open
Space No No
21 8/8/2024
Investigation
No Investigation Scene Arial Scan
2200 Blk E. Cliff
Dr. No No
22 8/12/2024
Crime in
Progress No Prowling
100 Blk Westmoor
Ct. No No
23 8/13/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm CVS, Front Street No No 24 8/14/2024
Crime in
Progress No
Attempted Homicide – Fleeing
Suspect 100 Blk Front St. No No
25 8/20/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary 400 Blk Dufour St. No No
26 8/31/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Stolen Vehicle Municipal Wharf No No 27 9/2/2024
Arrest warrant
No Ramey Warrant Service
800 Blk Pelton
Ave. No No
28 9/4/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No WPD – Suspect with a Knife
300 Blk Herman
Ave. No No
29 9/8/2024
Community
Event SCSO Ariel Coverage for Iron Man Varies No No

33.41 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

30 9/10/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No DAO – Crime Scene Documentation 1000 Blk HWY 9 No No 31 9/13/2024
Investigation
No Investigation Scene Arial Scan
Washington
St./Elm St. No No
32 9/13/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary 300 Blk Encinal St. No No 33 9/18/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
100 Blk South
River St. No No
34 9/19/2024
Crime in
Progress No Battery – Fleeing Suspect
East Levee/Blaine
St. No No
35 9/20/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD - Fire
Pogonip Open
Space No No
36 9/22/2024
Community
Event SCSO
Ariel Coverage for Santa Cruz
Triathlon Varies No No
37 9/26/2024
Missing
Person No Locate a Missing Juvenile
Pogonip Open
Space No No
38 9/28/2024
Community
Event SCSO Ariel Coverage for Wharf to Wharf Varies No No 39 10/2/2024
Training
No Departmental Training 400 Blk Beach St. No No
40 10/6/2024
Crime in
Progress No Outstanding Warrants – Fleeing
Suspect
Water St./River St. No No

33.42 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

41 10/16/2024
Crime in
Progress No Illegal Entry
1000 Blk Laurel
St. No No
42 10/18/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD – Water Rescue Cowells Beach No No 43 10/20/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary
100 Blk Holway
Dr. No No
44 10/26/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
300 Blk Golf Club
Dr. No No
45 10/26/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary
1700 Blk Delaware
Ave. No No
46 10/27/2024
Traffic
Accident No Traffic Investigation Arial Scan
Laurel St./Pacific
Ave. No No
47 10/28/2024
Crime in
Progress SCSO Search for Suspect
1700 Blk Soquel
Ave. No No
48 10/30/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
Friendship Garden
(Harvey West Park) No No
49 11/5/2024
Investigation
No Arson Investigation Arial Scan Scope Park No No
50 11/9/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD – Fire and Arson Investigation
500 Blk Upper Park
Rd. No No
51 11/15/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Stolen Vehicle 100 Blk Felker St. No No

33.43 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

52 11/18/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
300 Blk Golf Club
Dr. No No
53 11/18/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD – Water Rescue Cowells Beach No No 54 11/22/2024
Arrest warrant
No Warrant Service
2300 Blk Portola
Dr. No No
55 11/23/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary
300 Blk La Fonda
Ave No No
56 11/27/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Stolen Vehicle Municipal Wharf No No 57 12/6/2024
Crime in
Progress No Trespassing & Vandalism
100 Blk Cooper St.

No No
58 12/7/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
600 Block Encinal
St. No No
59 12/8/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
500 Blk Pacheco
Ave No No
60 12/11/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Stolen Vehicle
100 Blk Shelter
Lagoon Dr. No No
61 12/20/2024
Missing
Person No Locate a Missing Juvenile 300 Blk 2nd St. No No 62 12/21/2024
Crime in
Progress No Occupied Burglary
600 Blk California
St. No No

33.44 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

63 12/21/2024
Crime in
Progress No Suspect with Firearm
2100 Blk N. Pacific
Ave. No No
64 12/23/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD – Municipal Wharf Collapse Municipal Wharf No No 65 12/23/2024 Rescue SCSO Water Rescue Municipal Wharf No No 66 12/27/2024
Recovery of
Decedent No Suicidal Subject with Firearm 200 Blk Storey St. No No 67 12/28/2024
Outside
Agency Assist No SCFD – Water Rescue East Cliff Point No No Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional unmanned aerial vehicles in 2025. Pending Council approval, the Department intends to purchase fifthgeneration wireless technology (5G) connectivity to the existing unmanned aerial vehicles.

Total Annual Cost
Acquired three (3) Skydio X10 and associated software ($80,2010.17) in 2024, as per Santa Cruz City Council approval on February 13, 2024.

Training personnel costs ($12,039.40).Training personnel costs ($12,039.40).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.45 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 2&3 - Armored PersonnelCarrier
Inventory
Lenco Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV); Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
1 1/2/2024 Equipment
Upgrades
N/A Incandescent Spotlights lights replaced with LED. N/A N/A 2 1/3/2024 Equipment
Upgrades
N/A Incandescent Spotlights lights replaced with LED.N/A N/A 3 1/19/2024 Outside Agency
Assist
N/A
The vehicle was used to safely transport WPD Officers to the front of a residence for a warrant service. The vehicle provided safe cover for officers while the residence's occupants were called out using the vehicle’s PA system.

N/A N/A
4 1/24/2024 Training N/A
Officers trained on active shooter response and used simmuniton firearms during this training. The vehicle was used as an on-site safe location for officers to stow real firearms and tasers during the training day so that no firearms could be accidentally introduced into the training scenarios.

N/A N/A

33.46 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

5 2/8/2024
Equipment
Upgrade N/A Incandescent spotlights upgraded to LED N/A N/A 6 1/31/2024 Training N/A
Officers trained on active shooter response and used
simmunition firearms during this training. The vehicle was used as an on-site safe location for officers to stow real firearms and tasers during the training day so that no firearms could be accidentally introduced into the training scenarios.

N/A N/A
7 2/8/2024 Equipment
Upgrade
N/A Incandescent spotlights upgraded to LED. N/A N/A
8 3/13/2024 Training N/A The vehicle was used to train emergency vehicle operations. N/A N/A 9 3/20/2024 Training N/A The vehicle was used to train emergency vehicle operations. N/A N/A 10 3/27/2024 Training N/A
The vehicle was used in participation with the Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team vehicle control tactics, vehicle barricades, and vehicle assault core competency skills.

N/A N/A
11 4/10/2024 Maintenance N/A
The vehicle was taken from SCPD southbound on SR-1 and
returned northbound on SR-1 from the Morrissey offramp for a maintenance drive.

N/A N/A

12 5/2/2024 Warrant Service N/A The vehicle was utilized in a pre-planned warrant service operation with the deployment of the Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team.

N/A N/A

13 5/22/2024

Refueling N/A Refueling the Armored vehicle N/A N/A

33.47 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

14 6/24/2024
Outside Agency
Assist N/A
CHP and the Sheriff’s Office requested the vehicle for an uncooperative motorist. N/A N/A

15 6/25/2024 Training N/A
The vehicle was used in the Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team training day involving high-risk warrants. N/A N/A

16 7/9/2024
Outside Agency
Assist N/A Watsonville PD Youth Academy presentation. N/A N/A

17 7/23/2024 Training N/A
The vehicle was used during the Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team training day. Training was specific to response to a critical incident in preparation for the Wharf to Wharf.

N/A N/A

18 11/20/2024 Training N/A Hostage Rescue Operations Training for the Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team

N/A N/A
19 11/22/2024 Warrant Service N/A
The vehicle was used in the service of a high-risk warrant service during the investigation of the shooting at the Parish Pub N/A N/A 20 12/27/2024 Armed Subject N/A
The vehicle was used to provide ballistic protection for officers while responding to an armed subject. N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional armored personnel carriers in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Refuel costs ($N/A)
*
.

Maintenance/Upgrade costs ($604.56).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. *Refuel costs unavailable. In late 2024, The City Cooperation Yard changed to a different vendor to manage the City’s fuel pumping station. As a result, all individual vehicle refuel records were not retained.

33.48 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 5 - Transport Vehicles
Inventory1
2008 Ford F350 Transport Vehicle; Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number
Date Incident
Type
Agency
Assist?
Use Summary Complaint
Summary
Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
This vehicle is used as a transport vehicle for all manner of Department activities and transports personnel and
equipment for training and law enforcement operations.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional transport vehicles in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Parts and labor costs ($0.00); Fuel costs ($N/A)
*
.

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. *Refuel costs unavailable. In late 2024, The City Cooperation Yard changed to a different vendor to manage the City’s fuel pumping station. As a result, all individual vehicle refuel records were not retained.
1 Use of this vehicle is not tracked or categorized every time it is used.

33.49 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 5 - Command & Control Vehicles
Inventory
2018 Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle; Quantity: 1 2018 Dodge Charger; Quantity 1 2022 Ford Explorer; Quantity 2 2019 Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle; Quantity: 2 2021 Ford Explorer; Quantity 1 2022 Ford Explorer (UAS); Quantity 2 Use Reporting
Use
Number
Date Incident
Type
Agency
Assist?
Use Summary Complaint
Summary
Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
These vehicles are patrol vehicles assigned to the Sergeants and Lieutenants. In addition to their use during calls for service. They would operate as a command-and-control
vehicle if the situation required it.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
Any acquisition of new command and control vehicles would be in compliance with already established city protocol.

Total Annual Cost
2018 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($2,520.00); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.
2019 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($0.00); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.
2019 Chevy Tahoe: Parts and labor costs ($9,694.88); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.
2021 Ford Explorer: Parts and labor costs ($0.00); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.
2022 Ford Explorer: Parts and labor costs ($453.98); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.
2022 Ford Explorer: Parts and labor costs ($435.79); Fuel costs ($N/A) *
.

33.50 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

2018 Dodge Charger: Parts and labor costs ($2,819.12); Fuel costs ($N/A)*. 2022 Ford Explorer (UAS): Parts and labor costs ($12,854.24); Fuel costs ($N/A)*. 2022 Ford Explorer (UAS): Parts and labor costs ($13,673.06); Fuel costs ($N/A)*.

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. *Refuel costs unavailable. In late 2024, The City Cooperation Yard changed to a different vendor to manage the City’s fuel pumping station. As a result, all individual vehicle refuel records were not retained.

33.51 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 8 - Firearms Greater than .50 Caliber
Inventory
Mossberg 590 12 Gauge Pump Action Shotguns; Quantity: 2 Remington 870 12 Gauge Pump Action Chemical Agent Launching Shotgun; Quantity 1 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
The Breaching Shotguns have not been used in training
or law enforcement activity during the
reporting period. N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
The Chemical Agent Launching Shotgun has not been
used in training or law enforcement activity during the reporting period.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional firearms greater than .50 caliber in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.52 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

2 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

CATEGORY 9 - Ammunition of .50 Caliber or Greater
Inventory2

12. Gauge launching Cartridges Defense Technologies Part Number 1210; Quantity:55 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A No breaching ammunition was used in training or law enforcement activity during the reporting period. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No launching cartridges were used in training or law enforcement activity during the reporting period. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire ammunition of .50 caliber or greater in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.53 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 10 - Specialized Firearms & Ammunition of less than .50 Caliber Inventory3
Defiance Bolt Action Precision Rifle; Quantity: 3
Accuracy International AT Series Bolt Action Rifle; Quantity: 1 Hornady .308 155 Grain ELD Match TAP Ammunition;
Quantity:1,000
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
N/A 2024 N/A N/A No Precision Rifles were used in lethal force situations during the reporting period. N/A N/A
1 2024 Training N/A Precision Rifles used monthly during the year for mandated training

N/A N/A
2 7/28/24 Security N/A Precision Rifles were deployed during security operations for the Wharf-to-Wharf Race

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional specialized firearms in 2025.

Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2025 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
Hornady .308 155 Grain ELD Match TAP Ammunition purchased 4/18/24; Quantity 2,000: ($2,656).

Precision rifle Peace Officer Standards and Training mandated monthly training ($28,608.30).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 3 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

33.54 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 12 - Flashbang, Teargas & Pepper Balls
Inventory4
8902NR 12 Gram Low Roll NFDD; Quantity: 49
7007 4 Gram NFDD Training Reloads; Quantity:
22 1090 Stinger Grenades; Quantity: 10
1082 Riot Control CS Canister; Quantity: 12
1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister; Quantity: 14
5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister; Quantity: 10
1026 Triple Chaser Separating Canister; Quantity: 13
56854 Aerosol OC Fogger; Quantity 5
2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret Projectile; Quantity: 9
2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret Projectile; Quantity: 59
Pepper Ball Guns; Quantity 4
Pepper Balls; Quantity: 4 (containers of 375 pepper balls) (expired)

33.55 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident
Type
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
1 5/2/2024
High Risk
Warrant
Service
Outside
Agency
Assist
Two NFDDs were deployed on the exterior of a
residence during a high-risk search warrant service.

N/A N/A
2 11/20/2024 Training N/A Training NFDDs were used during Emergency Services Unit Hostage rescue training.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2025 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

NFDD purchased 10/18/24 Quantity: 25 Cost: $2,121.25
Training NFDD Reloads purchased 10/18/24 Quantity: 20 Cost: $845.00 Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 4 The inventory of consumable equipment, such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc., may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer-recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantities possessed by the Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

33.56 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 13 - Long Range Acoustic Devise (LRAD)
Inventory
GENASYS Inc. LRAD-100X; Quantity: 1
Use Reporting
Use
Number Date Incident Type
Agency
Assist? Use Summary Complaint Summary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A The LRAD was not used in training or
law enforcement activities during the reporting period. N/A N/A Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional Long Range Acoustic Devices in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.57 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Projectile Launchers
Inventory
Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-Single Barrel Launchers; Quantity: 14 Lewis Machine and Tool 1425 40mm-Single Barrel Launchers; Quantity: 15 Lewis Machine and Tool 1440 40mm-4-shot Multi-Launchers; Quantity: 2 Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm- 6 shot Multi-Launcher; Quantity: 1 Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit
1 1/9/2024 Criminal Threats N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the arrest of a subject who made criminal
threats involving firearms. Firearms were later
seized from the subject.

N/A N/A
2 1/20/2024 Criminal Threats N/A
40mm launcher was displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a subject who
made criminal threats.

N/A N/A
3 1/20/2024
Discharge of a
Firearm N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact and detention of a subject
who discharged a firearm in his home.

N/A N/A
4 2/29/2024 Stolen Vehicle N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used during
the arrest of a subject in possession of a stolen
vehicle.

N/A N/A
5 3/3/2024 Intoxicated
Subject
N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used
during the de-escalation and arrest of an
intoxicated subject armed with a metal rod

N/A N/A

33.58 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

6 3/4/2024 Emotionally
Disturbed Person
N/A
40mm launchers displayed but not used during
the contact and detention of an emotionally
disturbed person who had discharged a firearm
in his home.

N/A N/A
7 3/9/2024 Assault with a
Deadly Weapon
N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a subject who
had committed an assault with a knife and
committed various other felony crimes.

N/A N/A
8 3/19/2024 Residential
Burglary
N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the arrest of a subject who burglarized
and occupied residence.

N/A N/A
9 3/28/2024 Stolen Vehicle N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the arrest of a subject who was in
possession of a stolen vehicle.

N/A N/A
10 4/2/2024 Felony Child
Abuse N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the arrest of a subject wanted for felony
child abuse. Subject was reported to be in
possession of firearms.

N/A N/A
11 4/6/2024 Stolen Vehicle N/A 40mm displayed but not used during the arrest of a subject in possession of a stolen vehicle.

N/A N/A
12 4/26/2024 Assault with a
Deadly Weapon N/A
40mm launcher used to fire one less lethal
eXact impact round at a subject who had
committed an assault with a knife, resisted
arrest, and damaged property.

N/A N/A
13 4/27/2024 Criminal Threats N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used during
the arrest of a subject in possession of a
machete making criminal threats to a victim.

N/A N/A

33.59 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

14 5/2/2024 Warrant Service Salinas PD
40mm launcher displayed but not used during a
high-risk search and arrest warrant service. N/A N/A
15 5/7/2024 Stolen Vehicle N/A
40mm launchers displayed but not used during
the arrest of a subject in possession of a stolen
vehicle.

N/A N/A
16 6/13/2024 Disturbance N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used during
the investigation of a domestic disturbance
incident.

N/A N/A
17 7/3/2024 Reported Shooting N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used during
the investigation of a reported shooting. A
subject who was under the influence of
substances was arrested.

N/A N/A
18 7/5/2024
Subject in
Possession of a
Gun
N/A
40mm launcher displayed but not used while
contacting an intoxicated subject reported to be
in possession of a firearm.

N/A N/A
19 7/9/2024
Subjects in
Possession of
Firearms
N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during a “high-risk” vehicle stop. Two subjects
were reported to have entered a convenience
store with guns.

N/A N/A
20 7/23/2024
Assault with a
Deadly Weapon N/A
40mm launcher was displayed but not used
during the detention of a subject who had
slashed another person with a knife.

N/A N/A
21 7/30/2024 Disturbance N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a subject who
used a weapon to resist arrest.

N/A N/A
22 8/13/2024 Subject with a Gun N/A
40mm launchers displayed but not used during
the contact and detention of a person reported to
have a gun.

N/A N/A
23 8/28/2024 Disturbance N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact/arrest of a subject who falsely
imprisoned their roommate and resisted arrest.

N/A N/A

33.60 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

24 9/2/2024 Wanted Subject N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a wanted
subject. The subject resisted arrest and was
arrested for various other crimes.

N/A N/A
25 9/7/2024
Assault with a
Deadly Weapon N/A
40mm launchers displayed but not used during
the arrest of a subject who had committed an
assault with a deadly weapon

N/A N/A
26 9/23/2024
Residential
Burglary N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the search of a residence that was
burglarized. A subject was arrested.

N/A N/A
27 9/28/2024 Vehicle Pursuit N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the ultimate arrest of a subject who was
wanted for multiple felony crimes and who had
fled in a vehicle.

N/A N/A
28 10/6/2024
Assault with a
Deadly Weapon N/A
40mm Launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a subject who
had committed an assault with a deadly weapon

N/A N/A
29 10/7/2024 Assault with a
Deadly Weapon
N/A
40mm launchers were used in the apprehension
of a subject who had assaulted a victim with a
rock and resisted arrest by using force.

N/A N/A
30 10/11/2024 Stolen Vehicle N/A
40mm launcher was displayed but not used
during the contact of a recovered stolen vehicle.

The vehicle was unoccupied.

N/A N/A
31 10/16/2024 Illegal Entry N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not
used during the search of a residence where
a subject was reported to have unlawfully
entered.

N/A N/A
32 10/31/2024 Brandishing of a
Firearm
N/A
40mm launchers were displayed but not used
during the contact of a subject involved in a
disturbance where it was reported that a firearm
was brandished.

N/A N/A

33.61 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

33 11/20/2024 Resisting
Arrest
N/A
40mm launchers were used in the
apprehension of a subject who fled from
officers conducting enforcement action at
City Hall, then threatened an officer with a
rock and resisted arrest.

N/A N/A
34 11/28/2024 Assault with a
Deadly Weapon
N/A
40mm launcher was displayed but not used
during the arrest of a subject wanted for assault
with a deadly weapon and elder abuse.

N/A N/A
35 12/5/2024 Wanted Subject N/A
40mm displayed but not used during the arrest
of a subject who had outstanding warrants. N/A N/A
36 12/13/2024 Wanted Subject N/A
40mm Launcher was displayed but not used
during the contact and arrest of a subject who
had outstanding felony warrants and was known
to regularly resist arrest.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional 40mm launchers in 2025.

Total Annual Cost
Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.62 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Ammunition
Inventory5
eXact Impact 40mm; Quantity 127
Direct Impact 40mm OC; Quantity:20
Direct Impact Marking; Quantity 34
Training Sponge Ammunition 24 Round Kit; Quantity: 5 complete, 2 partial.

Use Reporting
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary Complaint Summary Audit
N/A N/A N/A N/A 40mm ammunition and 40mm training
ammunition used in training during the
reporting period.

N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
No Direct-Impact 40mm OC, Direct-Impact
Markings were used in law enforcement
activities or training
during the reporting period.

N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A
See CATEGORY 14 - 40mm Projectile
Launchers Use Reporting Summary above for
summary of use of eXact Impact 40mm
ammunition.

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2025 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
40mm eXact impact ammunition purchased 10/18/24. Quantity: 40 Cost: $1,320.00 40mm training ammunition kits purchased 10/18/24. Quantity: 3 Cost: $1,247.85 Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget.

33.63 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

5 The inventory of consumable equipment such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc. may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. Quantities provided represent quantity possessed by Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report.

33.64 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

CATEGORY 15 - Other Specified Items/Equipment
Inventory6
Colt LE6920 Carbines ; Quantity: 33
Colt Sporter Carbines ; Quantity: 2
LMT Defender 2000 Carbines; Quantity: 35
Hornady 5.56x45mm NATO, 75-grain BTHP TAP; Quantity: 2,500 .223/5.56x45 Training Ammunition7; Quantity: 6,300
Use Reporting8
Use
Number Date IncidentType
Agency
Assist? Use Summary ComplaintSummary Audit

N/A N/A N/A N/A
No AR-15 patrol rifles were used in lethal force
situations during the reporting period. Available data
indicates a firearm was used or displayed in 41
incidents during the reporting period.
9 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A Duty ammunition used in ongoing accuracy verification and maintenance of the rifles during the reporting
period.

N/A N/A
N/A Monthly N/A N/A
Monthly Emergency Services Unit training. Live fire
used in 25% of the trainings. N/A N/A

1 1/8/24 Training N/A
AR 15 rifles used during Emergency Services Unit
qualifications. Live Fire. N/A N/A
2 5/8/2024 Training N/A
AR15 rifles used during annual firearms training for all patrol officers. Rifles were used. N/A N/A
3 5/15/2024 Training N/A
AR15 rifles used during annual firearms training for all patrol officers. Rifles were used. N/A N/A

33.65 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2024 Report

4 5/21-
22/2024 Training N/A
AR15 rifles used during the Peace Officer Standards
Training mandated 16-hour rifle certification course.

Live Fire.

N/A N/A
5 7/9-11/2024 Training N/A
Officers were sent to a Colt armorers' course. This
provides factory certification regarding the maintenance of the patrol rifles.

N/A N/A
6 9/4/2024 Training N/A
AR15 rifles used during Emergency Services Unit
qualifications. Live Fire. N/A N/A
7 9/23-
9/24/2024
Training N/A
AR15 rifles used during the Peace Officer Standards
Training mandated 16-hour rifle certification course.

Live Fire

N/A N/A
Intended Acquisition in 2025
The Department does not intend to acquire additional AR-15 patrol rifles in 2025.

Consumable equipment acquisitions for 2025 will restore quantities previously approved by the City Council.

Total Annual Cost
Ammunition cost ($9,488).

Department-wide firearms training personnel cost ($16,076.24).

Emergency Services Unit Tactical Team training personnel costs (approximately $28,608.30).

Colt Armorers Training (approximately $3,354.24).

Annual costs for personnel, training, transportation, and storage are absorbed into the Department’s operating budget. 6 The inventory of consumable equipment, such as ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc., may fluctuate throughout the year due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, and/or manufacturer-recommended replacement guidelines. The quantities provided represent the quantity possessed by the Department as of the time of issuing this Annual Report. 7 The Department's standard training round is .223/5.56 55-grain full metal jacket. The manufacturer of the ammunition varies depending on what is available when the Department needs to make an order.
8 The Department tracks firearms usage; however, data for 2024 does not classify use by firearm type. The information provided represents the Department’s best estimate of AR-15 usage.
9 The Department did not track firearm usage by firearm type in 2024.

33.66 Brittany Inclan
From: Peter Gelblum <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 9:39 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Item 33 on 4.22.25 City Council Agenda
Dear Mayor and Council:

On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California, I submit the following comments reagarding this Agenda item - Receipt of AB 481 Annual Military Equipment Report, Renewal of SCMC Chapter 9.90, and Policy Update Pertaining to AB 481 Military Equipment (PD)

1. At the community meeting on March 27, 2025, by Zoom, the SCPD did not allow attendees to speak. I had to type all my questions into the Q&A function - the chat was disabled. It was very difficult to ask any follow up questions. I suggested they change that next time, but got no response. The Council should compel the SCPD to change the format for the community meeting in the future to allow people to ask questions verbally.

2. For the second year in a row, SCPD failed to track gun use by type of weapon. The first year, the explanation was that AB 481 was passed mid-year, so they didn't track for the whole year. They don't have that or any other excuse this year. They acknowledge/estimate that AR-15 assault rifles were displayed or used 41 times. The law requires SCPD to track use by type of weapon (with information describing the circumstances of each use). The Council should order the SCPD to comply with the statute and track use by type of weapon, or at least to keep track of all uses of assault rifles. I believe that would require only adding a box to a form that SCPD already uses, but whatever it requires, they must do it.

3. The SCPD must do a better job of breaking out training and personnel costs. For most categories, they just said that the costs were "absorbed in the general budget." A City Attorney who was at the community meeting acknowledged that the statute required these costs to be broken out, but agreed with Chief Escalante that it was very difficult to do. Difficulty in complying with the law does not excuse non-compliance.

4. A proposed amendment to SCPD Policy Section 705.10 would allow the SCPD to use military equipment that is not listed on the inventory in "exigent circumstances." This should not be allowed, because, under the law, they cannot acquire any new military equipment without prior approval from the City Council. Therefore they should not have any military equipment that is not listed in the inventory; where did they get these weapons? Moreover, this proposed amendment was not disclosed during the community meeting.

5. AB 481 prohibits the City Council from renewing the approval ordinance based on the Annual Report unless it makes all of the following findings:
1) The military equipment inventoried and presented in the policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; (2) The proposed policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;

33.67 (3) The equipment identified in the policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety, if any; (4) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or, if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance Last year, the City Council stated in its renewal Ordinance that it had made each of these findings, but in fact did not even consider much less actually make any of them. In other words, the language in the 2024 renewal Ordinance that the Council has made these findings is false.

Under the law, the Council must take the time to review the report and make each of these individual items of equipment. Failing to do so violates the law. The law does not put any deadline on approving the renewal of the approval ordinance after the annual report is submitted, so the Council has all the time it needs to review and decide whether the absolute requirements for renewal have been met.

Thank you for your serious consideration,
Peter Gelblum,
Chair, Santa Cruz County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California

33.68 Brittany Inclan
From: Karen Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 3:48 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Tues. April 22: SC City Council Mtg. RE: SCPD use of military weapons (AB 481) report Dear Mayor Fred Keeley, Santa Cruz City Council, Bonnie Bush and To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Tuesday, April 22, 2025: Santa Cruz City Council Meeting - Santa Cruz Police Department use of military weapons report (AB 481)
Agenda Item #33:
2024 AB 481: Report by the Santa Cruz Police Department  AB 481 requires every law enforcement agency to create an inventory of all military equipment it owns and a use policy for every piece of equipment, and to get the approval of the Santa Cruz City Council of the use policy.
 The law requires the law enforcement agency to get approval from the Santa Cruz City Council before acquiring additional military equipment.
 The SCPD must submit an annual report listing all uses of each item of military equipment for the past year.
 A community meeting is required to discuss the annual report before submitting the report to the Santa Cruz City Council for approval.

Please:

1. Allow attendees at meetings to speak in person or remotely by ZOOM.

2. Enable a chat function on ZOOM for questions and comments.

3. For each type of weapon used by the SCPD, document each use with a description of the circumstance.

4. Revise the SCPD form to include gun and weapon use information.

5. List all military equipment in the inventory that is approved by the Santa Cruz City Council.

6. Do not allow military equipment to be acquired that is not approved by the Santa Cruz City Council.

7. List where weapons are acquired.

8. Itemize training and personnel costs.

The meeting may be viewed remotely:
 Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/94684401344
 Online: http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-council/council-meetings  Online: Watch – Community Television of Santa Cruz County  Comcast Channel 25
Or call any of these telephone numbers:

33.69  1-833-548-0276 (Toll Free)
 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
 1-877-853-5247 (Toll Free)
 1-669-900-9128
 Meeting ID number: 946 8440 1344
 When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
 Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.  When the Mayor calls on you, it will be your turn to speak. Press *6 to unmute yourself.

A timer will be set.

Thank you for your consideration when determining if the Santa Cruz Police Department report has met the required criteria with transparency.

Sincerely,
Karen Kaplan
Resident of Santa Cruz County Since 1974

33.70 Brittany Inclan
From: Angelee Dion <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 7:22 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley
Subject: Annual military equipment report form the SCPD Hello,
I have lived in Santa Cruz for 38 years and I am concerned about the militarization of police departments across this country, including our own police department. I have read through the 2024 SCPD military equipment report and everything seems on the up and up, so to speak. But this is an agency policing itself. While I believe that our department has the best intentions, true accountability requires an outside entity to verify the information in the report and to make sure that citizens' questions get answered.

According to AB 481, Section 7071 (a) (2) (d) (1), "The governing body (ie, the Santa Cruz City Council) shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance." Granted, this is a big mandate for the City Council, but perhaps not so big given the Council's access to all of city government. The police Inspector General, OIR Group, is not independent from the SCPD and therefore not an adequate solution for this issue.

Another concern I have is the SCPD's responsiveness to the public. They did conduct a public meeting on this issue within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing their annual report as required by the law, but the meeting was held on zoom and the public was not allowed to ask follow up questions. There was no room for dialogue and real learning, for either the public or the police. I would like to see these meetings happen in person in the future.

33.71 As I see it, the danger with all militarized equipment is that it removes people from each other as much as possible. We have drones and armored cars and tear gas launchers so people don't have to see and feel each other. They become dehumanized, we become dehumanized, and needless destruction and suffering can ensue. I feel it's better to put the checks and balances in place before our acceptance of violence gets even more normalised than it already is. Please consider these points before you just rubber stamp the military equipment report.

Thank you,
Angelee Dion

33.72 Brittany Inclan
From: Denise Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: City Council Must Protect Citizens
City Council Members,
In the country's current climate of intimidation and overreach by government authorities, I urge you to do your part to protect the citizens of Santa Cruz.

AB481 is important and Santa Cruz Police Department must comply. Please hold them accountable to build processes and procedures insuring compliance. Generally, Santa Cruz PD has amiable relations to its population and support of the rights of the public. This is appreciated.

Please insure proper oversight of ALL power so that overreach and abuse of power cannot occur and the safety of citizens AND Law Enforcement personnel is assured.

Concerned Citizen,
Denise Allen

33.73 Brittany Inclan
From: Luisa Magarian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:56 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Comply with the law regarding military equipment owned by SCPD I'm writing to urge you to make sure that Santa Cruz fully complies with AB 481. I think we should be minimizing the acquisition and use of military grade equipment in our community, but at the very least, we should be transparent and accountable about it.
 AB 481 requires every law enforcement agency in the State to create an inventory of all military equipment it owns and a use policy for every piece of equipment, and to get the approval of its governing body of the use policy,
 The law also requires the law enforcement agency to get approval before acquiring any additional military equipment.
 The SCPD must submit an annual report listing all uses of each item of military equipment for the past year, and to have a community meeting discussing the annual report before submitting the report to the City Council Thank you,
Luisa Magarian
District 1, Santa Cruz

33.74 Brittany Inclan
From: Susan Kohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:09 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: keep our community safe and hold SCPD accountable for military weapons To Councilmember Brunner, Mayor Keeley and other members of our Santa Cruz City Council:

I am a resident of district 3 and I am writing today to ask you to hold our police department accountable for the military weapons they have in their arsenal by ensuring they comply with the law of AB 481 in order to keep our community safe. The law also requires the city council to oversee certain aspects of the military weapons inventory and usage.

There are several worrisome issues happening in the SCPD and the way you are overseeing them. I’ll list a few here:

I have learned that for the second year in a row, SCPD failed to track gun use by type of weapon. The first year, the explanation was that AB 481 was passed mid-year, so they didn't track for the whole year. They don't have that or any other excuse this year. They acknowledge/estimate that AR-15 assault rifles were displayed or used 41 times. The law requires them to track use by type of weapon (with information describing the circumstances of each use). The Council should order the SCPD to comply with the state and track use by type of weapon, or at least to keep track of all uses of assault rifles. I am told that would require only adding a box to a form that SCPD already uses, but whatever it requires, they must do it.

I am also asking that the SCPS do a better job of breaking out training and personnel costs. For most categories, they just said that the costs were "absorbed in the general budget." A City Attorney person who was on the call acknowledged that the statute required these costs to be broken out, but agreed with Chief Escalante that it was very difficult to do. Difficulty in complying with the law does not excuse noncompliance.

What is also alarming is that a proposed amendment to SCPD Policy Section 705.10 would allow the SCPD to use military equipment that is not listed on the inventory in "exigent circumstances." This should not be allowed because, under the law, they cannot acquire any new military equipment without prior approval from the City Council. Therefore they should not have any military equipment that is not listed in the inventory; where did they get these weapons? And why wasn’t this proposed amendment disclosed during the community meeting? It also came to my attention that last year, the City Council stated in its renewal ordinance that it had made each of these findings, but in fact did not even consider, much less actually make any of them. In other words, the language in the renewal ordinance approving the annual report that the Council made regarding these findings is FALSE. Under the law, the Council must take the time to review the report of each of these individual items of equipment. Failing to do so violates the law. The law does not put any deadline on approving the renewal of the approval ordinance after the annual report is submitted.

Please take my concerns into consideration at the City Council meeting tomorrow, April 22, 2025.

Respectfully,
Susan Kohen

33.75 --
Susan Kohen
she/her/hers
831.332.0187
"When we are taught that safety lies always with sameness, then difference, of any kind, will appear as a threat. When we choose to love we choose to move against fear – against alienation and separation. The choice to love is a choice to connect – to find ourselves in the other. " bell hooks- all about love

33.76 Brittany Inclan
From: SURJ SantaCruzCounty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:19 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: keep our community safe and hold SCPD accountable for military weapons To Mayor Keeley and other members of our Santa Cruz City Council:

On behalf of the SURJ SCC organizing team, I am writing today to ask you to hold our police department accountable for the military weapons they have in their arsenal by ensuring they comply with the law of AB 481 in order to keep our community safe. The law also requires the city council to oversee certain aspects of the military weapons inventory and usage.

There are several worrisome issues happening in the SCPD and the way you are overseeing them. I’ll list a few here:

We have learned that for the second year in a row, SCPD failed to track gun use by type of weapon. The first year, the explanation was that AB 481 was passed mid-year, so they didn't track for the whole year. They don't have that or any other excuse this year. They acknowledge/estimate that AR-15 assault rifles were displayed or used 41 times. The law requires them to track use by type of weapon (with information describing the circumstances of each use). The Council should order the SCPD to comply with the state and track use by type of weapon, or at least to keep track of all uses of assault rifles. I am told that would require only adding a box to a form that SCPD already uses, but whatever it requires, they must do it.

We are also asking that the SCPS do a better job of breaking out training and personnel costs. For most categories, they just said that the costs were "absorbed in the general budget." A City Attorney person who was on the call acknowledged that the statute required these costs to be broken out, but agreed with Chief Escalante that it was very difficult to do. Difficulty in complying with the law does not excuse non-compliance.

What is also alarming is that a proposed amendment to SCPD Policy Section 705.10 would allow the SCPD to use military equipment that is not listed on the inventory in "exigent circumstances." This should not be allowed because, under the law, they cannot acquire any new military equipment without prior approval from the City Council. Therefore they should not have any military equipment that is not listed in the inventory; where did they get these weapons? And why wasn’t this proposed amendment disclosed during the community meeting? It also came to our attention that last year, the City Council stated in its renewal ordinance that it had made each of these findings, but in fact did not even consider, much less actually make any of them. In other words, the language in the renewal ordinance approving the annual report that the Council made regarding these findings is FALSE. Under the law, the Council must take the time to review the report of each of these individual items of equipment. Failing to do so violates the law. The law does not put any deadline on approving the renewal of the approval ordinance after the annual report is submitted.

We hope you will take our concerns into consideration at the City Council meeting tomorrow, April 22, 2025; there is a lot at stake for our community.

Respectfully,
Jill Susskind and the SURJ SCC organizing team
--

33.77 "In every age, no matter how cruel the oppression carried on by those in power, there have been those who struggled for a different world. I believe this is the genius of humankind, the thing that makes us half divine: the fact that some human beings can envision a world that has never existed." ~Anne Braden, 1924-2006, a white anti-racist organizer, journalist, and leader in racial justice movements in the South.

33.78 AB 481

ANNUAL REPORT
Santa Cruz Police
Department
2024

33.79 Policy
May 10, 2022, City of Santa Cruz
City Council adopted SCMC Chapter

9.90, approving the SCPD Military
Equipment Use Policy (705)
(Gov't Code § 7071)
• Authorized Use
• Fiscal Impact
• Legal & Procedural
Rules
• Training
• Description
• Quantity
• Capabilities
• Lifespan
• Purpose
Reporting
A law enforcement agency must
submit to their governing body an
annual military equipment report for
each type of military equipment
approved by the governing body
w ithin one year of approval, and
annually thereafter for as long as
the military equipment is available
for use. (Gov't Code § 7072(a))
Approval
AB 481 requires a governing body to
review the ordinance adopting a
military equipment use policy at least
annually and to vote on whether to
renew the ordinance at a regular
meeting; and shall determine, based
on the annual military equipment
report w hether each type of military
equipment identified in that report
complies w ith the standards for
approval (Gov’t Code § 7071(e)(1,2))
Safeguard
Establishes legally enforceable
safeguards, including transparency,
oversight, and accountability
measures to protect the public’s
w elfare, safety, civil rights, and civil
liberties before military equipment is
funded, acquired, or used.

Effective January 1, 2022, establishes
requirements for the funding, acquisition and use
of items deemed "military equipment" (Gov't Code
§ 7070(c)) in law enforcement and state agencies.

Assem bly Bill 481

33.80 Command & Control
Vehicles
Armored
Personnel Carrier
Sa nt a Cruz P olice Dep a rt m ent Milit a ry Eq uip m ent Use Gov't Code § 7070(c)
Robot & Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
01 02 & 03
05 33.81
Santa Cruz Police Department Military Equipment Use
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition Less
than .50 Caliber
Firearms and
Ammunition Greater
than .50 Caliber
Transport Vehicles
Gov't Code § 7070(c)
05 10
08 & 09

33.82 Flashbang, Teargas
& Pepper Balls
Santa Cruz Police Department Military Equipment Use
40mm Launchers &
Ammunition
Long Range Acoustic
Device
13 14
12 Gov't Code § 7070(c)

33.83 Sa nt a Cruz P olice Dep a rt m ent Milit a ry Eq uip m ent Use Other Specified
Items/Equipment
Gov't Code § 7070(c)
15 0 20 40 60 80
1 - Robot
1 - UAV
2&3 - Armored Personnel Carrier
5 - Transport Vehicle
5 - Command & Control Vehicle
8 - Firearms Greater than .50
9 - Ammunition Greater than .50 Caliber
10 -Firearms & Ammunition less than .50 caliber
12- Flashbang, Teargas and Pepper Balls
13 -Long Range Acoustic Device
14 - 40 MM Projectile Launcher & Ammunition
15 - Other Specified Items/Equipment
Field
Demo
Training
AOD
Refueling
Maintenance

33.84 Assist W atsonville PD (1)
Assist Sheriff’s Department (1)
Field (2)
Refuel (1)
Training (8)
Maintenance (5)
Armored Personnel Carrier BearCat
Demonstration (1)
Assist Salinas PD Department (1)

33.85 Santa Cruz Police Department Military Equipment
Costs
Gov't Code § 7072(a)(4)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$0.00
$43,055.63
$94,521.00 $97,888.27
Throw Bot, $5,721.66
Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle, $92,249.57
Armored Personnel
Carrier, $604.56
Command & Control
Vehicles, $42,451.07
$31,264.30 ,
Specialized Firearms
& Ammunition < .50
Caliber
Flashbang,
Teargas, Pepper
Balls, $2,966.25
40mm
Launchers &
Ammunition,
$2,567.85
Other Specified
Items/Equipment,
$57,639.64
*Refuel costs unavailable. In late 2024, the City Corporation Yard changed to a different vendor to manage the City’s fuel pumping stations. As a result, all individual vehicle refuel records were not retained.
*

33.86 Sa nt a Cruz P olice Dep a rt m ent Milit a ry Eq uip m ent Category 1 – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Pending Council approval, the Department intends to purchase fifthgeneration wireless technology (5G) connectivity to the existing unmanned aerial vehicles.

Intended Acquisitions in 2025
Gov't Code § 7072(a)(6)

33.87 Gov't Code § 7072(b)
Questions included but were not limited to:
− Multiple questions asked for details on specific uses of the UAVs and armored patrol vehicle.
− Why are all personnel costs not captured in the annual report? − Why are the UAV Ford Explorer equipment costs not under the UAV category? − Why is there a need to have rifles at the Wharf-to-Wharf event? − What does NFDD mean?
− What is an eXact impact projectile?
− Why did [the Police Department] not track firearm usage by firearm type in 2024? Santa Cruz Police Department Community Engagement

33.88 Santa Cruz Police Department Policy Updates
Policy 705 Military
Equipment
Section 705.10 ( Page 4)
Proposed
Addition
705.10 USE IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
In exigent circumstances and with the approval of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, the Police Department may utilize military equipment that is not included in this policy to promote the safety and security of community members. If the Department utilizes military equipment in such exigent
circumstances, it must take all of the following actions:
• Immediately cease use of the military equipment once the exigent circumstances necessitating such use cease to exist. • Include information about the use and the military equipment used, consistent with Government Code section 7072, in the Department’s next annual military equipment report.

33.89 Santa Cruz Police Department Policy Updates
Category 15 – Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (Page 21)
Proposed
Modification
I. Colt Carbines. Purchase cost: $33,250. Quantity: 35.

I. Colt LE6920 Carbines. Purchase cost: $31,350. Quantity: 33.

II. Colt Sporter Carbines. Purchase cost: $1,900. Quantity 2.

Category 1 – Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (Page 6)
Proposed
Addition 5G Connectivity

33.90 Quest ions?

33.91 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/03/2025
AGENDA OF: 04/22/2025
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Bay Corridor Design Concept – California Street to High Street and Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption: 14 CCR § 15301. (PW)
LOCATION: Districts 3, 4, 5, and 6
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Approve the recommended Design Alternative of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street; 2) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Cooperative Agreement for Local Improvements Agreement with Caltrans in a form approved by the City Attorney; 3) Direct the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate with Santa Cruz City Schools to acquire property at Bayview Elementary School (APN 004-441-24) for the project in accordance with Administrative Procedure Order 28; and
4) Approve the CEQA analysis contained in the agenda report, including the applicability of the following CEQA exemptions: Pub. Res. Code § 21080.25(b)(1) (pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve safety, access, or mobility); Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15301); Class 4 (Minor Alterations) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15304); and Common Sense Exemption (14 CCR § 15061).

BACKGROUND: The Bay Corridor is a critical transportation route for people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving. The 2.1-mile corridor connects West Cliff Drive to UCSC, and along the route serves neighborhoods, parks, senior housing, Bay View Elementary School, Mission Hill Middle School, Santa Cruz High School, neighborhood commercial, and high quality transit routes with high ridership. The Bay Corridor was identified in the 2017 Active Transportation Plan as one of the top ten most important projects to complete to increase multimodal access for the Santa Cruz community.

The City of Santa Cruz (City) has identified the Bay Corridor from West Cliff Drive to High Street for a complete streets redesign. The goal of the Bay Corridor improvements is to construct complete streets improvements along the entire corridor, enhancing safety and mobility for all

34.1 roadway users and increasing connectivity and access to schools, parks, housing, and other multimodal facilities.

To assist with project delivery, the corridor improvements will be delivered in the following three phases (segments):
 Segment 1 - Escalona to Nobel/Iowa: Recommended by Transportation Public Works Commission (TPWC) and approved by Council in 2024, construction is scheduled for March-June 2025 and includes separated bike lanes and pedestrian path.  Segment 2 - California to High Street, excludes Escalona to Nobel/Iowa: This segment is the focus of this staff report. The concept design incorporates complete streets elements, including separated bi-directional bike lanes, transit boarding islands, speed management treatments, and pedestrian enhancements. This segment is funded by an Affordable Housing and Sustainability Community (AHSC) grant secured for the Library Mixed-Use project. If approved, construction is anticipated to occur in late 2026 through 2027.  Segment 3 – West Cliff to California: Currently planned for in-house design as staff resources and funding become available. It is anticipated to include similar design concepts of Segment 2 with initial concepts presented to TPWC.

In November 2023, staff brought preliminary concept plans for the Bay Corridor from California Street to Mission Street for TWPC review. The concept presented included a bi-directional separated bike lane on the Bay View frontage. TPWC provided direction to staff to consider what additional safety measures could be added, including aggressively pursuing speed reduction tools, estimating the cost of a sidewalk level bike lane spanning the entire length of the segment, considering additional treatments for the Bay/Seaside intersection, and consulting with Caltrans to modify the Mission Street intersection to allow for widening of the bicycle lane.

Staff subsequently secured additional funding to complete the design of the Bay Corridor Complete Streets and executed a contract with Mark Thomas, a transportation design consulting firm. A project open house was hosted on January 22, 2025 at Bay View Elementary to solicit feedback. The meeting was noticed via direct postcard mailings to owners and occupants within 300 feet of Bay, physical postings along the corridor, a media push, social media postings, and promotion by Bay View Elementary School. The January Open House was well attended with an estimated 80 people providing detailed feedback. Bilingual staff were present to support English and Spanish speaking individuals. Feedback received focused on concern about parking loss, mixed feelings on left-turning restrictions, appreciation for physical separation for bicycle facilities, and questions about proposed King and Mission intersection treatments.

At its February 24, 2025 meeting, TPWC again reviewed an updated Bay Corridor design which incorporated feedback gathered from the January Open House. TPWC was largely supportive of the overall approach, with specific discussion about the importance of making the corridor work well for elementary and middle school aged youth. While the Commission was supportive of the design treatments, they directed staff to explore a new design alternative that included separated one-way (conventional) direction bike lanes on each side of the roadway for review at the March TPWC Open House.

34.2 Staff worked with Mark Thomas to develop a design alternative for separated one-way direction bike lanes on each side of the road that maintains the highest level of separation from vehicles possible within the right of way. At the March 24, 2025 Transportation and Public Works Commission Open House, staff presented both the one-way and bi-directional concepts. Both were well received, with attendees debating and discussing the merits of each for themselves and their community.

Urgent approval of the Segment 2 concept plan is critical to align project delivery with the upcoming Caltrans Capital Maintenance (CAP-M) project. The CAP-M project is scheduled to repave and improve accessibility on Mission Street in 2026/2027. The concept plans have been reviewed with the Caltrans project development team for concurrence of design. If the concept design is not incorporated into the CAP-M project, the City will not have the ability to deliver the Segment 2 improvements within the grant funding deadline.

DISCUSSION:

Design Criteria and Design User
Overall, the project aims to make the Bay Corridor feel safe, comfortable, and accessible for users of all ages and abilities. To guide design recommendations, the City uses the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) All Ages and Abilities guide as well as the Level of Traffic Stress Criteria. These guidelines provide direction of what design treatments are appropriate to create bicycle facilities that feel comfortable and safe for users from children to seniors. These guides use the roadway context to inform design choices, including the speed and volume of traffic, number of lanes, and intersection configurations.

Staff discussed the intended design’s user at length. As a key corridor with direct access to Bay View Elementary School, Neary Lagoon and Trescony parks, senior housing, and both West Cliff and Rail Trail multiuse paths, the facility is designed using a principle called All Ages and Abilities.

NACTO defines All Ages and Abilities bicycle facilities as ones that are safe, comfortable and equitable. The NACTO guidance describes various All Ages and Abilities users who should be considered in facility design. Specific to this effort, the design users include children, seniors, women, people with disabilities, and low-income riders. Design considerations for these user groups include the ability to detect risks, fear of traffic, lower speeds, personal safety, and traffic stress levels. Research shows that existing bicycle facility designs, which are typically Class II painted bike lanes, are only comfortable for 6-10% of the population, but that up to 81% of people would ride in a separated bike lane designed for ages and abilities.

The NACTO guidance also provides a matrix to assist in choosing appropriate All Ages and Abilities facilities. This matrix uses roadway speed, roadway volume, number of lanes, and operational considerations. In cases where speeds are 26 miles per hour of greater, the recommended treatment is to either provide a separated bike lane or to reduce speeds. In all cases where the roadway volume exceeds 6,000, a separated bike lane is the recommended All Ages and Abilities facility. The Bay Corridor exceeds both thresholds and therefore is a candidate for separated bike lanes.

Hand in hand with the NACTO Guide, the team also considered the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) guided by the Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity publication from the

34.3 Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI). The LTS framework is intuitive: more people are willing to ride bike where it feels safe and comfortable to ride, few people are willing to ride where it feels uncomfortable due to high speeds and volumes of cars. According to this research, LTS 1 is meant to be a level that most children can tolerate; LTS 2, the level that will be tolerated by the mainstream adult population; LTS 3, the level tolerated by American cyclists who are “enthused and confident” but still prefer having their own dedicated space for riding; and LTS 4, a level tolerated only by those characterized as “strong and fearless.” Further, “as the number of lanes, traffic speed and traffic volume increase, providing a low level of stress requires progressively more protective measures – dedicated bike lanes and, ultimately, physically segregated bikeways.”
NACTO Guide: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/NACTO_Designing-for-All-AgesAbilities.pdf, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity Publication:
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf LTS Tables: https://bpb-use1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/e/618/files/2014/05/LTS-Tables-v2.2.pdf -v2.2.pdf Related to LTS, the project goal is to achieve LTS2 or better on the Bay Corridor. As the MTI research states, LTS 2 criteria is in line with Dutch standards for bicycle facility design, and is appropriate for “mainstream, traffic-intolerant adult population.” Key to this is that the Dutch standards have been shown to attract mainstream populations, including roughly equal proportions of male and female riders. A separated bike lane or multiuse path is considered LTS 1 between intersections, but additional considerations at intersections must be considered to maintain LTS 2 or better.

On the Bay Corridor from California Street to High Street, volumes exceed 6,000 Active Daily Traffic (ADT) in all locations, with a range from 6,100 at Bay View Elementary to over 12,000 at High Street. Additionally, Bay Drive between Escalona and High streets has a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Using both speed and volume considerations, the NACTO design guidelines therefore indicate that a separated bike lane is the appropriate treatment for the entire corridor. To maintain a LTS of 2 or better, physical separation from motor vehicles and intersection treatments that separate cyclists from right turn conflicts with vehicles is required.

An additional consideration of the design comes from the funding for the project. The Bay Corridor design funding primarily comes from Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities.

The grant requirements include two lane miles of new or upgraded bicycle facilities and a minimum of five transit boarding islands. The recommended design meets all grant requirements of the funder. Due to the grant deadlines, the project cannot undertake substantial right-of-way acquisition or utility relocations.

Design Recommendation
The below section outlines proposed designs by segment. Where applicable, one-way and bidirectional bicycle facility alternatives are described and the rationale for the recommended treatment is identified.

California to Mission:

34.4 Bi-directional separated bike lane: this is proposed on the Bay View Elementary side of the roadway. This will connect to the existing Rail Trail Segment 7 at the Bay/California intersection, linking to the existing bi-directional separated bicycle facility. This design proposes left turn restrictions on side streets to minimize conflicts with the bicycle facility and maintains the existing Bike Route on Seaside/Acadia. This configuration locates people biking on the school frontage, recognizing that existing travel patterns for youth are to ride on the sidewalk to both access Bay View Elementary and utilize the existing crossing guard at the Bay/Mission intersection. The entire bicycle facility is separated from traffic all the way to the intersection.

A loading zone for pickup/drop-off and transit is provided for the inbound transit stop on the Bay View school frontage. The bus stop and loading zone allows vehicles to pull out of the lane and remove conflicts between people loading and the vehicles.

This design maintains nine parking spaces on the non-Bay View side of the roadway. Currently there are approximately 29 spaces in this between California and Mission.

Why the one-way alternative is not recommended: Staff considered a more conventional treatment with separated bike lanes on each side of the roadway. That alternative was designed to concept level. While there are many improvements that can be made over status quo with the one-way configuration, staff does not recommend this alternative for the following reasons:
• Bay/Seaside intersection would require utility relocation. While this process is technically possible, recent experience shows that this introduces a high level of risk to the project due to schedule issues. With grant timelines, this creates more risk than the project team is comfortable with.
• Parking: the one-way configuration removes all parking. • Creates challenges connecting to and across the Mission Street Intersection.

Mission Street Intersection:

Bi-directional separated bike lane: The separated bike lane is proposed to have a dedicated signal phase to maintain physical and time-based separation. The traffic signal phasing will be adjusted so the bi-directional bicycle crossing and adjacent crosswalk run separately from turning conflicts with vehicles. This is achieved by pairing the crossing with the northbound through movement on Bay. This would include a no-turn on red prohibition. This treatment has been reviewed with Caltrans and received their support.

These treatments maintain a LTS of between 1 and 2, meeting the needs of the elementary and middle school aged students who use this intersection to access school.

Why the one-way alternative is not recommended: At the intersection, a separated bicycle lane would be dropped to allow sufficient space for right turns at the intersection. In this alternative bikes and turning vehicles would share the space. The bicycles would be subject to right turning conflicts at the intersection but could receive a leading bike interval with the leading pedestrian interval similar to other cross streets along Mission Street. This configuration increases the level of stress at the intersection to LTS4, well above the goal of LTS2. While this would still feel comfortable for many adult riders, this is not an ideal design for youth or elderly riders.

Additionally, the through movements on Bay for bikes would happen with the auto phase, whereas the bidirectional alternative has a dedicated phase just for bikes and pedestrians.

34.5 Adjacent to the old Burger. restaurant space, the facility would be a shared bus/bike lane. This transit stop is one of the highest volume in the County and has 15-minute transit service. This configuration creates an additional conflict compared to the bidirectional separated bike lane where bikes do not conflict with the bus stop.

Mission to King:

Bi-directional separated bike lane: the bidirectional treatment continues on the Bay View Elementary side of the roadway. This alternative proposes left turn restrictions at Toledo and Anita Streets to limit conflicts with the bicycle facility. The transition from a bi-directional separated bike lane to a one-way separated bike lane happens at King Street signalized intersection in line with best practices and to create strong connectivity to Mission Hill Middle School. A transit boarding island for the inbound transit stop is included, creating dedicated space for all roadway users.

Currently, there is a time-based bike lane on Bay between Mission and King Street, prohibiting parking from 7:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday. The proposed plan removes parking on this segment at all times to create a permeant separated bicycle facility.

This separation maintains a LTS1 the length of this segment.

Why the one-way alternative is not recommended: this is a more conventional treatment with separated bike lanes on each side of the roadway. Aside from the previously noted shared bus/bike lane adjacent to the old Burger., this treatment would also function well. The primary reason that the bi-directional treatment is recommended through here is to maintain the lowest level of stress at the Mission and King intersections, which the bidirectional achieves better than the one-way.

King Street Intersection
Bi-directional separated bike lane: At the signalized Bay/King intersection, the bi-directional bike lane will transition to one-way bike lanes on each side the rest of the way to High Street. To do this, the northbound bicycle movement will receive exclusive phasing at the traffic signal.

This will allow cyclists to access either direction of King Street or northbound Bay Street.

Cyclists on King Street will use a bike box to turn left into the separated bike lane. Northbound cyclists will have to wait a little longer to cross than they do today, but southbound cyclists won’t be significantly impacted. The westbound right turn lane from King Street to Bay Street will be eliminated to provide a short stretch of bike lanes at the intersection. This creates a strong connection to Mission Hill Middle School using a treatment appropriate for youth.

Why the one-way alternative is not recommended: The intersection would function similarly to current conditions. The separation at the intersection would be lost to accommodate turning movements. Similar to at Mission Street, this configuration increases the level of stress to at the intersection to LTS4, above the goal of LTS2. Minor improvements could be made on King Street to add additional dedicated space for cyclists, but the resulting intersection would still have a higher level of stress than the bi-directional recommendation.

King to High
From King to High, a one-way raised or separated bike lane is the only design considered. This was chosen due to the potential interaction between high-speed downhill cyclists and much slower uphill cyclists on the segment north of Escalona where the grade is significant.

34.6 King to Escalona: North of King Street the configuration changes to one-way separated bike lanes. The bike lane is proposed to be raised to maximize separation in limited right of way.

Marked pedestrian crossings are added at all legs of the Escalona intersection. Currently no parking is provided and that is not proposed to change.

Escalona to Nobel/Iowa: This segment is currently under construction with one-way separated bike lanes with a two-way pedestrian path on the uphill side.

Nobel/Iowa to High: From Nobel/Iowa to High, one vehicle lane in each direction is removed to create space for one-way separated bike lanes on each side of the roadway. All vehicle lanes remain at the intersection of Bay/High to maintain current operational capacity. Additional intersection treatments are proposed at Meder Street to facilitate crossing for people walking and biking. Transit boarding islands are proposed at the outbound Bay/Iowa stop and the inbound transit Bay/High stop.

Other Design Considerations
Side Street Turn Conflicts and Access
The proposed bi-directional bike lane concept shows prohibition of left turns across the separated bike lane. Mixed feedback was received from the neighbors on this, with acknowledgement of the inconvenience and appreciation of the reduction in neighborhood cut-through traffic.

Currently, left turn conflicts exist across the bi-directional separated bike lane on Bay Street between California and north Redwood Street. Since the installation of the bi-directional bike lane between California Street and north of Redwood as part of Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase 1, there have been no reported crashes between cyclists and left-turning vehicles. This indicates that low volume residential streets are suitable for low levels of turning conflicts. To create an all ages and abilities network, the turn conflicts, especially left turning, need to be mitigated in some way, by either reducing the volume of turn conflicts, slowing speeds, or improving the perception of the cyclists. Typically, this is achieved by creating a separated corner treatment which puts 6-16’ feet of buffer between the bicycle lane and vehicular travel lane. The space provided for the separated corner also creates the space needed for cyclists to make left turns out of the bike facility.

With the separated bike lane provided on the southwest side of Bay Street, all the local cross streets, except Seaside Street, are then adjacent to the bike lane, providing a connection to the bike facility.

As the final design progresses, staff will continue to evaluate access management to/from side streets off Bay between Redwood Street and Anita Street.

Right-of-Way Acquisition
The bidirectional bike facility and loading area at Bayview Elementary School requires additional public right-of-way to complete the project. A property acquisition of approximately 4,000 square feet will be needed from the school (APN 004-441-24) in addition to a temporary construction easement. The Santa Cruz City School District Office has indicated support for the project and a willingness to provide the property to the City. If the bidirectional bike lanes concept is approved, the City will enter into negotiations with the school district to acquire the

34.7 property in accordance with Administrative Procedure Order I-28. The results of that effort will be presented to City Council for adoption. No other property acquisitions are anticipated as a part of the project.

Local Agreement with Caltrans:

As noted, Caltrans will be implementing a Capital Maintenance (CAP-M) project to repave Mission Street. Caltrans and City staff have been coordinating project delivery of the CAP-M project with the Bay/Mission intersection component. Doing so minimizes disruption to the traveling public, saves costs and effort, and maximizes resources. If the bidirectional bike lanes concept is approved, Caltrans staff would then own completion of the intersection crossing design and project delivery.

In order for Caltrans to incorporate into the Caltrans CAP-M project, the City must provide an approved concept design. In addition, the City must enter into a Cooperative Agreement for Local Improvements Agreement with Caltrans to outline roles and responsibilities, and scope, schedule, and budget commitments. This is a critical path decision to allow for project coordination of the City project with the Caltrans project. Construction of the Caltrans CAP-M project is planned to begin in December 2026 and continue for 12 months. The project limits implemented by Caltrans and separately by the City will be identified in this agreement.

Staff recommends entering into a Cooperative Agreement for Local Improvements Agreement with Caltrans to deliver this component of the project in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

Concept plans can be found on the City website at:
www.cityofsantacruz.com/publicworksprojects
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The Council approvals contained within this agenda report qualify for the following CEQA exemptions: a statutory exemption pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21080.25(b)(1) (pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve safety, access, or mobility); a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15301, see subd. (c)); a Class 4 (Minor Alterations) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15304, see subd. (h)); and the Common Sense Exemption (14 CCR § 15061). The project fits within these exempt categories and none of the exceptions to the CEQA exemptions listed in 14 CCR § 15300 are applicable. Finally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The proposed project is in alignment with the City’s HiAP initiative by supporting Health and Wellness and Healthy Environments. Providing facilities for people to safely walk and bike supports the community having healthy options for travel, aids in our climate goals, and supports healthy environments.

The General Plan mobility policies strongly support this project. These include Goal M1 “Land use patterns, street design, parking, and access solutions that facilitate multiple transportation alternatives” and policy M1.2 “Create livable streets. “Livable streets” support the intent of Section 65302(b) of the California Government Code to create “complete streets” planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including “bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.”

34.8 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: This design effort is funded by a $399,000 Regional Surface Transportation Program Exchange (RSTPX) grant matched with $51,000 in Gas Tax funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Prepared By:

Claire Gallogly
Principal Transportation
Planner
Submitted By:

Nathan Nguyen, P.E.

Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.PDF

34.9 TOPIC

BI-DIRECTIONAL

SEPARATED

BIKE LANE

ONE-WAY

SEPARATED

BIKE LANE

STATUS QUO
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESSCORRIDOR
1 1 2-3
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESSINTERSECTION
2 4 4
PARKING Maintains 9 spaces Eliminates all parking

TRANSIT
Separation of all roadway
users
Shared bus/bike lane Shared space
CONSTRUCTABILITY Caltrans coordination Utility concerns, Caltrans coordination
COST Within budget Exceeds budget, project
limits could be modified
Bay Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Segment 2: California to King

34.10 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” April 18, 2025
Mayor Fred Keeley
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Bay Corridor Design Concept – California Street to High Street Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Caltrans has been coordinating with the City on the development of the Bay Corridor Design for a number of months and is pleased to see the City proceeding forward in project development. Caltrans supports the City’s goals of this project and the staff direction to proceed with negotiation of a Local Improvements Agreement between our agencies. The proposed design incorporates best practices in Complete Streets and is aligned with Caltrans values to support multimodal transportation options for all Californians.

Caltrans will be constructing a Capital Preventative Maintenance (CAP-M) project on the Mission Street corridor beginning in December 2026 and continuing for approximately 12 months. Caltrans has reviewed the proposed design concept and supports the approach within the Caltrans right of way.

We look forward to continued coordination with the City of Santa Cruz on implementation of these two great projects.

Sincerely,
Madilyn Jacobsen
Caltrans Project Manager
Caltrans District 5

34.11 Brittany Inclan
From: kelly sauder <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 8:16 AM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council; City Plan; Matt Starkey; [email protected]; Transportation; [email protected]; Jon Bush
Cc: kelly sauder; Andy Sauder
Subject: Urgent Safety Concerns Regarding Bike Path Configuration Dear Santa Cruz City leaders,
I am writing to express serious concerns about the dangerous bike path in front of my home at 329 High Street. The current configuration poses significant safety risks to my family, including young grandchildren and elderly parents, as well as to myself and my neighbors.

Cyclists and motorcyclists frequently disregard stop signs, speeding through the bike path without yielding. This reckless behavior creates hazardous conditions when entering or exiting our driveway, as vehicles and pedestrians must cross the bike path. Additionally, accessing our parked cars on the street requires crossing the path, which has become increasingly perilous due to the high speeds and lack of compliance with traffic controls.

The situation is particularly alarming for our young grandchildren, who cannot safely navigate the area, and our elderly parents, who feel extremely vulnerable due to the path’s design and the unpredictable behavior of riders. We are deeply worried about the potential for accidents or injuries.

I urge the city to take immediate action to address these safety issues. Potential solutions could include improved signage, speed bumps, reconfigured lane markings, or increased enforcement to ensure compliance with stop signs. I would also welcome a site visit to assess the situation firsthand and discuss mitigation strategies.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your response and hope to work together to make our neighborhood safer for all residents.

Sincerely,
Kelly S. Sauder
329 High Street
831-332-3297

34.12 Brittany Inclan
From: Cea Kelley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Strong Support for Bay Street Corridor Improvements Dear Santa Cruz City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Bay Street Corridor Improvement Project. As a parent and resident of Santa Cruz, this project directly impacts my family’s safety and daily experience, especially my children, who use this corridor to commute to school.

My children travel from our home near West Cliff Drive up Bay Street each day. My younger kids attend the elementary school along the corridor, and my older children continue on to Mission Hill Middle School, traveling up to King Street and crossing over to reach the campus. The proposed improvements would provide a safe, continuous route that keeps them protected the entire way, on dedicated infrastructure designed for bikes. Not sidewalks crowded with pedestrians.

Bay Street currently has the fastest speed limit in the city - 30 to 35 mph - and many drivers often exceed that. With schools, homes, UCSC, and multiple transit connections along this route, it’s essential to provide infrastructure that ensures the safety of people choosing to walk, roll, or bike. Protected bike lanes and dedicated improvements are a critical step in addressing this safety gap and supporting families like mine who depend on active transportation.

These improvements will benefit a wide range of community members, from young students to experienced commuters, while helping the city reach its climate and safety goals. This corridor serves as a vital route for travel between neighborhoods, schools, and the university, and this project is a necessary and thoughtful step toward a more inclusive and sustainable transportation network.

Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to making Santa Cruz a safer and more accessible city for all.

Warm regards,
Carolyn Kelley
Resident | Parent | Active Commuter

34.13 Brittany Inclan
From: Elliott Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 12:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Ave Bike Lanes
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Thank you for your work to make Bay Ave safer for biking.

I am writing to ask you to please approve staff recommendation for Item 34 (separated bi-directional bike lanes). I bike commute on Bay and am excited for this big step forward.

Kind regards,
Elliott Campbell

34.14 Brittany Inclan
From: Kevin Karplus <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 12:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bike lanes on Bay
It is important for the safety and convenience of bicyclists that the City not adopt the 2-way bike path on Bay proposed by staff, but retain bike lanes on the right sides of the street.

The two-way path is designed under the assumption that bicyclists are young children traveling at walking pace, treating them like they are pedestrians. But the dominant bike traffic on Bay is bike commuters to and from UCSC, many of them on e-bikes traveling at the speed limit. Having highspeed traffic on the wrong side of the street is really unsafe, not only for them but for everyone else using the road.

Much of the recent bike infrastructure in the City has been poorly designed for bicycle transportation, with bad intersection design and barriers that don't stop cars, but prevent bicyclists for leaving the bike lane to avoid debris, trash cans, illegally parked cars, and other obstacles. It seems like the the guiding principle is now to keep bikes out of the way of motorists, no matter what the inconvenience or danger to the bicyclist. Most of the hazards to bicyclists are at intersections, and the two-way bike path design makes the intersections far more hazardous.

Please do not perpetuate this anti-bicycle-transportation design.

Kevin Karplus [email protected] https://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus Professor Emeritus, UC, Santa Cruz
Author of Applied Analog Electronics
Affiliations for identification only.

34.15 Brittany Inclan
From: Kevin Norton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 12:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I support safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I believe in improving safety and well-being for children, young adults, older adults—and for myself.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Kevin

34.16 Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Subject line: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street to help move away from a Car-Centric community.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Just an Observation: Wouldn’t a Roundabout at Bay & High serve locals better… Sincerely,
Mike Pisano – Soquel, Ca

34.17 Brittany Inclan
From: Micah Breeden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda for the design of separate bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California and High Streets.

I have been utilizing my bicycle as my main form of transportation in town for over 30 years. Bay Street, second only to Mission Street, is the least safe street on the Westside of town.

Moving forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street will help build a network of safe bike lanes that make more people comfortable using bicycles as a main form of transportation. This will reduce congestion on local roadways and pollution, all while improving the health of our community.

Sincerely,
Micah Breeden
122 Oxford Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
40 Year Resident of Santa Cruz
Property owner
Registered Voter

34.18 Brittany Inclan
From: David Zweig <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Street Bike Lane
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I ride that section several times a week and there are many "pain points" where I am uncomfortably close to the fast moving vehicles.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Dave Zweig
148 Walk Circle

34.19 Brittany Inclan
From: Mikey Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

Bidirectional makes the most sense because It's the most feasible solution, it offers a larger protected bike route, and better separation from cars and buses, and preserves more parking spots, and can be built within the budget.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
=-Mikey Cohen-=
Board Member | Bike Santa Cruz County
"Bike Santa Cruz County promotes bicycling through advocacy, education, and community building." 831-419-2517 [email protected]
bikesantacruzcounty.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

34.20 Brittany Inclan
From: Susan Cavalieri <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:04 PM
To: City Council
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I support the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bidirectional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I ride my bike weekly from downtown to the arboretum using Bay Street and I would feel safer using the proposed new bike lanes.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, to help build a network of safe bike lanes that make more people, from kids and grandparents to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Susan Cavalieri
Santa Cruz

34.21 Brittany Inclan
From: Bruce Dau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because…. It will provide safer access to UCSC.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Bruce Dau

34.22 Brittany Inclan
From: anne berne <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I bike to work and friend's houses along that corridor and want to be as safe as possible. Also, small children use that corridor for school and surfing. Let's keep everyone safe! Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Anne Berne, homeowner and cyclist in Santa Cruz since 1992

34.23 Brittany Inclan
From: Linda Werner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 5:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please support protected bike lanes
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I've been biking to work and my home almost every day from 1985 and recognize how dangerous it feels riding my bicycle on Bay Street. I like some of the changes that are on Bay Street from California Street to Westcliff Drive, however, the ride from California Street along Bay Street to High Street makes me very nervous.

Please approve the staff recommendation for item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I don't feel safe being next to cars that speed up and down Bay Street. Sometimes the cars drive too close to me and I have to get off my bike and stand on the curb and let the clump of cars go by. I'm afraid for the youngsters riding their bikes on Bay Street to Westlake School on High Street. I know of many of my friends and their children who say they don't ride their bikes to work or to school because of the traffic on Bay Street and about how close the cars are to them when biking.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Linda Werner
221 Dickens Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95064

34.24 Brittany Inclan
From: Charlie Mcdowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 6:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because the current arrangement does not allow for sufficient separation between bikes and cars. This had gotten worse in recent years with the growth in ebikes which are now competing with non-electric bikes for the bike lane space, often passing unsafely at high speeds relative to the non-electric riders.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Charles McDowell
Sincerely,

34.25 Brittany Inclan
From: Ann Zweig <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 6:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor RE: Item 34: Bikes on Bay Street from California to King Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I live on the lower westside of Santa Cruz and often bike up to UCSC for exercise. I have advanced biking skills, but I still do not feel completely safe on the Bay Street corridor. I have been very pleased with the bi-directional bike lanes in other parts of Santa Cruz (e.g. on Beach Street near the Boardwalk); that separated lane is safe and even kid-friendly.

Please move forward with protected bi-directional bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Regards,
Ann Zweig.

34.26 Brittany Inclan
From: David Lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2025 2:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because….

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
David Lieby
310 Everson Dr, Santa Cruz, Ca 95060

34.27 Brittany Inclan
From: Myriam C <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 3:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: SUPPORT protected bike lanes!
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation to APPROVE the bi-directional lanes on Bay Ave.

This is an important step towards safety for bicyclists, and the fact that it passes right by Bay View Elementary is a huge benefit to this plan, making school access so much safer for our kids.

This new plan makes so much sense. I urge you to vote YES! Thanks,
Myriam Cohen

34.28 Brittany Inclan
From: Joel Steinberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 8:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Bay Street Bike Lanes
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because….

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Joel Steinberg, MD

34.29 Brittany Inclan
From: Therese Kilpatrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 5:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I would feel safer riding on Bay St. if separated bi-directional bike lanes were created.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Therese Kilpatrick
--
Therese Kilpatrick
“Life is for the living.

Death is for the dead.

Let life be like music.

And death a note unsaid.”
― Langston Hughes, The Collected Poems

34.30 Brittany Inclan
From: Kelly McWaid <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 34: Please support protected bike lanes on the Bay Corridor Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Please approve the staff recommendation for Item 34 on your agenda to approve the recommended design of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

I want to see safer bike lanes on Bay Street because I'm an avid cyclist and want to be safe on the roads.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Kelly McWaid

34.31 Brittany Inclan
From: Susan Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: April 21 Council Meeting, Consent Agenda, Item 34 Bay Avenue Corridor Attachments: Bay Corridor.docx
Dear City Staff,
Please include the attached letter in the April 21 agenda materials. If you have any questions I can be reached at the email above or via text 831331-3737. Thank you.

Susan Gilchrist

34.32 April 20, 2025
Mayor Fred Keeley and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
809 Center Street, Room 8
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Subject: Consent Agenda Item 34: Bay Street Corridor
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Members,
I am writing in support of the staff recommendation regarding the Bay Avenue Corridor, Item 34 on your consent agenda.

The Transportation and Public Works Commission approved the proposed Bay Avenue Corridor plan before you today but also requested that staff also look at the option of a conventional one-way bike path in the segment from California to Mission Street. Because of the timeline for coordination with Caltrans, and other project deadlines, this alternative was not able to be considered by the commission before coming before you. I attended the public meeting where both the recommended separated bi-directional bike lane and the conventional one-way bike lane alternatives were presented and reviewed both plan schematics and the alternatives with staff at a subsequent meeting.

Staff has done extensive research on complete street designs that encourage all age and ability use of transit corridors and facilities. This is particularly important on the Bay Street Corridor which serves two schools, a seniors’ facility, connects with a State highway (Mission Street) and links both the beach and UCSC campus.

The staff recommendation for a separated bi-directional bike lane in the segment between California and King streets is within the project budget, does not require utility relocation and provides for safer bicycle, pedestrian and transit access, as well as improved crossing at streets accessing the schools. In addition, this design will encourage more bicyclists of all ages and abilities to use the corridor consistent with the Health in All Policies conditions.

Please approve the staff recommendation as presented in your agenda packet. Thank you for your consideration.

Susan Gilchrist
Transportation and Public Works Commissioner

34.33 From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Cc: Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O"Hara; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro
Subject: Council 4-21-25 meeting Item #34 Bay Corridor
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:20:15 PM
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers:

Please direct staff to pursue improvements to the current configuration of one-way bike lanes on Bay Street as opposed to directing design of a two-way bikeway on one side of the street.

There are two serious drawbacks to the proposed plan that staff recommends:

1. Less space to ride and maneuver: Currently Bay Street has bike lanes on each side of the street - generally 5 feet wide, some up to around 6 feet. There are some stretches that allow parking to the side which are about 12 feet wide, so when there are no cars parked, which is often the case, cyclists have the whole 12 feet to themselves. And, beyond this mostly ample space, a cyclist can maneuver into the adjacent travel lane to avoid an obstruction if need be.

In contrast, the proposed bikeway narrows the space to ride in -- being partly 8 feet wide and partly 10 feet wide for two-way travel. It has a raised curb at the edges which constrains maneuvering if there are obstacles, or bad pavement, or approaching opposite direction cyclists in the bikeway. Imagine riding in the 8-foot portion (maybe on a cargo bike with your children) and seeing some speeding electric bicycle riders coming towards you riding 2 abreast or not paying attention to you –what do you do when you can’t get out of their way? Also, further imagine adding pedestrians to the mix when riding adjacent to the sidewalk and bus waiting zone in front of Bay View school.

2. Encountering, or operating as, “wrong” way cyclists: The law requires cyclists to ride with traffic: that’s what we are taught, and what motorists are used to, and what’s currently accommodated on Bay Street. Although it’s legal to ride opposing traffic if one is on a separated facility like the one proposed, it’s fraught with its own set of conflict points, such as: (a) cyclists at the end of the two-way bikeway interacting with other cyclists and pedestrians in the King Street intersection while continuing north or turning on their green signal; (b) motorists backing out of driveways having to stop and look both ways at the bikeway, then stopping again at the street, and blocking the bikeway while doing so; (c) motorists exiting side streets having to remember to look both ways for cyclists and gauge their speeds and cyclists having to be extra-aware of this; (d) similar situations involving motorists turning into driveways along Bay (this would also be a concern if left turns into side streets are not prohibited).

It is also inconvenient for those who have to switch street sides twice and adds to their travel time. For example, Imagine living at say 1104 Bay Street and riding to visit a friend on 1410 Bay Street. You would ride north on the street (no bike lane), cross both lanes of traffic at Seaside St., ride on the two-way bikeway across the three Bay View school driveways, cross

34.34 Mission Street on the left side and then figure out some way to leave the raised bikeway or cross the raised curb, cross both lanes of traffic on Bay Street and then continue on the right side of the street (no bike lane). And, if the current two-way plans for Bay from California to West Cliff are also implemented, then anyone cycling on a major portion of the Bay corridor will have to switch sides twice (or ride in a narrowed travel lane without any bike lane).

These operational problems are more serious than perception is. The staff report states, “Overall, the project aims to make the Bay Corridor feel safe, comfortable, and accessible for users of all ages and abilities.” (emphasis added) Agreed, if you meet very timid or non-cyclists on Bay Street now and offer to provide a bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic, they will express a preference for it. But, even if they then become users, will they remain users and remain unstressed when they have such encounters as noted above, plus realize that physical separation does not extend to multiple driveways and intersections?
The City should undertake improvements that would truly benefit all users. Although there are many other streets in Santa Cruz that are much more stressful and actually dangerous to ride on than Bay Street, since the grant is earmarked for the Bay Street corridor, improvements should be advanced that can have broad-based support, for example: bike lanes of ample width, elimination of bike/auto parking conflicts, bike route striping through intersections, adjusted traffic signals to allow safer bike and pedestrian passage through intersections, traffic calming measures to slow motor vehicle traffic, added and enhanced crosswalks, comfortable and functional bus shelters, sufficient and secure bike parking at Bay View school, possibly consolidated school driveways, separate drop-off at the school for students transported on a tandem or cargo bike, more bike friendly pavement markings and signing on Palm Street (off of which there is a pathway leading to the school’s bicycle parking).

Effectuating such measures in the context of the current, typical, understandable street configuration is preferrable rather than spending millions of dollars on a radical redesign that, although addressing some current deficiencies, adds new complications and inconveniences for cyclists and motorists alike. I welcome that staff has forwarded an alternative concept that maintains the current travel pattern and allows for wider bike lanes. Additional adjustments should be able to address the drawbacks that staff initially has flagged in this overall better approach.

I’ve been riding a bike around town for five decades and appreciate all the advances made over the years. But adopting this proposed plan for more constrained bikeways would be a step backwards that I urge you not to take. Pleases pursue a better alternative.

Thanks,
Rick Hyman
138 Coulson Ave.

34.35 Brittany Inclan
From: Matt Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 4/22 Council Meeting - Letter for Item 34 Bay St. Corridor Design Attachments: City of Santa Cruz - Letter of Support for Bay St. Corridor Design Concept.pdf Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council Members,
Please find the attached letter of support for the staff recommended design of the Bay Street Corridor.

Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this matter.

Best,
Matt Miller (he/him)
Director, Mobility Transformation

Office 831.515.1324
877 Cedar St. Suite 240, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
letsmodo.org | vamosmodo.org

34.36 4/21/25
City of Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Item 34 Bay Corridor Design Concept – California Street to High Street Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council,
Ecology Action supports the staff recommended Design Alternative of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street.

As a local non-profit we work to advance equitable community climate solutions in high greenhouse gas emitting sectors, including transportation. Our Modo Active Transportation team provides youth pedestrian and bike safety education at schools across the county, including Bay View Elementary School, transportation planning like Complete Streets to School and Active Transportation Plans, and hosts community events like Walk and Roll to School Day, and Bike to Wherever Day, and Bike Month. We hear from program participants a clear need for safer bike infrastructure to support more riding.

By using NACTOs All Ages and Abilities guide and Level of Traffic Stress criteria, we believe staff have responsibly and rigorously evaluated how to employ best practice complete street design for this 2.1 mile corridor that connects West Cliff Drive to UCSC and serves neighborhoods, parks, senior housing, local schools, neighborhood commercial, and key transit routes. This ensures that the city is doing all it can to build comfortable and safe facilities that appeal to and can be used by more members of the community and improve conditions for those already using this corridor. Research clearly shows that separated bike lanes offer much more comfort to those riding bikes than the existing Class II bike lanes.

The project is particularly important for enhancing safety, especially for students and families at Bay View Elementary. The project will provide complete separation for people biking from high speed and high-volume vehicular traffic, which is one of the most effective strategies for reducing bicycle collisions and lowering stress. Importantly, this design contemplates and includes designs up to and through all the intersections, which are areas that introduce more conflicts, exposure, and higher stress. For those biking and e-biking to UCSC, this corridor serves as a central path to and from campus.

Ecology Action supports staff recommendations for Bay Street and looks forward to seeing these improvements built.

Sincerely,
Matt Miller
Director, Mobility Transformation

34.37 Brittany Inclan
From: Amelia Conlen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter re: item 34, 4/22 agenda
Attachments: Council - Bay St Letter 4.21.pdf
Hello Mayor Keeley and Council members,
Please see attached for a letter from Bike Santa Cruz County regarding Item 34 on tomorrow's agenda.

Thanks for your consideration,
Amelia Conlen
Bike Santa Cruz County Board Chair

34.38 April 21st, 2025
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council members,
I write to you today in support of the staff recommendation for Item 34 on tomorrow’s agenda, and urge you to move forward to implement this essential and overdue improvement of a critical arterial street.

Bay Street is an important link in our bike network, serving three K-12 public schools, UCSC, West Cliff, Beach Street, and access to downtown for most of the lower West Side. Safety improvements to this corridor are critical—drivers speed on Bay when it isn’t congested, and cyclists are separated from cars by a small amount of space and paint. When gridlock (often) occurs, it limits visibility, creating conflicts at cross streets. As bicycle and e-bike ridership continues to increase, especially with kids going to school, dedicated bicycle infrastructure is essential.

Both the two-way and one-way bike lane designs have their strengths and weaknesses. We appreciate staff for evaluating both designs and moving forward with the safest option that can be implemented without delay. In a recent survey shared with our email list, 52% of the 122 respondents supported a one-way design and 48% supported the two-way. Throughout the comments there was strong support for getting this project done and improving safety on the Bay corridor.

Protected bike lanes have been shown to reduce collisions and dramatically increase biking, because more people feel comfortable biking with more separation from cars. As our city grows, it is more important than ever to offer real alternatives to driving for short trips around town. Two-way protected bike lanes on Bay Street will provide a safe route for Bayview Elementary and Mission Hill Middle School students, as well as people who don’t feel safe biking now in a traditional bike lane.

Please move forward with protected bike lanes on Bay Street, which will help build a network of safe and comfortable bike lanes that make more people, from kids to new cyclists, feel comfortable biking in Santa Cruz.

Sincerely,
Amelia Conlen
Chair, Bike Santa Cruz County Board

34.39 Bay Corridor Design
California to High
2025.04.22 City Council

34.40 Agenda

BACKGROUND

AND GOALS

PROPOSED

PROJECT DESIGN

RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY

QUESTIONS

34.41 Recommendation: 4
parts
Design decision
Direction to enter agreement
with Caltrans
Direction to start right of way
with Santa Cruz City Schools
CEQA

34.42 Project Goal: Improve safety and
mobility for all roadway users

34.43 FUNDING: $5.2M
AHSC: $3,520,000
TDA: $350,000
RSTP: $1,388,000
Gas Tax: $51,000
West Cliff Drive
High Street
California
California
Mission
King
Escalona
Nobel Iowa
Future item Under construction

34.44 Key considerations:

Why is this corridor a priority?
What are our Grant requirements?
Who is our design user?
How do we deliver the project?
When are major schedule requirements?

34.45 Design User: All Ages and Abilities

34.46 Design
Proposal:
• Bi-direction separated
bike lane from California to
King
• Single direction separated
bike lane King to High
• Pedestrian crossing
improvements
• Transit boarding islands

34.47 High Street
California
California
Mission
King
Escalona
Nobel Iowa
Under construction

34.48 Additional Elements
Circulation and Access Control Trash Collection

34.49 Signals: Exclusive Crossings
Mission Street King Street

34.50 Alternatives Analysis

34.51 Schedule
2025
April 22: City Council design direction
Caltrans Agreement
SCCS Right of Way
2026
Finalize Design
Bid project
2027
Caltrans CAP-M (begin 12/2026)
Construction
Design to
Caltrans

34.52 Key next steps:

CALTRANS CAP-M:

LOCAL AGREEMENT

SANTA CRUZ CITY
SCHOOLS: ROW

FINAL DESIGN

34.53 Motion
1) Approve the recommended Design Alternative of separated bi-directional bike lanes for the Bay Corridor between California Street and High Street;
2) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Cooperative Agreement for Local Improvements Agreement with Caltrans in a form approved by the City Attorney; 3) Direct the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate with Santa Cruz City Schools to acquire property at Bayview Elementary School (APN 004-441-24) for the project in accordance with Administrative Procedure Order 28; and
4) Approve the CEQA analysis contained in the agenda report, including the applicability of the following CEQA exemptions: Pub. Res. Code § 21080.25(b)(1) (pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve safety, access, or mobility); Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15301); Class 4 (Minor Alterations) categorical exemption (14 CCR § 15304); and Common Sense Exemption (14 CCR § 15061)

34.54 Bay Corridor
Design
California to High
City Council April 22, 2025
ThePhoto by PhotoAuthor is licensed under CCY

34.55 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/03/2025
AGENDA OF: 04/22/2025
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing/City Council SUBJECT: Economic Development Strategy Update and Recommendations; First Reading of Vibrancy Ordinance (EDH/CN)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept the Economic Development Strategy Update regarding downtown actions and direct staff to move forward on the additional recommended actions; 2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into temporary café license agreements to permit outdoor dining areas in nearby alleyways adjacent to business establishments; 3) Authorize the creation of the Movie Theater Retention Incentive pilot program; 4) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 2025 budget to appropriate funds in the amount of $100,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund for the 12-month Movie Theater Retention Pilot Program and 12-month Vacant Storefront Window Covering Pilot Program; 5) Introduce for publication an ordinance adding Chapter 5.84, “Vibrancy Ordinance”, to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and
6) Approve the CEQA determination in this agenda report. More specifically, the proposed Council actions are not a “project” under CEQA. But if deemed a CEQA “project” the following exemptions apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 (maintenance/enhancement of a natural resource); Section 15308 (maintenance/enhancement of the environment); Section 15301 (existing facility); and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BACKGROUND: At the January 23, 2024 Council meeting, Economic Development and Housing Department (EDH) staff presented an update on the progress of the Economic Development Strategy (EDS), a 2-year plan for immediate pandemic relief efforts and a longer 3–5-year plan for recovery and activation of the City’s business and retail sectors. The plan was first adopted in March 2021 to guide EDH’s economic development activities through 2025. At the meeting, Council approved the following recommendations and actions:

35.1 A) Accept the Economic Development Strategy Update regarding Downtown and Eastside/Midtown and Westside actions and direct staff to move forward on the following additional recommended action areas to further activate the three districts during the current fiscal year:

1. Establish placemaking and activation;

2. Assess remaining empty storefronts and the development of potential incentives for property owners;

3. Plan for future use of the existing library space including a permanent home for the downtown Farmers’ Market;

4. Integrate new downtown housing projects into the downtown business, retail and shopping environment;

5. Pursue establishment of an Eastside/Midtown and Westside Business or PropertyBased Improvement Districts; and

6. Amend the Economic Development Strategy to include these additional strategies and actions.

B) Return to Council with an update on progress during the current fiscal year.

A subsequent update was provided at the June 25, 2024 Council meeting with additional direction to return to Council for consideration and approval of modifications to existing programs and new initiatives that will assist in the activation and maintenance of empty storefronts and with the recommendation for approval for an alleyway activation program.

DISCUSSION: This report focuses on progress made since the June 25, 2024 Council meeting in the areas of placemaking and activation, assessment of vacant storefronts and development of potential incentives for property owners. A future update will cover the progress on other actions.

Placemaking and Activation
Following the June 2024 Council update, EDH staff, working with Parks and Recreation, contracted SWA Landscape Architects (SWA) to create a landscape design vision and project prioritization for infrastructure improvements for the Downtown Play & Paseos project. This work is funded through a grant award from the State’s Infill Infrastructure Grant program (IIG) for the Pacific Station project. The project aims to attract more families and activity downtown by revitalizing connected alleyways, Pacific Avenue, and Lot 16 (existing parking lot adjacent to the downtown Library on Church Street) for the interim Farmer’s Market site through levels of improvements, including infrastructure improvements and active and passive activations.

Activations include play features, pedestrian wayfinding, landscaping, lighting, murals and sculpture, as well as setting the table for more events and business opportunities.

EDH and SWA conducted specific outreach to downtown businesses at the Downtown Association’s (DTA) Marketing Committee meeting on January 28, 2025 and February 25, 2025 and additionally solicited feedback from the Downtown Management Corporation and a working group of the Downtown Management Corporation. Further information on the Farmers' Market and future use and activation of Lot 16 was presented to the Downtown Commission at their March meeting. Attendees represented a broad coverage of downtown businesses, property and business owners, from the greater downtown area and broader business community.

35.2 Additionally, EDH staff is working on activation options for programming the project areas within the Downtown Play & Paseos project, including opportunities for recurring events, food truck pop-ups including pop-ups by downtown restaurants, and streamlined permitting for outdoor dining in the alleyways. Specifically, EDH worked with the Planning and Community Development (Planning) and PW Departments to clarify the Downtown Plan extension area policies to clearly allow for outdoor dining in the pedestrian-oriented portions of the alleyways and paseos in the same manner as sidewalk dining. This policy change will be reviewed through the changes proposed in the Downtown Plan expansion project and is expected to be reviewed by City Council in Spring 2025. In this interim period, staff seeks direction from City Council to authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into temporary licenses for café extensions in alleyways and provide an opportunity to pilot the concept of alleyway dining as warm weather returns this spring. Staff received interest in alleyway dining from businesses adjacent to Pearl Alley and identified potential opportunities for additional outdoor dining for businesses adjacent to the Cedar Street Paseo and in Frazier Lewis Lane and Plaza Lane.

Activation of Vacant Storefronts-Business Retention
Over the last year, EDH staff has held a number of business retention meetings with downtown anchor tenants, top sales tax producers, and businesses and property owners currently renegotiating or modifying their leases in the Downtown to offer support and resources and solicit feedback on City policies and the overall business environment. The top issues raised by businesses included employee retention and the need for reduced employee parking rates, customer parking validation programs, information about downtown development projects, and requests for information on projections of new resident demographics and homelessness response efforts. On the legislative side, businesses were seeking input on the impacts of new Prop 36 state legislation on reducing retail theft.

The parking division of PW has been working on a reduced rate employee parking program which has been approved by the Downtown Commission. The program provides reduced rates and time limited options that provide a range of daily savings that reduce parking costs for employees from the current maximum of $16/day to as low as $1.50-$6/day, depending on the option chosen. The proposed changes have been well received by business owners and will have a meaningful impact in addressing employee parking concerns. The proposed changes will be brought for City Council approval within the next few months.

Movie Theater Retention Incentive Program
EDH staff met with the owner/operators of the Downtown movie theaters to discuss business trends and impacts. They shared movie attendance data and trends of underperformance for the Santa Cruz market compared to similar communities in the county and the greater Bay Area.

They also shared feedback on parking costs impacting movie attendance and employee hiring and retention.

Both movie theater operators are optimistic of future performance prospects but expressed need for support in this current period. They are also currently working on significant capital investments for renovations and improvements to their theaters, including new reclining seats at both theaters, improvements to the lobby, restrooms, snack bar, and some exterior improvements at Santa Cruz Cinema. The Del Mar Theatre is also looking to add beer and wine service to meet the market standard of food and beverage amenities.

35.3 In recognition of the commitment and reinvestment from the theater operators, the direct competition from theaters in the County with free parking, and the need to retain these large entertainment hubs downtown, EDH proposes a movie theater retention incentive program to provide a customer parking validation offset of up to $50,000 for one year for Downtown movie theater operators.

Retail Attraction
In Fall 2024, EDH staff entered into a 12-month contract with The Retail Coach (TRC) to bolster the City’s retail attraction efforts and support brokers and property owners in their efforts to fill pre and post pandemic vacancies. TRC helps communities identify new retail opportunities, actively recruits those retailers, and provides support to staff for long-term success. EDH staff and TRC are focused on attraction efforts first for downtown but also in key areas of commercial districts citywide to identify traditional retail, restaurants, entertainment, and new concepts from national and regional brands that could be a value add to the business mix while not directly competing with locally owned retailers.

TRC has toured the City’s commercial districts and the targeted vacancies and met commercial brokers who represent those spaces. At EDH’s Fall Broker Breakfast, TRC presented market data and connected with more brokers. Since October 2024, TRC has contacted over 60 retailers and are communicating with about a dozen prospects. Staff meets monthly and as needed with TRC to review lead generation progress and has conducted several meetings with potential retailers at the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) Monterey conference in March 2025.

Permit Streamlining for Targeted Ground Floor Uses
EDH is working with Planning to reduce the permitting timeline for active ground floor uses in the Downtown. Staff piloted pre-application inter-departmental consultations prior to building permit submittals in an effort to address questions early and reduce permit review times.

Additionally, staff worked on revisions to broaden the definition of entertainment and recreation uses and reduce the permitting requirements for some uses that add to the vibrancy of the district as part of the Downtown Plan South of Laurel expansion. Some of these changes will apply in both the South of Laurel Area and in other parts of the Downtown Plan area.

Further revisions to the Downtown Plan are planned to reduce the permitting requirements for common uses on the ground floor, such as artist studios, museums, galleries, cultural institutions, health/fitness studios, and potentially bonafide restaurants with alcohol service and personal services with standards for approval, to ease the permit review process. Staff is also including a revision to remove the requirement for a special use permit for large non-residential ground floor uses that exceed 16,000 square feet. These changes need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, City Council and Coastal Commission for properties inside the Coastal Zone before they can take effect. In the interim period, prior to fully implementing streamlined changes to the Downtown Plan, staff is exploring temporary allowances for expedited permitting for desired active uses and will bring a proposal for Council consideration at a future meeting.

35.4 Vibrancy Ordinance
Councilmember Newsome, Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson and Councilmember Golder have been working with staff to develop a Vibrancy Ordinance to address the impacts of empty storefronts on the economic vitality of our community, particularly along Pacific Avenue. In addition to the overall negative impact on surrounding businesses, empty storefronts are an increased draw on City resources to respond to graffiti abatement, police response for vandalism and squatting, debris removal, sidewalk cleaning and power washing.

The Vibrancy Ordinance is intended to provide up-front resources to property owners to proactively reduce the economic impact of empty storefronts on the surrounding businesses and city resources. The ordinance further incentivizes property owners of commercial storefront to engage with the City early with opportunities to join the City’s Pops! program for increased leasing activity opportunities and provides resources to support responsible property management and maintenance of empty storefronts. After researching over a dozen cities with ordinances, staff drew from program examples in the cities of San Jose, Palm Springs, and Gilroy to develop the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance, if adopted, would initially apply only to Pacific Avenue between Laurel Street and Water Street for ground floor vacancies. As written, the ordinance will apply Citywide in June of 2026; however, the sponsoring Councilmembers recommended that staff return to the Council to consider the effectiveness of the ordinance before it is applied City-wide. In preparation for City-wide application, Councilmembers requested that the program review include the program cost to date, effectiveness, and, if warranted, recommendations for further amendments including a modification or delay to the City-wide application.

The proposed ordinance, if adopted, creates maintenance standards that will apply to all empty storefronts on Pacific Avenue once the ordinance is effective. If passed, the ordinance will require property owners with empty storefronts that have been vacant for 2 years or longer to register the empty storefront with the Planning Department, with exceptions for properties with active permit applications or participation in the City’s Downtown Pops! Program. Owners of applicable vacant storefronts exceeding 2 years will be required to submit the following: contact information for the owner and the local property owner responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the empty storefront, a property maintenance plan, a description of the most recent legal use of the empty storefront, the square footage of the property, any future plans for the property, along with a registration fee that will be set by resolution of the City Council at a future date.

A storefront would not be required to register if the property is actively participating in the City’s Downtown Pops! Program or similar City program that provides owners with the option of leasing, or granting use of the space on a pop-up, or temporary basis. The ordinance also features an exemption from registration for up to two additional years if the storefront is actively involved in a City-required permitting process or is actively under construction for repair or tenant improvements.

The maintenance standards in the ordinance provide greater enforcement resources to address the increased demand for services such as graffiti abatement or response to vandalism. The standards also create clear guidelines for maintenance to ensure the upkeep of the visible appearance of empty storefronts that current City codes do not cover. The ordinance also requires property owners to install, or allow for the installation of, either: (1) decorative vinyl window coverings

35.5 (also known as window clings), to be approved by the City or selected by the owner from preapproved City designs, or (2) window displays of curated art pieces to be approved by the City, DTA and/or arts organizations. Staff proposes to cover the cost of the installation of City approved window coverings for the first year of the program for all vacant storefronts on Pacific Avenue. Staff estimate the cost per storefront to range from $500 to $3,000 and will require a budget of approximately $50,000 to include design, printing, and installation. The City will provide a set of themed and City branded designs for property owners to choose from and the clings will need to be printed and installed in the vacant storefront windows. With City approval, property owners could also install “coming soon”, “available for lease”, or similar window coverings that meet the goals of installing graphically designed full scale window coverings.

Downtown Pops! Program Expansion
EDH has operated the Downtown Pops! Program since 2021 and has supported numerous businesses in three spaces and is currently marketing 701 Front Street for pop-up tenants and will soon be executing an agreement to activate 1409 Pacific Avenue through the program. Staff is also finalizing plans for a Santa Cruz Police Sub-station at 1117 Pacific Avenue with opportunities for potential activations beyond SCPD’s use of the space. The program operates through a master license agreement from the property owner to the City and a sublicense from the City to a tenant with term lengths of typically six months minimum and up to eighteen months. There are instances where a shorter or longer term may be applied depending on the needs of the tenant and property owner. Under the current model, the City provides a guaranteed minimum rent of $1/sf and a maximum rent of $2/sf or the advertised rate, whichever is less. The tenant is charged 10% of sales to be passed through to the property owner up to the maximum rent rate.

Implementation of the Vibrancy Ordinance will create an incentive for larger spaces to participate in Downtown Pops! Program. However, the current rental model is cost prohibitive to the City for long-term sustainability of program funding. Staff proposes modifications to the program structure to best meet the program goals while ensuring the funding can extend to several spaces for activation and be available over multiple years. The proposed changes would create the following structure:

Spaces under 4,000 SF
Master Lease Rate: $1.25/sf minimum and $2.50/sf max or the advertised rate, whichever is less
Sublease Rate: 10% of sales capped at $2.50/sf
Term: 6 month minimum – 18 months maximum
Spaces 4,000 SF or more
Master Lease Rate: $1.25/sf minimum or the advertised rate, whichever is less, with a cap of $5,000 per month maximum from City subsidy
Sublease Rate: 10% of sales – capped at $2.50/sf or $10,000/month max Term: 6 month minimum – 18 month maximum

35.6 Downtown Pops! Business Retention Model:

EDH has developed a business retention tool as part of the Downtown Pops! Program to support the successful transition of existing downtown businesses to new ownership. Recognizing the importance of retaining established businesses, especially anchor tenants, the program offers the following targeted support during the ownership transition:
• Provides rent reimbursement of up to $1.25/sf or $5,000 maximum per month for a portion of the lease term, not to exceed 6 months, to new owners of existing businesses or a change in operation of qualifying businesses.
• Prioritizes established businesses with a strong sales history, recognizable brand, significant community impact, with a priority on Pacific Avenue. • Aims to facilitate smooth transitions, prevent vacancy, and minimize disruption to downtown commerce.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed recommendations and Ordinance are not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the Ordinance represent the type of activity described in Public Resources Code section 21065. In the alternative, if the Council actions, including the proposed ordinance, are considered a “project” under CEQA, the following exemptions apply:
• 14 CCR 15307 – Class 7 Categorical Exemption: the Council action is “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15307.)
• 14 CCR 15308 – Class 8 Categorical Exemption: the Council action is ““to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. ” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.)
• 14 CCR 15301 – Class 1 Categorical Exemption because the Council action, including allowing temporary licenses for alleyway dining, relates an existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.) • 14 CCR 15061(b)(3) – The “common sense” exemption applies because by establishing empty storefront maintenance and inspection programs, “there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).)
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The strategies and actions in the EDS align directly with the City's commitment to HiAP. By creating inviting, communal spaces and promoting the establishment of businesses, the City will enhance the quality of life for residents. Staff is also proud to say that Downtown Pops! has served a number of under-represented groups, including woman- and BIPOC-owned businesses. This not only contributes to economic growth and prosperity but also fosters health equity and sustainability in the community. Moreover, the engagement of community members in the decision-making process ensures that their needs and perspectives are considered, leading to a more inclusive and healthier urban environment.

35.7 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: Temporary café extension license agreements will generate revenue for the General Fund. Funding for the Downtown Pops! program is available through the FY 2025 EDH budget. While there is no direct fiscal impact with respect to bringing on additional staffing for the Vibrancy Ordinance implementation, the storefront registry program may reduce the ability of the Code Compliance team to respond to other issues. The Movie Theater Retention Pilot Program and Vacant Storefront Window Covering Pilot Program is a new appropriation $50,000 each for a total of $100,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund.

Prepared By:

Rebecca Unitt
Economic Development
Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Deputy City Manager
Scott Newsome
Councilmember
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Vice Mayor
Renee Golder
Councilmember
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. VIBRANCY ORDINANCE.DOCX

2. TEMPORARY CAFE LICENSE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE.PDF

3. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.PDF

35.8 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADDING CHAPTER 5.84, “VIBRANCY ORDINANCE”, TO THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that some commercial areas of Santa Cruz, including downtown Santa Cruz, have longstanding blighted and empty storefronts; and WHEREAS, in addition to creating blight, empty storefronts have a severe and detrimental impact on the economic viability of the commercial center in which they are located; and WHEREAS, long-term empty storefronts often attract illegal activity, such as squatting, vandalism, littering, graffiti, and dumping. These types of activities discourage would-be customers from visiting impacted commercial centers, and they place an undue burden on City resources and nonprofit agencies, such as graffiti abatement, police response for vandalism and squatting, debris and illegal dumping removal, and sidewalk cleaning and power washing; and WHEREAS, to promote public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to add this Chapter 5.84 (“Vibrancy Ordinance”) to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Council’s intent is to first apply Chapter 5.84 to Pacific Avenue, before it becomes applicable City-wide in June of 2026. The Council directs staff to return to the Council before the Vibrancy Ordinance’s scheduled City-wide effective date, and, at that time, the Council will consider the effectiveness of the ordinance, the City’s preparation for City-wide application and, if warranted, potential Municipal Code amendments to modify the City-wide effective date; and WHEREAS, the City also provides incentives to help property owners reasonably maintain and lease their property. These incentives include: assisting property owners with the filing of an SCPD “trespass letter” to deter trespass and other illegal activities on the premises; assisting property owners with providing window coverings and art installations; providing short term leasing opportunities through the Downtown Pops! Program; and providing façade improvement and antigraffiti window film-coating grants.

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

SECTION 1. A new Chapter 5.84 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is added as follows:
“Chapter 5.84

VIBRANCY ORDINANCE

5.84.010 – PURPOSE, INITIAL APPLICABILITY ON PACIFIC AVENUE, AND

CITYWIDE EFFECTIVE DATE

35.9 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
2 The purpose of this Chapter is to protect and improve public health, safety, and welfare, especially in commercial areas in the City of Santa Cruz. The City Council desires to incentivize property owners to lease out their empty storefronts. The Council also desires to require that empty storefronts be reasonably maintained, with the goal of promoting commerce and reducing blight and illegal activities associated with empty storefronts.

Once effective, this Chapter shall only be immediately applicable to all empty storefronts on Pacific Avenue, between Laurel St. and Water St., in the City of Santa Cruz. The Council desires to apply the registration requirement contained within Section 5.84.040 to storefronts that have, as of the effective date of the Chapter for the applicable area, been empty for at least the time periods specified in Section 5.84.040.

On June 1, 2026, this Chapter shall be applicable to all empty storefronts in the City of Santa Cruz.

5.84.020 – DEFINITIONS
“City” means the City of Santa Cruz.
“Director” means the Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of Santa Cruz, or their designee.
“Empty storefront” means a building that:
(a) contains a “storefront”, defined as a room or set of rooms facing the street on the ground floor of a commercial building; and
(b) is “empty”, meaning that, to a reasonable observer, the storefront: (1) does not appear to be consistently lawfully occupied for a commercial purpose, and/or (2) fails to consistently maintain regular operating hours where it is open for business. “Enforcement Official” means the Director, or a City enforcement official appropriately designated under Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 4.02.021.

5.84.030 – MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL EMPTY STOREFRONTS

SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
In addition to any other applicable requirements contained in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or state or federal law, all empty storefronts subject to this Chapter must be maintained in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) All empty storefronts shall be posted with the name and contact phone number of the property manager. The posting must comply with the standards established by the Planning and Community Development Department. (Note: the posting required by this section shall not be considered a sign subject to Santa Cruz Municipal Code 24.12.300-390.)

35.10 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
3 (b) All empty storefront properties shall be maintained in a manner that is free from exterior trash, debris, and graffiti.
(c) The exterior areas of empty storefronts shall be reasonably maintained and in good condition, including paint, finishes, windows, doors, signage, awnings, lighting, and landscaping. (d) Empty storefronts shall be maintained in a secure manner so as not to be accessible to unauthorized persons. All windows, doors (walk-through, sliding, and garage), and gates that may allow access to the interior of the property must properly close and lock. (e) Any broken, cracked, or badly etched/scuffed window shall be promptly replaced. Antigraffiti film coating shall be utilized to protect windows from damage. (f) The interior of empty storefronts shall be kept free from squatters and other illegal activity on the premises including the use and sale of controlled substances, prostitution, trespassing, and/or other illegal activity. If the property manager observes signs of illegal activity on the premises, they must promptly notify the owner and the Santa Cruz Police Department.

However, a property manager’s failure to give notice to the owner of illegal activity does not excuse the owner from any of the requirements of this Chapter. (g) Empty storefronts shall maintain sufficient utility services to provide power available for an alarm or security system, exterior lighting, and to properly irrigate all landscaping on the property.
(h) For empty storefronts that contain alcoves on private property, those alcoves shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic condition, free from odors, and with adequate lighting. (i) Owners of empty storefronts must, within 180 days from when the property becomes vacant, install or allow for the installation of and consistently maintain in good condition, either:
(1) decorative vinyl window coverings (also known as window clings), to be approved by the City or selected by the Owner from pre-approved City designs, (note that window coverings required by this section shall not be considered signs subject to Santa Cruz Municipal Code 24.12.300-390); or
(2) window displays of curated art pieces to be approved by the City, which may coordinate or consult with the Downtown Association and/or arts organizations.

5.84.040 – REGISTRATION OF EMPTY STOREFRONTS FOR PROLONGED

VACANCIES
(a) The owner of an empty storefront shall, within two years after it has become empty, register the property with the City. Thereafter, the owner of an empty storefront shall maintain an active empty storefront registration with the City at all times while the storefront is empty.

35.11 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
4 Completed applications shall be returned to the Planning and Community Development Department.
(b) The registration application shall require:
(1) A contact phone number, email address, and physical address for the owner and the local property manager responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the empty storefront; (2) A property maintenance plan for the empty storefront, describing the owner’s and local property manager’s plans for compliance with the maintenance requirements of this Chapter;
(3) Documentation showing that a local property manager has been retained by the property owner, consistent with the requirements of Section 5.84.050(a). (4) A description of the most recent legal use of the empty storefront, the square footage of the property, and any future plans for the property; and (5) Such other information required by the Planning and Community Development Department, as needed to accomplish the purpose of this Chapter. (c) A registration fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council shall be paid annually and shall be submitted along with an updated annual registration application. (d) Registration shall be deemed complete once the Planning and Community Development Department has sent notice to the owner that the registration fee has been received, and a complete registration application has been approved.
(e) A storefront does not require registration if it is actively participating in the City’s Downtown Pops program, or a similar City program that provides owners with the option of leasing, or granting use of the space for no cost, their commercial property to tenants, or other permitted businesses, on a pop-up, or temporary, basis. (f) The Director shall waive the registration requirement contained in subsection (a), above, for up to two additional years (after the initial first two years of vacancy) if the Director determines that the empty storefront is:
(1) leased by a proposed commercial operation, but empty because the lessee is actively engaged in a City-required permitting process; or
(2) the subject of active construction for repair or rehabilitation to make the storefront habitable, the owner has active permits for repair or rehabilitation, and the owner is progressing diligently to complete such repair or rehabilitation.

35.12 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
5 5.84.050 – ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE ONLY TO EMPTY STOREFRONTS REQUIRED TO REGISTER PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.83.050 In addition to any other applicable requirements contained in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code or state or federal law, empty storefronts required to be registered with the City pursuant to Section 5.83.040 shall be maintained in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) A local property manager must be retained to, at minimum, perform monthly inspections to ensure compliance with this Chapter and the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. (1) A local property manager is a company or individual retained by the owner of an empty storefront to be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the property. A local property manager must be licensed to do business in the City of Santa Cruz, and the principal place of business for the local property manager must be within 60 miles of the City of Santa Cruz.
(2) If the owner of an empty storefront lives in or has a principal place of business within 60 miles of the City of Santa Cruz, they may serve as their own local property manager, so long as they are licensed to do business in the City of Santa Cruz. (3) If the local property manager determines that an empty storefront is not in compliance with this Chapter or any provision of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, it is the local property manager’s duty to notify the owner and bring the property into compliance.

However, a local property manager’s failure to give notice to the owner of violations does not excuse the owner from compliance with any of the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) Owners of empty storefronts required to register pursuant Section 5.83.040 must meet at least once per year with City staff from the Economic Development Department (to discuss the status of leasing the property) and the Planning Department (to discuss any maintenance issues on or around the property).

5.84.060 – ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS
(a) The Enforcement Official is authorized to do the following:
(1) Inspect properties in the City to identify empty storefronts subject to this Chapter. (2) Order the owners and property managers of empty storefronts to comply with this Chapter and any other applicable codes.
(3) Inspect empty storefronts and initiate proceedings against the owners found to be in violation of this Chapter or any other applicable code. (4) Suspend or revoke any empty storefront registration for properties found to be in violation of this Chapter.

35.13 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
6 (5) Employ the enforcement mechanisms available in Title 4 to remedy violations of this Chapter.
(6) Establish and enforce any administrative regulations necessary for the implementation or enforcement of this Chapter.
(b) Violations of this Chapter, including failure to maintain a current empty storefront registration, are hereby declared to be public nuisances, and any violation of this Chapter may be remedied or prosecuted pursuant to Title 4 or any other applicable law. (c) If, at an empty storefront, one or more of the circumstances listed below in subdivisions (c)(1) – (c)(3) has occurred, then, the Chief of Police (or their designee) or the Enforcement Official may require that the owner employ additional methods of securing the empty storefront (as described in subdivision (d) below), if deemed reasonably prudent to deter illegal activity or nuisance conditions on or immediately adjacent to the empty storefront.
(1) The owner has, within a 12-month period, received three or more citations related to the empty storefront for violations of this Chapter or any other part of the Municipal Code, and none of those citations have been successfully appealed. (2) The Chief of Police (or their designee), or the Enforcement Official has observed and cited the empty storefront for three or more concurrent violations of this Chapter or any other part of the Municipal code.
(3) The Enforcement Official has determined that the empty storefront constitutes a nuisance condition that requires an immediate response to protect or maintain public health or safety.
(d) An additional method of securing the empty storefront within the meaning of subsection (c) above includes, but is not limited to:
(1) repairing or emergency boarding of windows/doors, or installing approved window coverings;
(2) adding fencing, lighting, or other physical elements (e.g., planters) to deter the illegal activity;
(3) utilizing security patrols, alarms, security monitoring, and/or video monitoring; (4) conducting more frequent inspections by the property manager or cleanings by the appropriate personnel; and/or
(5) hiring a new property manager from a City-approved list of preferred property managers.

35.14 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
7 (e) Appeals related to the enforcement of this Chapter shall be conducted according to the procedures contained within Chapter 4.20. This includes, but is not limited to, appeals of:
an administrative abatement or civil penalties notice and order; an administrative citation; a letter from the City indicating an intent to record a notice of violation; a City decision to deny, revoke, or suspend an empty storefront registration; and/or a City’s decision to require that the owner of an empty storefront employ additional security methods, as contemplated by subsections 5.84.060(c) – (d).”
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Council action to approve and adopt Chapter 5.84 (“Vibrancy Ordinance”) to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is not a “project” under CEQA because no direct or indirect physical change to the environment is anticipated, nor does the ordinance represent the type of “activity” described in subdivisions (a) through (c) of Pub. Resources Code § 21065. In the alternative, if the Council action is considered a “project” under CEQA, the following exemptions apply:
 14 CCR 15307 – Class 7 Categorical Exemption: the Council action is “to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15307.)  14 CCR 15308 – Class 8 Categorical Exemption: the Council action is “to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.)
 14 CCR 15061(b)(3) – The “common sense” exemption applies because by establishing empty storefront maintenance and inspection programs, “there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).)
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

35.15 ORDINANCE NO. 202X-XX
8 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this XX day of XX, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 202x-xx and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

35.16 License Agreement

TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AND
[NAME] d.b.a. [NAME]
THIS TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT (“License Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____day of __________, 2025 by and between the City of Santa Cruz (“City”) and [NAME] dba [NAME] (“Licensee”), whose address is [ADDRESS], Santa Cruz, California. City and Licensee may also be identified individually as “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City owns the public right of way located along [NAME OF ALLEY] adjacent to [ADDRESS], Santa Cruz, California, 95060.

B. Licensee owns the business, [BUSINESS NAME], operating at [ADDRESS], Santa Cruz, California, 95060 (“Property”).

C. Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) section 24.10.2340 and Chapter 4 of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan allows for outdoor extension areas when operated in conjunction with the establishment operating in the adjacent building and to which the extension area is appurtenant.

D. City staff plans to bring proposed amendments to Santa Cruz Municipal Code section

24.10.2340 and the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan to the Santa Cruz City Council in Spring 2025 to permit outdoor extension areas outside of the area adjacent to the business establishment, such as in nearby alleyways.

E. Licensee has requested a temporary license to operate an outdoor extension area in the public right of way area that is not immediately adjacent to Licensee’s business establishment.

F. City agrees to grant Licensee the requested temporary license to operate an outdoor extension area in the public right-of-way on a short-term basis subject to the terms and conditions contained in this License Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the above-stated Recitals, in consideration of the conditions herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the City and Licensee agree as follows:
//
//
//

35.17 License Agreement

AGREEMENT

1. LICENSE AREA.
a. City grants to Licensee a non-exclusive revocable license (“License”) for the use of the [#] square feet portion of the public right of way, owned by the City, along [NAME OF ALLEY] adjacent to [ADDRESS], Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as shown in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein (the “License Area”). b. The License is for the sole purpose of providing outdoor seating consisting of tables, chairs and barriers or fencing for Licensee’s customers during business hours as part of Licensee’s operation of its restaurant business. Licensee shall not engage in any other activities within the License Area, including, but not limited to, retail sales. c. Licensee does not hold any ownership or vested property interest in the License Area or public right-of-way by virtue of this License. This License Agreement is not a lease but merely entitles Licensee to use the License Area as provided herein.

2. TERM. This License shall commence on [DATE] (“Effective Date”) and shall expire on December 31, 2025 (“License Term”), unless sooner terminated pursuant to this License Agreement.

3. TERMINATION.
a. This License shall expire when a decision on Licensee’s application for a revocable license pursuant to SCMC section 24.10.2340, or other applicable code section, is final.
b. Either Party may terminate this License Agreement by providing written notification to the other Party, at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of termination.
c. Upon termination of this License Agreement or revocation or suspension of the License, the City may require Licensee to remove any fixtures or improvements in the License Area at Licensee’s sole expense and require Licensee to return the License Area to the condition it was in immediately prior to Licensee’s use at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, excepting normal wear and tear.

4. LICENSEE’S AUTHORIZED USE.
a. City and Licensee agree that the purpose of this License is to provide outdoor seating for Licensee’s customers during its business hours between [LIST BUSINESS HOURS], and in no event past 11:00 p.m. Licensee may restrict access to the License Area to its customers during the hours of its business operation.

35.18 License Agreement

b. Licensee shall notify the City of Santa Cruz Department of Economic Development and Housing in writing at least three working days in advance of the date work is to begin to establish the extension area in the License Area.

5. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Licensee shall comply with the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

6. APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE FOR OUTDOOR EXTENSION AREA PURSUANT TO SCMC 12.10.2340. Should the Santa Cruz City Council adopt amendments to SCMC section 24.10.2340, or other applicable code section, and the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Plan to permit outdoor extension areas in alleyways, Licensee shall submit a complete application for an outdoor extension area pursuant to SCMC section

24.10.2340, or other applicable code section, within 45 days of the latest effective date of said amendments.

7. LICENSE FEE.
a. License Fee. Licensee shall remit to the City of Santa Cruz Finance Department a monthly License Fee, collected semi-annually on July 1 and January 1. The License Fee is [fourty-nine cents ($0.49)] per square foot and the License Area is [XX] square feet. License Fee shall be [AMOUNT] ($XXX)]. License Fees and billing procedures may be adjusted by City in the future upon 30 days’ written notice. b. Billing. City will issue a semi-annual invoice to Licensee with payment due within thirty (30) calendar days.

8. LATE CHARGES AND INTEREST ON UNPAID LICENSE FEES. If any fees are not received by City when due, Licensee shall pay to City an additional sum of ten percent (10%) of the overdue License Fee as a late charge, as well as interest at the rate of one and one half percent (1 1/2%) per month, or the maximum rate of interest allowed by law, on the unpaid balance of said rent or sum until paid. The parties agree that said late charges and interest represent a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs that City will incur by reason of late payment by Licensee. The acceptance by City of any late charge shall not constitute a waiver of Licensee's default with respect to the overdue amount, nor prevent City from exercising any of the other rights and remedies available to City under this License Agreement or as provided by law.

9. CONDITION OF LICENSE AREA AS-IS. Licensee acknowledges the uniqueness of the License Area and accepts the current “AS-IS, IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, WITH ALL FAULTS” condition existing on the date of execution of this License Agreement. Licensee acknowledges Licensee has satisfied itself, by its own independent investigation, that the License Area is suitable for Licensee’s intended use and neither City nor its agents or representatives have made any representation or warranty as to the present or future suitability of the License Area for use by Licensee.

35.19 License Agreement

10. CITY AUTHORITY. The City shall at all times retain exclusive final authority over the public right of way, including the License Area. City shall have the right to perform any and all acts of construction and maintenance in the public right of way, including the License Area, as fully and completely as if the License for the use of the License Area did not exist. The City shall have the right to promulgate and enforce any and all ordinances, rules and regulations, and to take action authorized by its police power, as the City, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to advance the public’s health, safety and welfare.

11. REPAIR AND RESTORATION. If Licensee, its agents or contractors cause any damage to the License Area, or to City’s roads, infrastructure or other property and improvements in connection with the exercise of this License, Licensee shall repair and restore the damaged property to its original condition prior to Licensee's use pursuant to this License Agreement.

Licensee shall perform the repair and restoration required hereunder prior to the expiration of this License, or within ten (10) days of the earlier termination of Licensee’s rights hereunder.

In the event that repair and restoration is performed following the termination this License, Licensee’s Indemnity and Insurance obligations in this License Agreement shall continue until repair and restoration is completed as provided herein. City shall have the right (but not the obligation) to make such repairs or replacements which are Licensee’s responsibility under this License Agreement without liability to Licensee for any loss or damage that may occur to Licensee’s business, and Licensee shall pay for all costs and expenses incurred by City in making such repairs and/or replacements, plus an administrative overhead fee of ten percent (10%) from the date of commencement of the work through the date of payment.

12. INDEMNIFICATION/WAIVER OF LIABILITY. Licensee agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, release defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, claim, action, loss, injury, damage, judgment, or expense, including attorneys’ fees and costs (“Losses”) which arise from or are in any manner related to the entry on, occupancy, and/or use of the License Area under this License Agreement (including, but not limited to any improvements or personal property located therein) by Licensee, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, invitees, customers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, trespassers, or others acting on Licensee’s behalf or under Licensee’s authority or control. Licensee’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees shall not apply to the extent such Losses are caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. Licensee’s obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that Indemnitees caused or contributed to the Losses. This Section shall survive the expiration or early termination of this License Agreement.

13. INSURANCE.
a. Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the License Agreement, Licensee will maintain and comply with the Insurance Requirements as set forth in Exhibit C.

Licensee will insure the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with this License Agreement. The insurance coverages required shall not in any way limit the liability of the Licensee. The coverage

35.20 License Agreement

requirements may be satisfied by self-insurance or pooled risk plans that provide comparable coverage.
b. Licensee agrees that if Licensee does not maintain any insurance policy required under this License Agreement or fails to pay any premiums when due, City may, at its election, either terminate this License Agreement, or require that the Licensee immediately cease use of the License Area pending reinstatement of insurance by Licensee. c. City has the right at any time to demand a copy of a Certificate of Insurance from Licensee for the policies of insurance required herein and any other reasonable evidence proving compliance with these provisions. The failure to provide the City with such evidence within five (5) calendar days of such demand shall constitute a material breach of this License Agreement.

14. POSSESSORY INTEREST TAXES. Pursuant to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6, Licensee is hereby advised that the terms of this License Agreement may result in the creation of a possessory interest. Licensee shall pay before delinquency all possessory interest taxes, assessments, license fees, and other charges that are levied and assessed against such interest. “Possessory Interest Tax” means that tax imposed pursuant to laws of the State of California on the exclusive use of tax exempt property and does not include taxes on Licensee’s inventory, personal, or any other tax or assessment that is presently or may, in the future be levied. On demand by City, Licensee shall furnish City with satisfactory evidence of these payments.

15. INSPECTION. City and its employees and agents shall have the right to enter the License Area at any time to inspect the same, to see that Licensee is performing its obligations under this License Agreement, that no damage has been or is done to the License Area, and to protect any and all rights of City, to post such reasonable notices as City may desire as to protect the rights of the City, or in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare.

16. RIGHT TO ENTER FOR ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND REPAIRS. It is agreed that the City has reserved and shall at all times have the right to alter, repair, improve, or add to the public right of way as may affect the License Area. Licensee also waives any claims for damages against City by reason of City’s entry into or onto the License Area for the purpose of making repairs to the License Area or to any other area. City agrees to give Licensee reasonable notice of intention to make repairs, except in situations involving immediate peril and hazard to the public, when such entry shall be made summarily by City.

City shall be the sole and exclusive judge as to what constitutes immediate peril and hazard to the public.

17. NO REPRESENTATIONS, INDUCEMENTS, OR ASSURANCES. Licensee acknowledges that this License Agreement does not create any expectation relating to any pending or future approval of Licensee’s application for an outdoor extension area pursuant to SCMC 24.10.2340, or other applicable code section. Licensee further acknowledges that no representations, inducements, or assurances have been made by the City, its officials,

35.21 License Agreement

officers, or employees, directly or indirectly, relating to Licensee’s pending or any future application for the construction of the outdoor extension area.

18. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Throughout the term of the License Agreement, Licensee acknowledges and expressly accepts full responsibility and shall incur all costs and expenses for compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and any other applicable laws or regulations regarding the accessibility of the License Area (and the improvements located or to be located thereon) by disabled individuals. Licensee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City (and its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers) from and against any claim, loss, expense or liability arising from Licensee’s failure to fully comply with such laws or regulations.

19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. All activities of Licensee, its employees, and/or agents will be carried out in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

20. BUSINESS LICENSE. Licensee agrees to provide proof of a current City of Santa Cruz Business Tax Certificate. For additional information and licensing requirements, view the City’s Business Licenses and Permits webpage or call the Revenue and Taxation division at 831/420-5070.

21. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Licensee acknowledges and agrees to comply with applicable provisions of conflict of interest laws and regulations, including the CA Political Reform Act (Gov’t. Code §§1090, 87100), Levine Act (Gov’t. Code §84308), and the City’s conflict of interest code, and make any necessary disclosures.

22. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. Licensee shall not, either voluntarily or involuntarily, assign or encumber its interests in this License Agreement or allow any other person or entity (except Licensee’s authorized representatives) to operate under the terms of this License Agreement without the prior written approval and consent of the City. Any such assignment without prior written approval of the City shall be null and void.

23. WAIVERS. Any subsequent acceptance of License Fees hereunder by City shall not be deemed a waiver of any preceding breach of any obligation hereunder by Licensee other than the failure to pay the particular License Fees so accepted; and the waiver of any breach of any covenant or condition by City herein shall not constitute a waiver of any other breach regardless of knowledge thereof. Any waiver by City of any breach must be in writing.

24. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of its obligation hereunder is prevented or delayed due to an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, acts of terrorism, war, a strike, lockout or other labor difficulty, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and not caused by the fault or negligence of the party obligated to perform under this License Agreement. If the License Area is damaged in part or as a whole during the license term thus necessitating repairs or otherwise restricting the use of the License Area by Licensee, City may in its sole discretion reduce or excuse payment of any applicable fees

35.22 License Agreement

up to the period that the use of the License Area is restricted solely due to the above stated causes.

25. CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AS LICENSOR. Licensee acknowledges and understands that the City as Licensor is a municipality consisting of numerous offices, departments, agencies, and districts. Whenever a provision contained in this License Agreement or any extension, modification, or amendment requires the “written consent” of the City, such consent must be obtained from the then Economic Development and Housing Director, or their designee, for the City of Santa Cruz. Licensee may not rely on any statement or representation by any other employee, agent, or representative of City in obtaining such consent, and any such statement or representation other than the express written consent of the Economic Development and Housing Director, or their designee, shall be null and void and have no effect. Nothing contained in this Section shall limit in any way the authority of any office, department, agency, or district of the City or County of Santa Cruz California from approving or withholding consent to any event or activity regulated by local law.

26. MISCELLANEOUS.
a. This License Agreement, along with any attachments, is the full and complete integration of the Parties’ agreement with respect to the matters addressed herein, and this License Agreement supersedes any previous written or oral agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein.
b. If Licensee is comprised of more than one individual or entity, Licensee’s obligations and liabilities may be enforced against each of them, personally, jointly, and/or severally. c. Except as City may specify in writing, Licensee shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Licensee shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this License Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
d. This License Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
e. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this License Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. f. This License Agreement may only be amended in writing as agreed to by both Parties. g. Each party acknowledges that it has reviewed this License Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this License Agreement. h. The Parties may execute this License Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute

35.23 License Agreement

one and the same instrument. Electronic signatures and fully executed copies of this License Agreement are deemed valid as originals.
i. The signatories to this License Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this License Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to legally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this License Agreement.

27. NOTICES. Any notice, demand, or communication under or in connection with this License shall be given in writing, via email and concurrently delivered by: (a) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery; (b) overnight courier (i.e., Federal Express) with charges prepaid or charged to the sender’s account, in which case notice is effective when delivered; (c) priority U.S. Mail, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on the fifth business day after the deposit thereof with the U.S. Postal Service. Notices shall be addressed to recipient as follows:

City of Santa Cruz:

Economic Development & Housing
Department
c/o Economic Development Manager
337 Locust Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Licensee:

Changes to the above information shall be given to the other party in writing ten (10) business days before the change is effective.
[SIGNATURE OF FOLLOWING PAGE]

35.24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this License Agreement the day and year first herein written.

LICENSOR:

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ,
By Date
Matt Huffaker, City Manager
LICENSEE1:
[NAME]

By Date

By Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
_____________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Date
1 City of Santa Cruz Signature Requirements:

Corporation – 2 officer signatures required (one from each group, unless person signing holds officer positions in both Group 1 and 2): Group 1: Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, President, or Vice President; Group 2: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer.

Partnership - Signature of General Partner, or signature of partner who is authorized to execute documents per the Certificate of Partnership. If authorized partner is a corporation, follow Corporation signature requirement.

LLC- For a member-managed LLC, signature of any member. For a manager-managed LLC, signature of the manager. If the LLC has corporate officer designations, follow Corporation signature requirement.

35.25 EXHIBIT A

LICENSE AREA

35.26 EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Pedestrian access adjacent to the extension area shall be a minimum of [#] feet. The extension area shall in no way interfere with pedestrians or limits their free and unobstructed passage.

2. All accessibility elements of the extension area shall be designed, constructed and/or conform to the current and applicable provisions, rules, regulations and guidelines of the federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing accessibility requirements including the California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act.

3. A sign shall be posted in a conspicuous space at the entrance/exit points of the extension area onto any public area(s), which shall state, NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEYOND THIS POINT. The sign shall measure no less than seven inches by eleven inches (7 x 11), and contain lettering no less than one (1) inch height.

4. Borders shall be in place separating any outdoor extension area and any public space to provide separation between any alcohol service area and any public area. The borders shall not be topped with a flat surface to avoid alcoholic beverage placement.

5. At all times when Licensee is exercising the privileges of their alcohol license, an employee of Licensee shall enter and monitor the activity within any outdoor extension area(s) on a regular basis, but no less than once every thirty (30) minutes.

6. The extension area shall comply with all operational requirements below:

7. The extension area may only be used by food and drinking establishments for the purpose of providing outdoor dining areas.

8. Outdoor dining is the only activity allowed in the extension area consistent with the business’ regular hours of operation; and in no event past 11:00 p.m. All furniture shall be removed when the extension area is not in use.

9. Live entertainment and amplified sound is prohibited within the extension area.

10. Licensee must be licensed by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the State of California and approved by the City prior to serving and allowing on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the extension area.

11. Outdoor food preparation, including but not limited to hotpots, barbecues, or other heating of food, is prohibited in the extension area. Open flame cooking is prohibited in the extension area.

12. The permittee shall maintain the extension area in a clean, sanitary, and attractive condition at all times. All landscaping and planting shall be maintained in a presentable

35.27 and healthy condition. Elements that are visually or structurally degraded shall be replaced expeditiously.

13. The area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse and debris. The permittee is responsible for furnishing and servicing at least one permanent trash receptacle in the extension area.

14. The area shall be scrubbed and mopped daily to remove any food or drink stains. All cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Best Management Practices.

15. Licensee shall maintain and repair the extension area furnishings at its sole expense during its placement in the public right-of-way.

16. The business owner shall submit a trespass Letter of Authority with the Santa Cruz police department prior to operation of the extension area.

17. Patrons of the extension area shall not be permitted to sit on or place food or drinks on the edges or railings of the extension area.

18. Smoking is prohibited within the extension area at all times.

19. The extension area shall be closed to the public when Licensee’s business is closed to prevent trespassing and/or criminal behavior.

35.28 EXHIBIT C

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the License Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the obligations thereunder by Licensee, Licensee’s respective employees, subcontractor(s), agents, representatives, or volunteers.

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

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

Coverage will be at least as broad as:
• COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (CGL): $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE; $2,000,000 AGGREGATE Proof of coverage for $1 Million per occurrence and $2 Million in the aggregate including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury will be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL. • WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH STATUTORY LIMITS, AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

The Worker’s Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Licensee and its employees. • PERSONAL PROPERTY INSURANCE.
“All Risk” (Personal) Property Insurance Coverage. Licensee shall, at Licensee 's sole expense, obtain and keep in full force and effect an insurance policy covering all of Licensee's personal property, trade fixtures, equipment and merchandise located in or upon the License Area in an amount sufficient to cover not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement value thereof, providing protection against any peril included within including vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements ordinarily included in extended coverage casualty insurance policies.

35.29 Licensee shall be solely responsible for any uninsured loss or damage caused to Licensee’s personal property, trade fixtures, equipment and merchandise located in or upon the License Area for any reason.

C. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to comply with the following provisions:

1. ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS
The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Licensee including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations, products and completed operations. Commercial General Liability coverage will be provided in the form of an endorsement to Licensee’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 (if a later edition is used).

2. PRIMARY COVERAGE
For any claims related to this License Agreement, Licensee’s and all subcontractor’s insurance coverage will be primary and non-contributory as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers will be excess of Licensee’s and all subcontractor’s insurance and will not contribute with it.

3. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Each insurance policy required above shall state that the coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

4. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Licensee hereby grants to the City a waiver of any right to subrogation, except as otherwise not applicable, which any insurer of said Licensee may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss, including attorney’s fees under such insurance. Licensee agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effectuate this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

5. EXCESS LIABILITY/UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICIES
Licensee may use excess liability/umbrella policies to meet the required liability limits on the condition that they provide all of the insurance coverages required herein, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The excess liability/umbrella insurance policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying CGL insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the additional insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Licensee’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.

6. SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS (SIR)
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Licensee to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

35.30 7. ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

8. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Licensee will furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy (and any Excess Liability/Umbrella policies, as applicable) listing all policy endorsements to be approved by the City. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the term of the License Agreement will not waive the Licensee’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

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

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

35.31 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
04/22/2025
Appropriate $50,000 of new funds for the 12-month Movie Theater Retention Pilot Program and $50,000 for the Vacant Storefront Window Covering Pilot Program
0 136-51-80-5590-52151 Program services 100,000
100,000
-100,000
Jennifer
Shelton
Digitally signed by
Jennifer Shelton
Date: 2025.03.31
16:11:42 -07'00'
Bonnie
Lipscomb
Digitally signed by
Bonnie Lipscomb
Date: 2025.04.03
15:12:46 -07'00'
Emily
Burton
Digitally signed
by Emily Burton
Date: 2025.04.04
09:45:20 -07'00'
Elizabet
h Cabell
Digitally signed by
Elizabeth Cabell
Date: 2025.04.04
10:23:44 -07'00' 35.32
Brittany Inclan
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 12:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 35
Dear City Officials:

There are several good ideas in the staff report. I think the Vacant Storefront Window Covering pilot program is long overdue. One suggestion to "The City will provide a set of themed and city-branded designs" property owners can choose from, why not make this an opportunity for local artists to be included? Isn't that the true spirit of "placemaking"? We have so many talented artists. Why hire some generic commercial company? I also like the idea of the Movie Theater Retention pilot program, providing parking validation for movie-goers.

Not only could it encourage movie attendance, but if the validation was for 3 hours (or even 4), folks could patronize Pacific Ave. businesses after the movie. (Side note: What is happening with the Nickelodeon???) The Vibrancy Ordinance seems like a positive move, to hold property owners accountable for maintenance, security, etc. at vacant properties downtown. I do think the period specified seems too lenient. If June 2026 is the start date and property owners have 2 additional years, potentially downtown could have to live with many vacant storefronts until 2028 or longer (unless I am calculating this wrong).

If passed, the ordinance will require property owners with empty storefronts that have been vacant for 2 years or longer to register the empty storefront with the Planning Department... The ordinance also features an exemption from registration for up to two additional years if the storefront is actively involved in a Cityrequired permitting process or is actively under construction for repair or tenant improvements.

Another way to activate ground floor uses in Downtown and the Downtown Expansion might be including a percentage of spaces for local non-profit organizations, who, like retail businesses, might be struggling to pay the high rents. It's not only entertainment and recreation uses that make for a "vibrant" city. Not everything has to be about profit-seeking or consumption.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

35.33 Brittany Inclan
From: Linnaea Holgers James <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Downtown Vibrancy Initiatives
Dear City Council,
I’m writing to express my strong support for a series of initiatives that I believe could be transformative for downtown Santa Cruz. As someone who cares deeply about the vitality and character of our city center, I see these proposals as necessary steps toward a more vibrant and resilient downtown.

First and foremost, streamlining the permitting process—specifically allowing new businesses to utilize the previous use permit—is an impactful, no-cost change that could make a huge difference. Right now, a new business can easily spend upwards of $30,000 and wait five months just to get through permitting.

Removing that barrier gives local entrepreneurs a fighting chance to get up and running, and helps fill vacant storefronts more quickly with the kinds of small, creative, community-serving businesses we all want to see.

Expanding the Downtown Pops program is another important move. By having the City lease and subsidize vacant commercial spaces, we can invite in pop-ups, artists, nonprofits, and other temporary uses that energize the street, support economic activity, and bring beauty and curiosity to underused corners. The current program has already proven effective—scaling it up would be a win for everyone.

Downtown's movie theaters are cultural anchors and economic drivers, and I hope the City will explore a real strategy for their retention. Once a theater closes, it’s incredibly difficult to bring it back. A little foresight now could preserve these essential gathering spaces for the next generation.

I’m also encouraged by the idea of a city-funded program to deal with vacant store windows. When storefronts sit empty and neglected, the entire street feels less safe and less inviting. Simple visual improvements like these make a powerful difference in how our downtown feels to residents and visitors alike.

Finally, I support holding long-term vacant property owners to a higher standard. If a commercial property sits empty for more than two years and chooses not to participate in the Pops! program, it’s only reasonable to require enrollment in a program that ensures cleanliness and basic maintenance.

Revitalizing downtown is a shared responsibility—and participation in keeping it active and well cared for should be the expectation, not the exception.

These proposals reflect a commitment to making downtown Santa Cruz more welcoming, more functional, and more full of life.

Sincerely,

LINNAEA HOLGERS JAMES
(831) 423-8183
1368 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

35.34 www.artisanssantacruz.com
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

35.35 Brittany Inclan
From: Casey Coonerty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: support Downtown vibrancy ordinance
Hi,
I am writing today to urge you to pass the Downtown vibrancy initiatives on this week's agenda. It is imperative that we do our best to activate empty spaces in downtown, hold landlords accountable for empty spaces and expand opportunities for new businesses to give downtown a try. This package has key elements to improve the downtown experience for business owners and for customers/visitors alike. As the retail and restaurant environments shift on a national scale, it is important for our local governments to stay ahead of the curve in making our commercial corridors remain vibrant. This well thought out set of initiatives is exactly the type of visionary leadership we need and want from our City Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Casey Coonerty Protti
Owner
Bookshop Santa Cruz
1520 Pacific Avenue

35.36 Brittany Inclan
From: Bob Cagle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Revitalization Initiatives for Our Downtown Dear City Council Members,
As a downtown business owner since 1999, I’ve seen many eras—times of growth, creativity, and community, as well as periods of real struggle. The past few years have undoubtedly been among the most challenging. The effects of the pandemic and the shift to remote work have left many storefronts empty and made it harder for small businesses to survive. The vitality of our downtown is deeply personal to me—it’s where I’ve built my livelihood and where I’ve seen the spirit of our community come to life.

That’s why I strongly support the proposed initiatives to help reinvigorate our downtown core.

Streamlining the permitting process by allowing new businesses to utilize previous use permits could save up to $30,000 and months of delay—removing major barriers for entrepreneurs eager to invest in our city. Expanding the Downtown Pops! program to subsidize vacant spaces, funding a window-covering program to beautify empty storefronts, and implementing standards for long-vacant properties are all meaningful steps. They signal that the city is committed to fostering a welcoming, vibrant environment.

Retaining our movie theaters—community hubs in their own right—is equally critical to maintaining foot traffic and cultural energy.

We rely on the City Council’s thoughtful and compassionate support to sustain a thriving local economy.

These proposals aren’t just practical—they represent a renewed vision for downtown and a commitment to the people who believe in it. I urge you to lead boldly on this, and to help restore downtown as a destination that reflects the strength and resilience of our entire city.

Best regards,
Bob Cagle
CEO, productOps

35.37 Brittany Inclan
From: Harlen Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Downtown Vibrancy Initiatives
Harlen Lee
Community Manager, NextSpace
101 Cooper Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
4/21/25
Mayor Fred Keeley
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and City Council Members,
I am writing to express strong support for a set of forward-thinking initiatives that aim to revitalize our downtown core, reduce the burdens on new businesses, and maintain the charm and functionality of our city’s commercial spaces.

Streamlining Permitting Processes
One critical step forward is allowing new businesses to utilize the existing use permits of previous tenants. This commonsense change could save incoming entrepreneurs approximately $30,000 and up to five months of permitting time—removing significant barriers to entry and encouraging faster occupancy of our storefronts.

Expansion of the Downtown Pops! Program
Expanding the Downtown Pops! program—where the city leases and subsidizes vacant spaces— would further support small businesses, artists, and startups. This initiative not only activates empty storefronts but also creates a more vibrant, walkable downtown that attracts both residents and visitors.

Retention Strategy for Movie Theaters
We also urge the city to prioritize a strategy to retain our existing movie theaters. These venues are key cultural and economic assets that contribute to the vitality of our downtown. Their presence encourages foot traffic, supports neighboring businesses, and provides essential community gathering spaces.

Vacant Store Window Covering Program
A city-funded program to provide creative and attractive window coverings for vacant storefronts would significantly improve the visual appeal of our downtown, making it more inviting while these spaces await new tenants.

Maintenance Standards for Long-Term Vacancies
Finally, we propose a policy requiring property owners with vacancies extending beyond two years— and who choose not to participate in the Pops! program—to enroll in a city program ensuring ongoing

35.38 cleanliness and maintenance. This will help preserve our city's aesthetic, prevent blight, and promote accountability.

Together, these policies reflect a proactive approach to economic development and community pride.

I urge you to consider their adoption as part of your commitment to making [City Name] a place where businesses thrive, and our downtown continues to be a welcoming, lively destination for all.

Thank you for your leadership and your attention to these important matters.

Sincerely,
Harlen Lee
Community Manager
101 Cooper St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-420-0710 | PacificWorkplaces.com
[email protected]

35.39 Brittany Inclan
From: Cara Pearson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for the Downtown Vibrancy Initiatives
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to support the Downtown Vibrancy Initiatives coming to council tomorrow. As a Downtown business I support many of the items being considered including the streamline permitting process, expansion of the Downtown Pops! Program and the city funded vacant store window covering program. I am incredibly grateful that the council is continuously supportive of our Downtown community in a time where er desperately need it.

Thank you for your time,
Cara
Cara Pearson, President
Pacific Cookie Company
831-429-9709
www.pacificcookie.com

35.40 Brittany Inclan
From: Jacob Knobel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Item 35 - Downtown Vibrancy Initiatives City Council,
I am writing to support the various initiatives in this item as a downtown business owner (Pleasure Pizza).

Any changes we can make to improve the feel of downtown, and make things easier for businesses is greatly appreciated.

As owners who recently purchased an existing business downtown in the past couple years, having had access to the streamlined permitting and the expanded Downtown Pops! program would have been very helpful for us, and we'd want any of our future business neighbors downtown to have as much support as possible. A thriving downtown is better for everyone.

We are also surrounded by many vacant storefronts of varying timeframes and would appreciate any efforts to make those areas look the best they can, and be put to good use until new tenants are found.

Thanks so much for your support, and for doing what you can to support downtown businesses and our customers.

Jacob Knobel

35.41 Economic Development
Strategy Update and
Recommendations; First
Reading of Vibrancy
Ordinance (EDH/CN)
Presented by:

Rebecca Unitt, Economic Development Manager
Bonnie Lipscomb, Deputy City Manager

35.42 ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGY

ACTION ITEMS
The Economic Development Strategy is a 5-
year plan with the first 2 years focused on
immediate pandemic relief efforts and a longer
3-year plan for recovery and activation of the
City’s business and retail sectors, first adopted
in March 2021.

1. Placemaking and activation

2. Assessment of remaining empty storefronts and the
development of potential incentives for property
owners

3. Planning for future use of the existing library space including a permanent home for the downtown Farmers’
Market

4. Integration of new downtown housing projects into the downtown business, retail and shopping environment

5. Pursue establishment of an Eastside/Midtown and
Westside Business or Property-Based Improvement
Districts

6. Amend the Economic Development Strategy to include
these additional strategies and actions.

35.43 OUR
FOCUS
Our focus is on programs and
projects that activate commercial
and public spaces and reimagine
their uses, enhancing the overall
downtown experience.

Downtown Pops!
Farmers’ Market Expansion
Filling vacant storefronts with short
term pop-ups and activations
Support a dynamic and attractive market
Address Vacant Storefronts
Incentivize filling vacant spaces and creating a
window graphics program to beautify empty
windows to help support brokers and property
owners in leasing spaces
Alleyway Activations
Infrastructure improvements, outdoor
dining, pop-up events, and improved
lighting & landscape design

35.44 Downtown Play & Paseos

35.45 Downtown Play & Paseos

35.46 Downtown Play & Paseos

35.47 Outdoor Dining Opportunities

35.48 Dining & Events

35.49 Farmers’ Market
and Dow ntow n
A c t iv a t io n
The Downtown Farmer’s Market will
relocate to Lot 16 in May - next to the
existing Library and will also occupy
Church and Cedar Streets on market days.

Lot 16 will be activated on non-market
days as a public plaza and event space
with a stage, food and beverage
operators, and ample seating and
community space.

35.50 Activating Vacancies

35.51 109 Locust
110 Cooper St
111 Locust
1101 Center St
525 Cedar St
1306 Pacific Ave Pacific Station North
901 Pacific Ave
1010 Pacific Ave
1335 Pacific Ave
1134 Pacific Ave
Leased
Downtown Pops
Potential Tenant
Vacant
Development
Cold Shell
N April 2025
320 Cedar St

35.52 110 Cooper St
525 Cedar St
1306 Pacific Ave
901 Pacific Ave
1335 Pacific Ave
Leased
Downtown Pops
Potential Tenant
Vacant
Development
Cold Shell
N April 2025

35.53 109 Locust 111 Locust 525 Cedar St 901 Pacific Ave 1134 Pacific Ave 1010 Pacific Ave
Leased
Downtown Pops
Potential Tenant
Vacant
Development
Cold Shell
N April 2025
320 Cedar St
1101 Center St 1365 Pacific 1349 Pacific

35.54 14
Neighbors Pub | 711 Pacific
Downtown Openings
new businesses have opened
Downtown since November 2024
Offshore Sounds | 109 Locust
Game Santa Cruz | 1101 Cedar

35.55 Nico’s Ice Cream | 111 Locust
Downtown Openings & Coming Soon
Paystand | 110 Church
White Label Chocolate | 912 Cedar The Alley Oop | 320 Cedar ??? | 1134 Pacific

35.56 701 Front Street
Downtown Pops!
1115-1119 Pacific Avenue
1407 & 1409 Pacific Avenue
Program Updates:

Current participating spaces:
• 701 Front Street
⚬ advertising for tenants now
• 1407 & 1409 Pacific Avenue
⚬ finalizing lease documents
• 1115-1119 Pacific Avenue
⚬ drafting master license agreement
for a Downtown Resource Center to
be activated by SCPD and other
downtown service providers

35.57 Downtown Pops!
Rate Changes:

Spaces under 4,000 SF
• Master Lease Rate: $1.25/sf minimum and
$2.50/sf max or the advertised rate, whichever
is less
• Sublease Rate: 10% of sales capped at $2.50/sf
• Term: 6 month minimum – 18 months maximum
Spaces 4,000 SF or more
• Master Lease Rate: $1.25/sf minimum or the
advertised rate, whichever is less, with a cap of
$5,000 per month maximum from City subsidy
• Sublease Rate: 10% of sales – capped at
$2.50/sf or $10,000/month max
• Term: 6 month minimum – 18 month maximum
Downtown Pops! Business Retention Model:
• Provides rent reimbursement of up to $1.25/sf or $5,000 maximum per month for a portion of the lease term, not to exceed 6 months, to new owners of existing businesses or a change in operation of qualifying businesses.
• Prioritizes established businesses with a strong sales history, recognizable brand, significant community impact, with a priority on Pacific Avenue.
• Aims to facilitate smooth transitions, prevent vacancy, and minimize disruption to downtown commerce.

35.58 Business Retention
What We Heard
• High costs of employee parking impacts
employee retention
• Concerns about increasing vacancies
• Concerns about theft and public safety
• Interest in demographics of new Downtown
housing residents
What We’re Doing
• Employee Parking Rate Options
• Retail Coach - retail lead generation and market
analysis
• Enforcement of retail theft under Prop 36
• Permit streamlining for targeted ground floor
uses
Movie Theater Retention Pilot Program:
• Provides parking validation reimbursement of up to $50,000 for one year ⚬ Only available to Downtown Movie Theater operators with proof of ticket sales required for reimbursement
⚬ Would offer movie theater patrons 2-hour parking validation for redemption at Downtown Parking Garages

35.59 Vibrancy Ordinance

35.60 Purpose
To enhance the quality of life in Santa Cruz
by fostering thriving commercial areas
that prioritize public health, safety, and
welfare.

Incentivize Property Owner
Engagement
Encourage leasing of vacant
storefronts.

Promote Responsible
Property Maintenance
Require reasonable upkeep of empty
storefronts.

Pacific Avenue Pilot
Council will review effectiveness on
Pacific Ave. before the planned city-wide
implementation in 2026.

35.61 Registry P rogra m
Property owners must register the empty
storefront after 2 years of vacancy and pay a
fee
Must comply with all maintenance standards
and be free of any illegal activity.

P rop e rty M a in t e n a n c e
Strengthens enforcement mechanisms for
empty storefronts with escalating compliance
requirements for violations of the ordinance
Enforc e m e nt
Ordinance
Components
Exemptions to Registration Apply if:
• Actively Participating in Downtown Pops! or allowing use of the space for other activations such as art displays • Actively under construction to make storefront leasable • Leased and actively engaged in permitting process

35.62 • Posting of name and
contact number of
property manager
• Property shall be free of
exterior trash, debris,
graffiti
• Exterior areas must be
reasonably maintained
and in good condition and
in a secure manner
• Broken, cracked, or badly
etched/scratched
windows shall be promptly
replaced
Maintenance Requirements - For All Vacant Properties
• The int erior of empt y
storefronts shall be kept
free from squatters and
ot her illegal act ivit y
• Sufficient ut ilit y services
are required for an alarm or
securit y syst em, ext erior
light ing, and t o properly
irrigat e all landscaping on
the property
• Alcoves on privat e propert y
shall be maint ained in a
clean and hygienic
condit ion, free from odors,
and wit h adequat e light ing
• Owners of empt y st orefront s must , wit hin
180 days from when the property becomes
vacant , inst all or allow for t he inst allat ion of
and consist ent ly maint ain in good condit ion,
eit her:
• Decorat ive vinyl window coverings (also
known as window clings), t o be approved by
t he Cit y or select ed by t he Owner from pre -
approved Cit y designs (and Cit y-funded for
first year)
• Window displays of curat ed art pieces t o be
approved by t he Cit y, which may coordinat e
or consult wit h t he Downt own Associat ion
and/or art s organizat ions
Apply to all empty storefronts when ordinance takes effect

35.63 • A local property manager must be hired to perform monthly inspections, at minimum
⚬ Local property manager must be licensed to do business in the City of Santa Cruz
⚬ Principal place of business for the local property manager must be within 60 miles of the City of Santa Cruz .
• If the owner of an empty storefront lives in or has a principal place of business within 60 miles of the City of Santa Cruz, they may serve as their own local property manager , so long as they are licensed to do business in the City of Santa Cruz. • Owners of registered properties must meet at least once per year with City staff from the Economic Development
Department (to discuss the status of leasing the property) and the Planning Department (to discuss any maintenance issues on or around the property).

Additional Requirements For Registered Properties
Registry Requirements:
• All storefronts currently vacant for two years or
more must register once ordinance takes effect
• All st orefront s must regist er once t hey reach
two years vacancy
Registry Fee: Not det ermined yet .

Will be set by resolut ion at a fut ure Cit y Council
meet ing

35.64 Timeline
First Reading
Introduction of the
ordinance at City Council
A d o p t io n
Scheduled for City Council
meeting on 5/13 if 1st
reading is approved.

If ordinance is approved,
becomes effective 30
days later.

Im p le m e n t a t io n
ED and Code Enforcement
begin notifying existing
vacancies of Ordinance
taking effect and
enforcement of
maintenance standards.

E v a lu a t io n
Report on Pilot progress,
consider citywide
implementation.

April 22, 2025 May 13, 2025 June 12, 2025 June 2026

35.65 RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) Accept the Economic Development Strategy Update regarding downtown actions and direct staff to move forward on the additional recommended actions; 2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into temporary café license agreements to permit outdoor dining areas in nearby alleyways adjacent to business establishments; 3) Authorize the creation of the Movie Theater Retention Incentive pilot program; 4) Adopt a resolution amending the FY 25 budget to appropriate funds in the amount of $100,000 from the Economic Development Trust Fund for the 12-month Movie Theater Retention Pilot Program and 12-month Vacant Storefront Window Covering Pilot Program; 5) Introduce for publication an ordinance adding Chapter 5.84, “Vibrancy Ordinance”, to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and
6) Approve of the CEQA determination in this agenda report. More specifically, the proposed Council actions are not a “project” under CEQA. But, if deemed a CEQA “project” the following exemptions apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 (maintenance/enhancement of a natural resource); Section 15308 (maintenance/enhancement of the environment); Section 15301 (existing facility); and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

35.66 Thank you

35.67 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/02/2025
AGENDA OF: 04/22/2025
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development and Housing
SUBJECT: 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan, 2025 Program Year (PY) Annual Action Plan (AAP), 2021 PY AAP Amendment, and Community Participation Plan Amendment (EDH)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Make initial funding recommendations for the 2025-2026 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) as part of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and approve the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination contained in this agenda report. The Council’s action is exempt from CEQA review under (1) Class 1 Categorical Exemption (14 CCR 15301) for existing facilities, and (2) Common Sense exemption (14 CCR 15061);
2) Amend the Community Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect general changes to be in line with HUD policies and procedures, standardize legal ad noticing requirements, and other assorted changes;
3) Publish and make available for public review the “Gateway to the Pacific Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan” and the “City of Santa Cruz Housing Element Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and the Consolidated Plan Memo”; and 4) Publish and make available for public review a substantial amendment to the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan to reallocate $276,000 in HOME funds from the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project to a Future 100% Affordable Housing Project.

BACKGROUND: The City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) entitlement funding annually from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To obtain these funds, the City must develop and adopt a five-year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) which identifies and analyzes strategies for addressing specific community needs. The five-year Con Plan provides strategic direction for housing and community development activities carried out in the city. The current Con Plan has been in effect since July 1, 2020 and expires June 20, 2025. The City’s new Con

36.1 Plan, which becomes effective July 1, 2025, is currently being prepared in accordance with HUD’s eCon Planning Suite which provides a standardized template through HUD’s nationwide database. The 2025-2030 Con Plan is being drafted by consultant firm Grow America with input from City staff. This will be the first Annual Action Plan (AAP) under the new 2025-2030 Con Plan which is under development.

CONSOLIDATED PLAN PROCESS
The Con Plan is divided into six sections.

1. Executive Summary

2. The Process

3. Needs Assessment

4. Market Analysis

5. Strategic Plan

6. First-Year Action Plan
An AAP is approved for each year covered by the Con Plan as the vehicle to implement Con Plan strategies. AAPs set the annual budget, allocating funds from that year’s CDBG and HOME funding entitlement, any unused or uncommitted funds from prior years, and any Program Income (PI) received during the preceding year. The City must annually approve an AAP which specifies activities that will be undertaken during that Program Year (PY). A core component of the AAP is the budget which determines CDBG and HOME Program funding. A draft of the 2025-2026 Action Plan recommended budget is provided as an attachment to this report. Final funding numbers from HUD have not yet been provided, so the draft budget is based on estimated funding. Final allocations are usually provided by HUD to the City by mid-March, barring delays from Congress.

Staff consulted with Grow America on best practices for estimating the 2025 (PY) awards and has projected a potential cut of up to 10% for both the CDBG and HOME programs. As of March 14, 2025, Congress has approved a Continuing Resolution maintaining the operations of the Federal government through the remainder of the federal fiscal year, therefore the City’s funding allocation has been delayed beyond the standard awarding timelines. The National Low Housing Income Coalition described the effects of the approved Continuing Resolution as a funding decrease for CDBG program (related solely to the loss of “earmarks”, or congressionally requested funding for community development projects), and level funding for the HOME program. HUD still needs to award the funds to Entitlement Jurisdictions through an awarding formula, and it is anticipated that final funding amounts will be available as of the second Public Hearing for the 2025-2026 PY AAP on May 27, 2025.

Staff have completed a technical review of the CDBG applications based on regulatory requirements, best practices suggested by HUD, analysis of HUD audit risks, current Con Plan goals, and program knowledge. The funding applications are based on the CDBG and HOME application requests reviewed by the Health in All Policies Committee (HiAP) on February 5, 2025, and the funding recommendations by the HiAP. The HiAP funding recommendations are summarized below in the CDBG Program and HOME Program Budget Recommendations sections. With the current estimated funding available, three programs and two projects are able to be funded. Projects are eligible pending a HUD environmental review under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

36.2 City Council action today includes a vote on a recommended budget and direction of staff to publicly post the drafted Con Plan and AAP (which are combined into one document for HUD submittal) which will be available starting today for a 30 day public review before final adoption at the second and final Public Hearing at the City Council meeting on May 27, 2025. Staff will update the Con Plan and AAP based on the outcome of the May Public Hearing and final drafts will be available for review and public comment for another 15 days before it is submitted to HUD.

The Con Plan and AAP are normally due to HUD by mid-May. In prior AAP cycles, government delays in appropriating HUD funds pushed the submission deadline to mid-June. As of this date, HUD has not yet modified the Con Plan and AAP submission date, but it is anticipated that there will be a delayed submission date. Staff will adhere to the required noticing and submittal deadlines established by HUD.

CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW
CDBG funds can be used for a wide range of community development activities including neighborhood revitalization and improved community facilities and services. Examples of activities that can be funded with CDBG dollars include but are not limited to: acquisition of real property, acquisition and construction of public works and facilities, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential and nonresidential properties, homeownership assistance, and the provision of public services such as employment, food banks, crime prevention, childcare, health, drug abuse, education, and fair housing counseling. The primary beneficiaries of CDBG funded projects or programs must be very-low, low, and moderate-income person(s) and household(s). Other beneficiaries of CDBG funded projects can include seniors, individuals experiencing homelessness, and adults with disabled.

The City spending on Public Service activities (also sometimes referred to as Programs) is limited to up to 15% of the annual award and PI due to HUD regulations on how CDBG funds may be used. The remaining award is divided between physical projects and administration. The City’s CDBG funded programs or projects must either benefit low-income areas (Area Benefit) or low-income individuals (Limited Clientele). The City is limited by HUD in the total amount of funding that can be awarded to Area Benefit projects and programs in any given PY and requires a minimum of 70% of CDBG funds directly benefit low- and moderate-income persons which would be under the Limited Clientele benefit. Programs receiving funding under Limited Clientele requirements must document that at least 51% of their clientele are low-income. To qualify under Area Benefit, an activity must be located in and serve a low-income neighborhood.

The City’s primary low-income neighborhoods in the Beach Flats and Lower Ocean make up the City’s HUD Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA). This area is a priority for CDBG funding. HUD approves NRSA designations with the expectation that there will be increased CDBG funding utilized in these areas, therefore ensuring that these areas are improving. Community Based Development Organizations (CBDOs) must be located within the NRSA and must maintain a governing board of directors comprised of a mix of at least 51%:
low-income residents, executive level entrepreneurs in the neighborhood, and governing members of neighborhood groups. CBDOs located within a HUD approved NRSA can receive funding for Public Services over the usual 15% cap on this category of funding. The City currently has one qualified CBDO - Nueva Vista Community Resources (Nueva Vista). The

36.3 NRSA designation is required for a CBDO to be exempt from the Public Services 15% maximum funding cap and facilitates providing additional funding to the NRSA.

When considering programs and projects to fund with CDBG, a subgrantee’s ability to expend funds in a timely manner is an important consideration. HUD requires that grantees like the City must adhere to timely spending practices, which means the City needs to review program and project progress and adjust as needed to ensure timely spending of CDBG funds. When HUD CDBG timeliness requirements are not met, the City can face negative consequences such as more HUD oversight in project allocations, needing to formulate a HUD approved remediation plan to spend program funds more quickly and, ultimately, can experience a reduction of funds available to spend in the jurisdiction.

HOME PROGRAM OVERVIEW
HOME Program funds are exclusively used to help provide housing for low-income households.

This can be done in two ways. Funding assistance can be provided to: (1) help develop or rehabilitate income restricted housing units or (2) support programs that provide financial assistance directly to low-income renters or home buyers enabling them to then access or retain housing. To oversee programs and projects using HOME Program funding, HUD sets the administration levels at 10% of the combined grant allocation plus PI.

Additionally, the City must set aside 15% of each grant to be used only by a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Habitat for Humanity Santa Cruz County, MidPeninsula the Farm, Inc., and Eden South Bay, Inc. have all qualified at CHDOs in the past and are currently operating in the region.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PLAN
The City is required by HUD to maintain a Community Participation Plan (CPP, previously called Citizen Participation Plan) with the primary goal of providing citizens, especially low- and moderate-income citizens of the community where the federally funded activities will take place, an opportunity to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and assessment of the programs and projects being proposed and funded under a Con Plan and AAP. The CPP must be adopted by the governing body and the public, must be kept up to date, and describe how citizens can provide input into the Con Plan and AAPs throughout the approval process and duration of the Con Plan. Therefore, the CPP must describe a process for encouraging citizens, including minorities, non-English speaking persons, and persons with disabilities to participate in the development of the Con Plan and any of the five AAPs, any substantial amendments to the Con Plan or AAPs, the annual performance report (CAPER) and the CPP itself. From time to time, HUD adjusts the requirements for public participation as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), and jurisdictions like the City must adjust and update their plans accordingly to remain in compliance.

NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY AREA AND ASSESSMENT OF FAIR

HOUSING
HUD allows entitlement jurisdictions like the City to apply for NRSA designations for lowincome areas within the jurisdiction. The purpose of a NRSA is to encourage coordination of resources and facilitate a jurisdiction’s ability to engage in comprehensive community

36.4 revitalization strategies for designated low-income areas. Cities are urged to have strategies that include partnerships among stakeholders in a community involving federal and local governments, the private sector, community organizations, and neighborhood residents. The overall intent is to stimulate reinvestment of human and economic capital while economically empowering low-income residents. The designations must be based on data available from HUD by census tract, and the areas designated as part of an NRSA must be populated with at least 51% of households at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) to qualify as eligible for inclusion. A jurisdiction may only have one NRSA at a time.

In 1968, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act, and the law prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. It also requires federal agencies and recipients of federal housing funds to affirmatively further fair housing. In 2015, the Obama administration introduced the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which expanded the role of the federal government in local zoning decisions by increasing the certification process. It mandated the completion of complex jurisdictional and regional analysis, submission of a 92-question grading tool, and an analysis of impediments. In 2020, the first Trump administration terminated the Obama-era 2015 AFFH rule, and in 2021, the Biden administration restored the main provisions of the 2015 AFFH rule. On February 26, 2025, Secretary Scott Turner announced HUD will terminate the Biden-era 2021 AFFH rule. With Secretary Turner’s action, a locality’s certification that it has affirmatively furthered fair housing, in accordance with the Fair Housing Act, would be deemed sufficient compliance.
2024-2025 AAP HOME FUNDING REALLOCATION
On November 15, 2021, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was signed into law by President Biden, which included in part the Build America Buy America (BABA). This Act established a domestic content procurement preference for all Federal financial assistance obligated for infrastructure projects after May 14, 2022, requiring that all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in covered infrastructure projects are produced in the United States. HUD enacted a Phased Implementation Waiver that delayed the effectiveness of this rule on HOME funds until August 23, 2024, meaning any Federal Financial Assistance awards or agreements made after this date would require compliance with BABA. When required for a funding source, BABA then applies to an entire project, not just the portion of the project funded the BABA required funding. Therefore, projects can face extensive increases to material costs and project timelines to ensure the procurement and use of required materials. In the 2024-2025 AAP, Activity 11 “2024 PY Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project” was awarded HOME funding in the amount of $1,838,227.32. Most of the funds awarded to this activity were from loan repayments from another HOME project, and approximately $276,000.00 were from the HOME allocation from HUD for the 2024 PY. The PY 2024 HOME funds were not awarded by HUD officially by a Standard Agreement with the City until after August 23, 2024 triggering BABA requirements for the $276,000 HOME funds.

DISCUSSION: Through a competitive bidding process, the City has contracted with Grow America (formerly National Development Council) to prepare and manage the drafting of the City’s Con Plan, AAP 2025, Gateway to the Pacific NRSA and Assessment of Fair Housing Memo, and the updating of the City’s CPP. Grow America has expertise preparing these plans and documents for many jurisdictions both in California and nation-wide. City staff has been

36.5 directly involved in the drafting, public outreach, and decision-making process throughout the contract period.

APPLICATION PROCESS AND RANKING
The City accepts applications for CDBG and HOME funds between mid-October to midDecember each year and reviews applications for completeness and eligibility before ranking projects using a set rubric of scoring criteria. These criteria include funding leveraging, program or project readiness, focus area of the project (City vs. Countywide), meeting the City’s Consolidated Plan goals and priorities, and CDBG or HOME experience. Depending on how an application scores, it is then ranked against other applications in its category (Programs or Projects).

The City is limited by HUD with how much CDBG funding can be awarded to Public Services.

City best practices have been to limit the number of Public Service programs and physical Projects funded each year, as splitting the pool of available funds too many ways can limit the benefits of the funded programs or projects or could cause the program or project to not be able to move forward at all causing a loss of services to the community. It also costs the City significantly more to administer more programs and projects and can cause timeliness issues due to a backlog of administrative work to support the programs and projects.

Projects or programs not awarded in the current AAP are able to submit applications in future AAP years for review and ranking.

CDBG PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2025-2026 HUD funding levels have not yet been provided to the City, therefore, the preliminary Action Plan draft budget is based on estimates of prior years’ funding levels and is assuming a potential 10% reduction in funding. For the 2025-2026 PY, it is estimated that the City will receive ~$475,002 in CDBG funds from HUD. Combined with Program Income estimated at $25,000, the total CDBG budget is expected to be $500,002 with $100,000 of this budgeted for Program Administration costs. Administration funding is set by HUD formula to 20% of the HUD grant plus estimated Program Income. The City does not anticipate any prior year funding being available for reprogramming at this time. The recommendations below were presented by staff to the HiAP Committee and are being recommended by the HiAP to the City Council for consideration.

The City is required to maintain prior rehabilitation programs’ debt servicing. It is recommended to fund this activity at $4,000, slightly less than last PY, due to some loans being paid off and requiring less debt servicing review. The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County (Housing Authority) administers the HOME Security Deposit Program for City residents and incurs certain delivery costs while administering the program, therefore it is recommended the delivery costs are funded at $6,900, the same level as last year.

Public Services are recommended to be funded at the following levels: the Teen Center ($45,000), Nueva Vista Community Resources ($150,000) and Second Harvest Food Bank ($25,000). Nueva Vista has previously received CDBG funding and is certified as a CBDO in the City. The Teen Center and Second Harvest Food Bank are also previous CDBG program fund recipients. These recommendations would fund Public Services within the 15% cap of ~$75,000

36.6 set by HUD. Although it appears that funds are exceeding the HUD mandated Public Service cap by approximately $145,000, the $150,000 awarded to Nueva Vista for Public Services can be excluded from this category while they maintain their status as a CBDO as described in the background section above, which is why this category can be funded for a total of $220,000.

Until the actual HUD grant funding numbers are known, the best practice is to not fully meet the 15% Public Service cap, as this gives a buffer which may absorb any needed decreases should the actual funding numbers be below the estimates without needing to decrease the recommended funding levels. Two programs (Teen Kitchen and Upwards – Boost) were not recommended for funding due to application ranking order (including but not limited to level of experience with CDBG funding, focus on County residents vs. City residents, and leveraging of funding/amount of secured funding) and lack of available funds under the Public Services cap.

The City received three Capital Improvement Project applications this program year. Staff recommends funding the Parks and Recreation Department’s Market Street Senior Center Renovation project at $118,600 and Parks and Recreation’s Depot Park Building ADA Improvements project at $50,502. The Market Street Senior Center project is recommended for funding at the full requested amount due to the Parks and Recreation Department’s request to prioritize the project if selected, and the Depot Park Building project is recommended at funding below the full ask amount due to limited remaining CDBG funding available and considerations to ensure that the City meets the 70% Limited Clientele funding requirement. The Market Street Senior project will include improved ADA accessibility from the curb to the entrance of the center and improve ADA accessibility to the first-floor men and women’s restrooms. As the Market Street Senior Center serves seniors, it is considered meeting the Limited Clientele objective. The Depot Park Building project will include improvements to the main hall and restrooms, including installation of ADA accessible doors, floor refinishing, improvements to the building’s ventilation, replacement of sinks, toilets, stalls and installation of ADA accessible doors and button-activate access. The Depot Park Building project would fall under the Area Benefit objective. Both Parks and Recreation Department projects have received prior CDBG funding, but due to rising costs and refined work scope, additional funds are needed to complete the projects. The Boys and Girls Downtown Santa Cruz Clubhouse Roof Replacement project was not recommended for funding at this time as they are still working to complete a rehab project that was funded with a prior CDBG funding round and there were not enough CDBG funds available in this round.

Final CDBG awards may be higher or lower than currently anticipated. Therefore, staff recommends any increase or decrease be absorbed by the Depot Park Building ADA Improvements Project. Also, any increase or decrease in the CDBG award will be reflected as required in the Program Administration and Public Services activities (Second Harvest and Teen Center) to remain compliant with HUD regulations and limits. City Council will have final approval of the budget at the upcoming second Public Hearing. 2024-2025 AAP HOME FUNDING REALLOCATION
In the 2024-2025 AAP, Activity 11 “2024 PY Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project” was awarded HOME funding in the amount of $1,838,227.32. Most of the funds awarded to this activity were from loan repayments from another HOME project, and approximately $276,000.00 were from the HOME allocation from HUD for the 2024 PY. The PY 2024 HOME funds were not awarded by HUD officially by a Standard Agreement with the City until after August 23, 2024, therefore triggering BABA requirements for the $276,000 HOME funds.

36.7 Staff has been in discussions with the development team for the project, and the developer has determined the $276,000 of HOME funding would be the only source of funding in the entire project that would trigger BABA and would require compliance for the entire project, not just the portions funded with HOME. The project developers, along with City staff, have therefore determined that the $276,000 of HOME funds that require BABA compliance are not the best fit for this project, and in order to keep pace with other funding source timeline requirements, pursuing a BABA waiver could jeopardize the project. The $276,000 in HOME funding will be added into the pot of available HOME funds for PY 2025, which will require a substantial amendment to the PY 2024 AAP and a budget adjustment which is anticipated to be included in the second Public Hearing for the Con Plan and AAP on May 27, 2025.

HOME PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed HOME Program funding recommendations will be divided into three categories:

Program Administration (calculated by formula), Ongoing City Programs which includes the HOME Security Deposit Program, and HOME Projects. There will be an estimated $248,458 available for allocation under the 2025-2026 HOME grant, an additional estimated $100,000 of Program Income, and $276,000 in reprogrammable funds from prior years, bringing the total amount available to approximately $624,458. The HOME Program also sets aside a portion of awarded funds for the administration of the HOME Program which is approximately $34,846.

Staff recommends setting aside available HOME funds (~$452,343 and ~$37,269 for a qualified CHDO) for a Future Affordable Housing project to build up a pool of HOME funding for future allocation by City Council. These HOME funds are reserved for 100% affordable projects and are required to be “last in” funds. There is one City Program application, the HOME Security Deposit Program for $100,000, which has been in existence since 1997 in partnership with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz (Housing Authority) and has been funded by multiple sources over the years. During this current PY, 9 families have been assisted so far. The Housing Authority has seen increases in prior program years and is anticipating the demand to continue through the next program year.

Recommendations are as follows:

1. Program Administration (restricted to 10% of total HOME Entitlement) - $34,846

2. HOME Security Deposit Program (managed by the Housing Authority) - $100,000 in HOME and $6,900 in CDBG for program costs .

3. CHDO set aside (restricted to 15% of total HOME Entitlement) to be awarded to a qualifying CHDO organization in the City of Santa Cruz (can be combined with 100% Affordable Housing Project funds) - $37,269

4. 100% Affordable Housing Project - $452,343
Final HOME awards may be higher or lower than currently anticipated, so staff recommends any increase or decrease be absorbed by the 100% Affordable Housing Project. Also, any increase or decrease in the HOME award will be reflected as required in the Program Administration activity to remain compliant with HUD regulations and limits. City Council will have final approval of the budget at the future second Public Hearing.

36.8 CPP AMENDMENTS
Minor changes to wording and the standardization of noticing periods for public hearings and public comments have been made to the CPP, but there are two substantial changes that are being made to the CPP to bring the City in compliance with the CFRs.

The City has reviewed federal regulations and has determined that the CPP needs to be amended to clarify that a substantial amendment to the Con Plan includes changes in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another. For example, a project may not be able to utilize the funds it was awarded and gives it back to the City, to award it to another eligible project, a substantial amendment to the activity that was awarded funding would need to be performed, and the funding would need to be allocated to a different eligible project. Substantial amendments have a required noticing period and public participation rubric outlined in the CPP.

The City is also proposing a change to the Public Hearing process for Con Plans and AAPs.

Currently the City conducts two Public Hearings at City Council meetings. These meetings are at least 30-days apart, with the first Public Hearing taking place when the initial Con Plan and AAP draft is prepared, and the second Public Hearing taking place after public comments have been received. While these two Public Hearings are at different times in the preparation process, the City has been advised that it would be prudent to further separate the Public Hearings in the Con Plan and AAP timeline by having the first Public Hearing occur at the Health in All Policies (HiAP) review of the Con Plan and AAP recommendations.

NRSA PLAN & AFH
The City has maintained an NRSA since 2007, with some adjustments to the boundaries over time. The City has reviewed census tracts and census block groups to ensure the areas included in the NRSA meet the minimum threshold of having at least 51% of households at or below 80% AMI in the proposed area. The current proposal for the 2025-2029 NRSA exceeds that percentage at 74.5%.

Historically, the NRSA has been named for the areas it covers, such as “Lower Ocean/Downtown/River” and “Beach/South of Laurel”. For the 2025-2029 NRSA, staff recommends that the City expand the area included to incorporate all of the Downtown and reaching up to the boundary of Highway 1 around River Street. To simplify the name of the NRSA, staff proposes the name “Gateway to the Pacific”. This name would help to quickly orient any reader of the NRSA that this is for a jurisdiction on the West Coast of the US, that Santa Cruz is a coastal community, and that there are major pathways located inside the NRSA.

The NRSA is proposed to cover areas of Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5, with the majority located in District 4. The expansion of the NRSA from the 2023-2025 area will allow for more opportunities to collaborate with community organizations that may be interested in pursuing CBDO status and will provide additional points when scoring programs and projects located within the NRSA.

Secretary Turner announced HUD’s termination of the AFFH additional requirements and a locality’s certification that it has affirmatively furthered fair housing, in accordance with the Fair Housing Act, would be deemed sufficient compliance. The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element update (2023-2031) was adopted by City Council on December 12, 2023, and included a Fair Housing Assessment (Appendix D) which were modeled on the Obama and Biden

36.9 Administration’s federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) guidelines. The Housing Element AFH requirements now exceed what is required by a federal Analysis of Impediments (AI). By complying with California Housing Element requirements, the City is therefore in compliance with federal fair housing requirements and has identified actions that increase fair housing in the Housing Element. The activities the City will fund through its Con Plan are not only aligned with the issues highlighted in the Housing Element, which specifically references the CDBG and HOME programs as key resources but also expand upon the key actions and strategies outlined. Through these shared goals, Santa Cruz envisions a more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable housing future, addressing the needs of its residents while preserving the City’s unique character and environment.

The City’s Draft Consolidated Plan and 2025 PY AAP, Draft 2025-2030 NRSA, CPP, AFH Memo, and 2024-2025 AAP Amendment will be available on the City’s website for public review as of April 22, 2025; https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/economic-development/housing-assistance-information/hud-programs/hudconsolidated-plan-documents.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is exempt from CEQA under the following:
(1) Class 1 Categorical Exemption (14 CCR 15301) because the Council action consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing structures and facilities involving no expansion of use.
(2) Common Sense exemption (14 CCR 15061) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): Funding for the Public Service activities is consistent with the HiAP framework, especially the pillars of equity, and sustainability. The external CDBG Public Service programs support the goal to invest in downtown and other local organizations. Additionally, because the NRSA allows the City to fund public services at levels above the 15% cap, the City can provide additional funding to Nueva Vista Community Resources, bringing additional funding to the City's lowest income neighborhoods. The HOME program and project recommendations are also consistent with the HiAP framework, directly fulfilling the "Stable, Affordable Housing & Shelter" Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) condition. Equity will be positively impacted with the future creation of more affordable housing units for all members of the community as well as access to the HOME Security Deposit Program that helps individuals and households attain and retain housing.

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: Until funds are committed, there is no fiscal impact for the City from the proposed actions. Under the proposed draft budget, approximately $500,002 in CDBG and $348,458 in HOME Program funds may be allocated in a final budget that will be approved as part of the 2025-2026 AAP by City Council. No General Funds are included in the proposed draft budget. Final funding numbers will become available pending Congress’s

36.10 approval of the federal budget and HUD’s allocation of funding by formula, and awards will be budgeted in the FY 2026 budget as part of the annual budget cycle. There will be a budget adjustment to reflect changes to prior year funding amounts at the upcoming second Public Hearing.

Prepared By:

Jess Mellor, Principal
Management Analyst
Jessica de Wit, Housing &
Community Development
Manager
Submitted By:

Bonnie Lipscomb
Director of Economic
Development and Housing
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2025-2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BUDGET.PDF

36.11 $475,002 2025-2026 CDBG Entitlement Grant (Estimated PY25) $25,000 Estimated 2025-2026 Program Income (PI)
$0 Prior Years' CDBG Funds Available for Reprogramming
$500,002 Total CDBG Program Budget
$100,000 City Program Administration Funding for CDBG (by formula) $400,002 CDBG Funding Available for Allocation
$248,458 2025-2026 HOME Program Entitlement Grant (Estmated PY25) $100,000 Estimated 2025-2026 Year Program Income (PI)
$276,000 Prior Years' HOME Funds Available for Reprogramming $624,458 Total HOME 2025-2026 Grant
$34,846 City Program Administration Funding for HOME (by formula) $589,612 HOME Program Funding Available for Allocation

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME)
2025-2026 PROGRAM YEAR (PY) BUDGET

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) PROGRAM

36.12 ADMINISTRATION (FORMULA: 20% of total Entitlement and Program Income) Activity: Grant Administration $100,000
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz (By Formula)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FUNDING AVAILABLE $100,000
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Rehabilitation Program Delivery Costs $4,000 $5,000 $4,000 Applicant: City of Santa Cruz
Activity: HOME Security Deposit Program Delivery Costs $6,900 $6,900 $6,900 Applicant: Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
TOTAL ONGOING CITY PROGRAMS $10,900
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Teen Center $45,000 $43,666 $45,000
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz
Activity: Food Banks $25,000 $23,666 $25,000
Applicant: Second Harvest Food Banks
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES SUBJECT TO 15% CAP $70,000
Activity: Nueva Vista & Beach Flats Community Centers (CBDO) $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Applicant: Nueva Vista Resources
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING (INCLUDING CBDO) $220,000
Requested
Funding
Prior Year
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: Market Street Senior Center Renovations
Applicant: Parks & Recreation Department $118,600 $260,000 $118,600 Activity: Depot Park Building ADA Improvements
Applicant: Parks & Recreation Department $124,000 $62,000 $50,502 TOTAL PROJECTS FUNDING $169,102
GRAND TOTAL CDBG FUNDING $500,002
2025-26 PY CDBG BUDGET

CDBG PROGRAM BUDGET
2025-2026 PROGRAM YEAR
$100,000

CITY PROGRAMS
PUBLIC SERVICES (Subject to 15% CAP)*

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
* Public Services Cap is calculated by adding estimated allocation with actual received PI for prior program year

36.13 ADMINISTRATION (Formula: 10% of total Entitlement and Program Income) Activity: Grant Administration & Planning $34,846
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz Economic Development
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $34,846
CITY PROGRAMS Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding

TOTAL NEW HOME FUNDING
Activity: HOME Security Deposit Program $100,000 $100,000 Applicant: Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
PROJECTS & PROGRAMS Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Activity: CHDO Set-Aside (by formula) $37,269 $37,269
Applicant: Certified CHDOs in Santa Cruz
Activity: Future Affordable Housing Project $0 $452,343 Applicant: Eligible applicant
$589,612
TOTAL HOME FUNDING BUDGETED AMOUNT $624,458
2025-26 PY HOME BUDGET

HOME PROGRAM BUDGET
2025-2026 PROGRAM YEAR

TOTAL NEW HOME FUNDING

TOTAL PROJECT/PROGRAM FUNDING

36.14 HUD Annual Action Plan Budget
Presenters:

Jessica de Wit – Housing & Community Development Manager Jess Mellor – Housing Principal Management Analyst
April 22, 2025

36.15 Annual action plan
NOFA for CDBG and HOMEOct 2024

HUDGRANT TIMELINE
Applications due for considerationDec 2024
Health in All Policies (HiAP) recommendationsFeb 5, 2025 1st Public Hearing – Initial Council ApprovalsApril 22, 2025 Staff review of applications for completeness and eligibility 2nd Public Hearing – Final Approval
Jan 2025 May 27, 2025

36.16 ACTION REQUIRED TODAY

1. Make initial funding recommendations for the 2025-2026 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) as part of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan; 2. Amend the Community Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect general changes to be in line with HUD policies and procedures, standardize legal ad noticing requirements, and other assorted changes;3. Publish and make available for public review the “Gateway to the Pacific Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan” and the “City of Santa Cruz Housing Element Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and the Consolidated Plan Memo”;4. Publish and make available for public review a substantial amendment to the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan to reallocate $276,000 in HOME funds from the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project to a Future 100% Affordable Housing Project.

36.17 $0
$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000
$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024

CDBGHOMECOMBINED
HUD CDBG & HOME Funding
Estimated
2025 CDBG
$475,002
Estimated
2025 HOME
$248,458

36.18 CDBG FUNDING
CDBG 2025-2026 PY Grant $475,002Estimated Program Income $25,000Prior Yr. Funding (Reprogrammable) $0 Total CDBG Funding Available $500,002Administration ($100,000) $400,002
($4,000)
CDBG Funding Available for allocation (after Admin)
Rehab Administration
($6,900) HOME Security Deposit Program Delivery Costs
$389,102 Remainder Available to Programs & Projects
community building
programs & resources

36.19 FUNDING REQUESTS

PUBLIC SERVICES APPLICATIONS

PROGRAMS
Teen CenterSecond HarvestTeen KitchenUpwards - BoostNueva Vista

36.20 Recommendations
PROGRAM FUNDING(HUD CAP Estimate $75,000)
Teen Center - $45,000 Second Harvest - $25,000 Nueva Vista - $150,000 Total - $220,000
Not subject to activities cap

36.21 APPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY PROJECT APPLICATIONS

PROJECTS
Market Street Senior Center(City Parks & Rec Dept)Depot Park Building ADA(City Parks & Rec Dept)Downtown Clubhouse Roof(Boys & Girls Clubs Santa Cruz County)

36.22 Market St Senior Center - $118,600
Total - $169,102
Recommendations

PROJECT FUNDING
Depot Park Building ADA - $50,502

36.23 CAPITAL PROJECTS
$169,102Parks & Recreation: Market Street Senior Center Project and Depot Park Project

SUMMARY

CDBG RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS$220,000
Nueva Vista Community Services - Beach Flats and Familia Center, Second Harvest Food Bank, Santa Cruz Teen Center Total - $500,002
ADMIN & CITY PROGRAMS $110,900
City Staff Admin, Rehab Admin & HOME Security Deposit Admin

36.24 HOME FUNDING
HOME 2025-2026 PY Grant $248,458Estimated Program Income $100,000 ~$276,000
Prior Years’ HOME Funds
available for reprogramming
~$624,458
Total HOME Funding AvailableAdministration ($34,846)
~$589,612
HOME Funding Available for allocation (after Admin)

36.25 RECOMMENDATION
HOME Security Deposit Program $100,000(in partnership with the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County) Future 100% Affordable Housing Project ~$489,612(affordable housing project; includes CHDO set aside) TOTAL - ~$589,612

36.26 Next Steps
TODAY: 1. Make initial funding recommendations for the 2025-2026 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) as part of the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan; 2. Amend the Community Participation Plan (CPP) to reflect general changes to be in line with HUD policies and procedures, standardize legal ad noticing requirements, and other assorted changes;3. Publish and make available for public review the “Gateway to the Pacific Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan” and the “City of Santa Cruz Housing Element Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and the Consolidated Plan Memo”;4. Publish and make available for public review a substantial amendment to the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan to reallocate $276,000 in HOME funds from the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project to a Future 100% Affordable Housing Project.
5/27/25 (estimated, based on receipt of final #s from HUD) – 2nd PH June 2025 – Submit Plans to HUD (~45 days after award allocations) Submit comments to [email protected] & [email protected] 36.27 Program Successes
Unduplicated youth and adults
served, providing them with
vital resources and support.
29,000+
Of CDBG & HOME Funding
invested in Programs in City
of Santa Cruz
● Summer outings and
enrichment ~$300,000
● Youth programs● Assistance with Government
forms
● Food distribution● Legal assistance ● Security Deposit assistance Services most utilized:

36.28 Questions?

36.29 City Council

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/03/2025
AGENDA OF: 04/22/2025
DEPARTMENT: Fire Department/Police
SUBJECT: Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study and Proposed Fees Update (FD/PD) LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Public Safety Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and a new Public Safety Impact Fee Schedule for new residential and non-residential development at 80 percent of the proposed maximum allowable fee; 2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter

18.49 “Public Safety Impact Fees,” modifying section 18.49.050 Exemptions; and 3) Direct staff to assess full cost recovery (maximum allowable development impact fee) of the public safety impact fees within one year from final adoption of the ordinance and report back if necessary.

BACKGROUND: On April 27, 2021, the City Council adopted the Public Safety Impact Fee (PSIF) Ordinance No. 2021-11 Public Safety Impact Fees as defined in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Chapter 18.49. The ordinance permits fees to be collected on building permits for new development to maintain acceptable levels of police and fire services by paying its fair share for the cost of public safety facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment necessitated by the burdens of new development within the city. The 2021 Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Report states that the City of Santa Cruz (City) should review the fee and determine if any fee adjustments are warranted.

In November 2023, the City contracted with Finance DTA (DTA) to review and update the Public Safety Impact Fees (PSIFs), focusing on demographic assumptions, facility needs and costs, cost allocation, and the City’s PSIF fee schedule. At the November 14, 2023, City Council meeting, staff were directed to explore the applicability of PSIFs to 100 percent affordable housing projects. Subsequently, during the December 10, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council unanimously approved a motion to eliminate the Municipal Code exemption of PSIFs for 100 percent affordable housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) of 750 square feet or greater.

37.1 DISCUSSION: The City contracted with DTA, a public finance, development economics, and clean energy bond consulting firm, to review the City’s PSIFs. DTA produced a comprehensive 2025 Public Safety Development Impact Fee Nexus Study that evaluates the adequacy of existing fees, identifies future infrastructure requirements, calculates the cost of maintaining acceptable levels of public safety services, and offers actionable recommendations to update the PSIF fee schedule to close funding gaps. Additionally, Nexus studies can provide a comparison of fees that developers pay in other jurisdictions. This comparative information is one of many considerations when establishing PSIFs.

DTA employed a robust methodology to review and update the PSIFs for the City, focusing on aligning fee structures while maintaining the current level of service already being provided by the Police and Fire Department. The process began with a detailed analysis of demographic assumptions, examining population and employment growth to estimate future service demands.

An inventory of existing public safety facilities, vehicles, equipment, and land was conducted to assess current capacities and identify deficiencies to evaluate if the same level of service could be maintained with the additional population growth. Using the projected increased demographic findings, DTA projected future infrastructure needs, factoring in the cost of planned improvements and replacements. A cost allocation model was then developed to ensure that fees reflect an equitable distribution of costs among residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developments based on their proportional impact. This methodology also incorporated best practices in impact fee calculations to ensure consistency with state regulations, resulting in a comprehensive fee schedule designed to make sure new development funds a fair share of the necessary public safety improvements to maintain the existing level of service efficiently and sustainably.

DTA’s analysis reveals that the City’s existing public safety infrastructure, including facilities, vehicles, equipment, and land, is insufficient to meet the anticipated demands driven by population and employment growth. The study identifies significant future needs for expanded or upgraded public safety facilities and assets to maintain existing service levels. DTA’s findings show that the current PSIFs are outdated and no longer align with the rising costs of infrastructure improvements or the allocation of these costs among new developments.

Calculations based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) demonstrated that both residential and non-residential developments will place additional strain on the City’s resources. The study also highlights a revenue gap that must be addressed to make sure new development pays its fair share to adequately fund future public safety infrastructure.

To provide a reliable funding mechanism to support the City’s growing infrastructure needs while promoting fairness across all development types, staff recommends that the City:
• Update its PSIF to better reflect public safety costs and expenses and maintain a two percent administrative fee, and
• Revise the fee schedule structure as follows:
o Combine single-family detached and multi-family land use categories, removing the maximum fee ceilings, and calculating fees based on square footage rather than per unit.
o Redefine the commercial land use category to include retail and add an institutional land use category to capture potential developments that involve private hospitals and schools, rehabilitation centers, retirement homes, etc. o Calculate fees for hotels by number of rooms instead of square feet.

37.2 • Eliminate exemptions for 100 percent affordable housing projects and ADUs that are 750 square feet or greater,
• Adopt a traditional standards-based (level of service) methodology approach to generate impact fees rather than the current combination of standards-based and plan-based. • Maintain an annual cost escalator to the PSIFs using the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) to account for inflation in acquisition and construction costs. • Update the Nexus Study at least every eight years, per State requirement, starting January 2025.

Staff recommends implementing a fee schedule set at eighty (80) percent of the maximum allowable fee, inclusive of a two (2) percent administrative fee for all land use categories. Setting the fees below the maximum allowable amount helps mitigate potential deterrents to future projects and takes into consideration consistency with other local and regional jurisdictions. The proposed fee also helps lessen the impact on the General Fund, which would otherwise be relied upon to sustain the standard level of service for Public Safety, as the City continues to experience growth.

In addition, staff recommends maintaining an annual cost escalator to the PSIFs using the 20- City Construction Cost Index (CCI) instead of DTA’s recommended CCCI to preserve the current annual cost increase approach for the City’s impact fees (i.e., childcare and public safety).

Current PSIF Schedule (Includes 2.0% Administrative Cost) Land Use Police Fire Total
Single Family Detached (per SF) $0.574 $0.574 $1.148
Multi-Family (per SF) $0.986 $0.975 $1.961
Retail (per SF) $0.559 $0.551 $1.110
Office (per SF) $0.651 $0.644 $1.295
Industrial (per SF) $0.261 $0.257 $0.518
Hotel (per SF) $0.195 $0.193 $0.388
Maximum Allowable PSIF Schedule (Includes 2.0% Administrative Cost) Land Use Police Fire Total
Residential (per SF) $1.64 $1.82 $3.46
Hotel (per Room) $826.00 $915.00 $1,741.00
Commercial / Retail (per SF) $2.72 $3.02 $5.74
Office (per SF) $2.86 $3.17 $6.03
Industrial (per SF) $0.76 $0.84 $1.60
Institutional / Other (per SF) $2.33 $2.58 $4.91

37.3 80 Percent of Maximum Allowable PSIF Schedule (Includes 2.0% Administrative Cost) Land Use Police Fire Total
Residential (per SF) $1.31 $1.46 $2.77
Hotel (per Room) $660.80 $732.00 $1,392.80
Commercial / Retail (per SF) $2.18 $2.42 $4.59
Office (per SF) $2.29 $2.54 $4.82
Industrial (per SF) $0.61 $0.67 $1.28
Institutional / Other (per SF) $1.86 $2.06 $3.93
Government Code Section 66016(a) requires the City to hold at least one open and public meeting before approving an existing fee or service charge increase. On January 15, 2025, the City hosted a public webinar for DTA to present their findings, methodologies, and recommendations for proposing new PSIFs. The City panel did not receive any feedback or questions from the public during the webinar. Shortly after, on January 22, 2025, Santa Cruz Fire and SCPD presented an overview of DTA’s Public Safety Development Impact Fee Nexus Study to the Public Safety Committee. No requests for modifications to the report were received.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed City Council action is not a “Project” under CEQA. CEQA applies to activities that may result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment.

Since the Public Safety Impact Fee recommendations are a financial mechanism for funding public services – such as police, fire, or emergency services – without directly proposing or approving any land use or construction projects, this action falls outside CEQA’s scope.

However, if it were considered a project, it would be exempt from review under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (known as the “Common Sense” exemption) in that it would not reasonably be seen to create a significant impact on the environment. It would also be exempt under Section 15306 (Information Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it relates to analysis and provision of information to the Council.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The Public Safety Impact Fees directly support the City’s HiAP pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability through dedicated City funding towards sustaining essential fire and police facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment to adequately serve existing and new residents, City employees and visitors.

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: This recommendation will increase revenues collected in Fund 215- Public Safety Impact Fee- Police Fund and Fund 217- Public Safety Impact Fee- Fire Fund and increases projected for fiscal year 2026 will be reflected in the proposed budget presented to Council for the next fiscal year. Because this recommendation, if adopted, will not take effect with much time remaining in the 2025 fiscal year, a budget adjustment to increase revenues in those funds is not attached at this time.

37.4 Prepared By:

Megan Nutt
Principal Management
Analyst
Catherine Brothers
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Rob Oatey
Chief of Fire
Bernie Escalante
Chief of Police
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT RESOLUTION.DOCX

2. DRAFT ORDINANCE.DOCX

3. 2021 PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY.PDF.PDF

4. 2025 PUBLIC SAFETY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY.PDF

5. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-11 TRACK CHANGES.DOCX

37.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ REVISING AND

IMPLEMENTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE CHARGES FOR NEW

RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2021-11 establishing a Public Safety Impact Fee (PSIF), at Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 18.49, for new residential and non-residential development to pay its fair share of the public safety facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment generated by growth from new development to maintain the existing levels of service;
WHEREAS, also on April 27, 2021, the City adopted Resolution 29,813 enacting the PSIF, but now wishes to rescind Resolution 29,813 and the prior PSIF schedule and replace it with an updated schedule reflecting new development's fair share of costs for maintaining the existing level of service;
WHEREAS, the City General Plan includes objectives and policies to ensure adequate fire and police training and resources, and to maintain rapid and timely response to all emergencies and services;
WHEREAS, both fire and police run a network of integrated services that will serve existing and planned residential and nonresidential development; WHEREAS, new development in the City will increase the service population and, therefore, the need for new fire and police facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment to adequately serve the new residents and employees;
WHEREAS, a PSIF is still needed to support existing and planned public safety facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment to serve increased population from new residential and nonresidential development in the City;
WHEREAS, a developer voluntarily choosing to create new development will place new, additional, and cumulatively overwhelming burdens on public safety services. As a condition of project approval, new development must mitigate its adverse impact of increased demand for public safety generated by the development;
WHEREAS, a PSIF is still necessary in order to establish a public safety funding mechanism to pay new development’s fair share of the costs of maintaining the existing level of fire and police services within the City;
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed; and between the need for the public safety facilities, apparatuses, vehicles, and equipment and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed;

37.6 WHEREAS, the Public Safety Impact Fee established is consistent with the City General Plan and Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008;
WHEREAS, City engaged the services of Finance DTA to conduct a new Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study to evaluate and update the PSIF charged to new residential and nonresidential development; WHEREAS, City wishes to adopt the methodology and findings of the Finance DTA Study and to adopt the new PSIF schedule and 80 percent of the fees recommended to be charged to new residential and non-residential development stated therein; WHEREAS, the Public Safety Impact Fee revised and implemented through this resolution is authorized in the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code 18.49; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Impact Fee schedule will be adjusted annually to account for cost inflation. It will be automatically adjusted effective January 1 of each year, beginning in 2026. The adjustment will be based on the year-over-year percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) as reported in the Engineering News Record (ENR) for the 12-month period ending October the prior year;

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

BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitations are true and correct, and are included herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the methodology and findings in the Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by Finance DTA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the new PSIF schedule for new residential and non-residential development as detailed in Exhibit A, and incorporating said fees into the Citywide Fee Schedule. The new PSIF schedule shall be effective sixty (60) days after passing of this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

37.7 Exhibit A
City of Santa Cruz
Public Safety Impact Fee (PSIF)
80 Percent PSIF Schedule (Includes 2.0% Administrative Cost) Land Use Police Fire Total
Residential (per SF) $1.31 $1.46 $2.77
Hotel (per Room) $660.80 $732.00 $1,392.80
Commercial / Retail (per SF) $2.18 $2.42 $4.59
Office (per SF) $2.29 $2.54 $4.82
Industrial (per SF) $0.61 $0.67 $1.28
Institutional / Other (per SF) $1.86 $2.06 $3.93

37.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.49.050
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the City passed Ordinance No. 2021-11, which created the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 18.49, “Public Safety Impact Fee.” WHEREAS, in 2024 City engaged the services of Finance DTA to conduct a new Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study to evaluate and update the Public Safety Impact Fee charged to new residential and non-residential development; and
WHEREAS, Finance DTA recommended removing the exemptions to the fee for accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or greater and for affordable housing because both types of projects increase the demand on police and fire services and both types of developments should be required to pay their fair share to maintain the existing levels of services; and WHEREAS, the intent of this ordinance is to remove those exemptions.

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

Section 1. Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 18.49.050 “Exemptions” is hereby amended as follows:

18.49.050 Exemptions.

A. The following exemptions from the requirements for fees and exactions are imposed:
1) Any type of project determined by the City council to have a reduced or insignificant public safety impact as per Section 18.49.070.
2) Repairs or Replacement. The repair, remodel, modification, reconstruction or replacement of a residential or nonresidential building substantially equivalent to the preexisting building.

Additional square footage beyond the preexisting amount is not exempt. Includes residential and nonresidential units being replaced due to a natural disaster. 3) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units of less than 750 square feet. 4) Public Project. Projects undertaken by a public agency, except projects undertaken by a private developer on public property, and except property not used exclusively for a governmental purpose.
5) Project with Complete Application on Effective Date of Ordinance. Project for which an application for permit was complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, except for any project which is required to comply with these measures pursuant to the provisions of a development agreement.

B. Change of use is entitled to an offset or a credit:
1) If a project is changing its use, a credit in the amount offsetting the impact of its prior use shall be applied. For example, a development project converting existing hotel rooms into residential will have the fee for the proposed (including any addition) residential calculated and the fee for the existing hotel rooms calculated, and the existing hotel rooms will be

37.9 credited against the new residential fee use. In the event that the credit exceeds the new fee, the fee shall be zero and no refunds are applicable.

C. No credits or exemptions will be given to properties that have been vacant for more than three years by the time of applying for building permit.
(Ord. 2021-11 § 1, 2021).

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION on this XX day of XX 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

37.10 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE (PSIF)

THREE-YEAR GRADUATED INCREASE PROPOSAL

EXHIBIT A
This table outlines recommended three-year graduated increase in PSIF. In order to minimize the impact of the rise in fees, a three-year graduated increase is proposed. FY21 includes 50% of the total recommended fee, FY22 is 75% of the full fee amount, and FY23 would bring the fees to the full recommended amount.

37.11