Figure 115: Apparatus per Incident (2019–2023)
Apparatus per Incident Percentage of Incidents
1 94.3%
2 2.98%
3 2.13%
4 0.29%
5 0.21%
6 or More 0.08%
18.182
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 169
While many apparatus response groupings are possible, the SCFD sends the same twoapparatus combination nearly 18% of the time. The following figure shows the number of single-unit responses and the top 5 two-apparatus combinations, which account for 95.9% of all incidents.
Figure 116: Common Unit Combinations
Apparatus Combination Percentage of Incidents
Single Unit 94.3%
E3110 & T3170 0.53%
E3112 & T3170 0.48%
E3113 & T3170 0.31%
E3110 & E3112 0.15%
E3110 & L3165 0.15%
Performance Review
When evaluating a system, having a set of objectives or standards against which to judge performance is helpful. While national and state standards may be recommended, in California, it is up to the authority having jurisdiction to adopt specific ones. In this case, the SCFD has adopted two standards. The call processing goal is the NFPA standard 60 seconds with the addition of 13 seconds for dispatch to gather information. The adopted 60-second turnout time for EMS incidents is standard. The SCFD has adopted a 2-minute standard for Structure Fire, Rescue, Water Rescue, and Vehicle Accident incident types.
The total response time goals are unique to the SCFD and vary depending on Urban, Suburban, and Rural response areas. Other goals reference the NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (NFPA 1710).
The goals also reference portions from NFPA 1225: Standard for Emergency Services Communications (NFPA 1225).
Evaluating overall performance requires an understanding of the lifecycle of an incident. It starts with a normal state and should end with a new normal state, but there are many measurable time segments in between. Some elements, such as call processing and turnout time, can be improved by tactical management techniques such as training and policy. However, other time segment performances, such as travel time, are typically managed by a strategic methodology such as station location. The following figure identifies each time segment in the incident lifecycle.
18.183
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 170
Figure 117: Incident Lifecycle
The incident data provided did not allow for analysis of all time segments in the above list.
However, enough information was provided to evaluate call processing, turnout, travel, fire department response, and total response time. While the SCFD has adopted call processing, turnout, and total response time standards, other available time segments will utilize the NFPA standards as a performance benchmark. The following figure indicates each time segment, standards referenced, and the most influential organizational actions.
State of Normalcy
Discovery of Event
Call Initiation (911 e.g.)
Alarm Transfer Time*
Alarm Answering Time
Alarm Processing Time
Turnout Time
Travel Time
Arrival Time – Initiating Actions
Control and Mitigate Event
Recovery
State of Normalcy
Soft
Data
Hard Data
Total Response Time
Alarm
Handling NFPA
1225
Response Times NFPA
1710
Fire
Department
Impact Zone
* Needed for organizations that are not the primary PSAP.
18.184
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 171
Figure 118: Incident Segment KPIs
Incident Segment Primary Agency
Influence Standard Benchmark
Normalcy Prevention Local Codes &
Ordinances Community Risk Assessment
Discovery Public Education TBD
Notification Public Education TBD
Call Answer1
Dispatch Staffing,
Systems, Policy, &
Training
NFPA 1225 &
Local Standard
15 Sec 90th Percentile
20 Sec 95th Percentile
Call Transfer 30 Sec 90th Percentile
Call Processing 73 Sec 90th Percentile
(priority)2
Turnout Time Station Design,
Policy & Training
NFPA 1710 &
Local Standard
60 Sec 90th Percentile (EMS)
80 Sec 90th Percentile (Other)
120 Sec 90th Percentile
(Structure Fire, Rescue,
Water Rescue, and MVC)
Travel Time (1st
Due)
Station Location,
Systems, &
Training
NFPA 1710
4 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (2nd
Due) 6 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (ERF)
8 Min 90th Percentile
(Low or Moderate Risk)
10 Min 10 Sec 90th percentile
(High Risk)
Action Initiation or
Patient Contact
Station Location,
Systems, Staffing,
& Training
TBD
Control/Mitigation TBD
Recovery Prevention &
Public Education
Updated
Codes &
Ordinances
Community Risk Assessment
New Normal Prevention Local Codes &
Ordinances Community Risk Assessment
1 Applies to both PSAP and Secondary Answering (Agency) Dispatch Centers. 2 Non-Priority Incidents are exempt from NFPA 1225. Agencies are expected to set standards.
The time segment performance standards are evaluated as a percentile. This will allow the SCFD to compare its performance against other agencies and the standard with a similar statistical technique.
18.185
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 172
Call Processing Analysis
There are several time measures of a dispatch center. The metrics identified in NFPA 1225 and NFPA 1710 are ring time and call processing. Ring time measures when the phone in dispatch begins to ring until someone answers. NFPA 1225 requires the ring time to be less than 15 seconds, 90% of the time and less than 20 seconds, 95% of the time. Call processing indicates the time it takes from when a person answers the call for help until the first unit is notified of an incident. Ring time is typically captured in a separate system, and the raw data was unavailable for this report. However, sufficient data was available to evaluate call processing.
Call processing should start from when the phone is answered until the first, preferably correct, unit has been notified an incident is in progress. However, there is typically a short period, usually seconds, from when the phone is answered and the incident is started in the computer-aided dispatch system. For this analysis, it is assumed this short period, while not captured, is inconsequential. The NFPA 1710 standard indicates that a high-priority incident should be processed within 60 seconds, 90% of the time. NFPA further defines specific call types to be processed within 90 seconds, 90% of the time, and 120 seconds, 99% of the time. These incident types include those requiring emergency medical questioning, hazardous materials incidents, and technical rescue incidents. This additional time is available for persons needing translation, calls from devices used by hard-of-hearing individuals, text messages, and calls requiring location determination.
The data provided was evaluated for integrity and reliability. It was found that the data was generally reliable. Specific incidents were excluded to find the emergency call processing times. These excluded incidents were mutual and automatic aid outside the jurisdiction, incidents without units in the data, canceled units, and "null" incident categories. However, that did leave 24,394 incidents, or 57% of all incidents, for evaluation.
Overall, the Santa Cruz Consolidated Emergency Communications Center (SCCECC) processed calls at approximately 2 minutes, 51 seconds or faster 90% of the time. The following figure shows the call processing time at the 90th percentile based on the NFIRS incident grouping for 2019–2023.
18.186
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 173
Figure 119: Call Processing by NFIRS Category (2019–2023) Another dimension of the call processing time is how incident workload affects dispatch center performance. SCCECC manages the workload well, and the call processing time remains relatively consistent by the hour. The following figure is the call processing times of medical incidents and all other incidents by the hour of the day, with the call load added as a reference.
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Standard
18.187
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 174
Figure 120: Call Processing by Hour (2019–2023)
Annual call processing has remained consistent for all years in the analysis. One exception is a sizable drop in call processing times for Fire incidents from 2019 to 2021. The following figure shows the annual call processing time by general categories.
Figure 121: Annual Call Processing (2019–2023)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
03:00
03:30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 % of Workload
Call Processing Time
Hour
EMS - Performance (90th) Other - Performance (90th)
Other Incidents EMS Incidents 02:19 01:55 01:34 01:51
02:11
02:53
02:57
02:52
02:59
03:04
02:38
02:32
02:33
02:40
02:35
00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
03:00
03:30
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fire EMS Other
18.188
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 175
Turnout Time Analysis
Turnout time is the difference between when the unit is notified of an incident and when they begin to respond. NFPA 1710 indicates the performance measure for this time segment is 60 seconds for EMS incidents and 80 seconds for other incidents.
Some incident data was removed to create the most realistic turnout time evaluation. First, incident data missing either the dispatch time, the en route time, or where the dispatch time was later than the en route time was eliminated as erroneous. In addition, units without arrival times and lifeguard units were removed. Finally, only the SCFD frontline units were evaluated, and the turnout time was limited to a 6-minute maximum as it was a natural break between the meaningful data and the extremes outside the maximum limit.
The data was analyzed for statistical reliability, and over 21-thousand records could be measured. This represents approximately 50% of the recorded information, a typical percentage in this type of analysis. Overall, the SCFD staffed apparatus has a turnout time of 2 minutes, 5 seconds, 90% of the time, or faster. The following figure shows the turnout times by unit type and general incident types.
Figure 122: Turnout Time by Apparatus and Incident Type (2019–2023) 02:01 01:56 02:06 02:12 00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
Engine Truck
EMS Other
18.189
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 176
The temporal evaluation of the turnout time shows changes in the percentile by hour of day and annual performance. Since the SCFD staffs their engine and truck units 24 hours a day, it is expected that crews can try to sleep at night. However, sleeping personnel can impact how fast they can get to the apparatus and begin to respond. The following figure shows the turnout percentile by the hour of the day, with the workload by general incident type added for reference.
Figure 123: Turnout Time by Hour (2019–2023)
It is interesting to note the inverse pattern of turnout times and workload. This phenomenon is common in agencies with lower call volume at night. This can be explained as a combination of crews resting and fewer incidents to analyze. A limited data set is typically much more susceptible to higher times and more obvious data swings.
The SCFD specifies a turnout time performance of 60 seconds for medical incidents and 120 seconds for Structure Fire, Rescue, Water Rescue, and MVC incidents. The analysis below will illustrate performance grouped by type, such as medical incidents, "fire" incidents (Structure Fire, Rescue, Water Rescue, and MVC incidents), and all other incidents. It is important to note that the incident count for the fire incident category was generally very small, dropping from a high of 46 in 2019 to a low of 8 in 2020. The performance is summarized in the following figure alongside the SCFD adopted standard. 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
03:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 % of Workload
TUrnout Time
Hour
EMS - Performance (90th) Other - Performance (90th)
Incidents - EMS Incidents - Other
18.190
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 177
Figure 124: Turnout Time Performance by Incident Type (2019–2023) Incident Type 90th Percentile Performance Performance Standard Overall 2:05 —
Fire 2:42 2:00
Medical 2:01 1:00
Other 2:07 —
The following figure illustrates changes in performance over time in the defined incident categories. The most striking feature of this analysis is the Fire turnout time in 2021. Still, it is reflective of only 12 rescue incidents.
Figure 125: Annual Turnout Time Performance by Incident Type (2019–2023) 02:32 02:11 03:37 02:3702:52 02:03 02:00 02:02 02:06 01:59 02:08 02:05 02:06 02:11 02:02 00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
03:00
03:30
04:00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fire Medical Other
18.191
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 178
Travel Time Analysis
NFPA 1710 lists several travel time requirements for apparatus. The first defined travel time is the first unit, either an engine or a truck that can operate as an engine, should be 4 minutes. The second-due engine should travel 6 minutes, and the first alarm should arrive within 8 minutes for a moderate-risk structure fire.64
Travel time is the difference between when the apparatus goes en route and when it arrives on the scene. Travel time for the incident is from when the first arriving unit is en route until it comes on the scene. The following map shows theoretical travel areas 4 and 8 minutes from the four SCFD stations.
64 National Fire Protection Association. Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departmentss.2020) [Appendix D].
18.192
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 179
Figure 126: 4- and 8-Minute Travel Time Model
Theoretically, the distribution and concentration are appropriate for the majority of the jurisdiction. However, much of the open space areas and the contracted area around Paradise Park are beyond the 8-minute coverage area.
Theoretical models are beneficial when evaluating what can happen. However, considering the actual performance may give a better understanding of what the SCFD can provide.
18.193
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 180
First Due Apparatus
For the following analysis, travel times were limited to those incidents listed as an emergent response where the dispatch and arrival times were not "null" and dispatch times were prior to arrival times. In addition, the maximum travel time was limited to 25 minutes to be included in the analysis as that is the estimated time to drive from the Seymour Marine Discovery Center on McAllister Way and DeLaveaga Disc Golf Course on Upper Park Road.
These locations were chosen because they are located diagonally across the city and response areas.
The first due performance for the SCFD is just over 6 minutes for all incidents within the city and the contracted SCFD response area. The following figure shows the first due travel time for emergency responses by the city and incident types.
Figure 127: First Due Travel Time by Incident Type (2019–2023) Because EMS calls are the most significant percentage of emergent incidents and the stations are so similarly staffed, the EMS times appear to be the primary driver of the overall performance time.
05:59 06:10 06:12
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
EMS Fire Other
18.194
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 181
Time of day can enormously impact travel times in the form of crew readiness, traffic patterns, and incident volume. Nevertheless, the SCFD's travel times throughout the day remain relatively consistent. The following figure shows the first due travel times by the hour, with the workload shown for reference.
Figure 128: Travel Time by Hour (2019–2023)
Finally, the annual travel times for the first apparatus have not changed significantly over time. The following figure shows the response area travel times by year, with the total number of responses displayed for reference. Travel time performance was only assessed on incidents within the city and with valid timestamps. 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 % of Incidents
Travel Time
Travel Workload
18.195
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 182
Figure 129: Annual Travel Times (2019–2023)
Effective Response Force
The second dimension of the travel time analysis is how well the effective response force (ERF) needed for a type of incident can be assembled. ERFs change with the complexity and resources required of any incident. They can range from one unit to multiple units with specialty equipment. The SCFD can maintain consistent ERF travel across all incident types due to the concentration of apparatus out of its four regularly staffed stations. The following figure shows the travel time for emergent incidents of the first three units arriving.
Figure 130: Historical Travel, First Three Units (2019–2023) 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Annual Incient Volume
Travel Time
Travel Time Performance (90th) Incidents
05:27
07:40
08:54
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
1 2 3
% of Incidents
Travel Time (min)
Order of Arrival
Percent of Incidents 90th Percentile Travel
18.196
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 183
There is little difference between the third unit's arrival and subsequent times. Again, this is primarily due to concentration. Because of this, there is minor variation based on the two commonly evaluated incident types.
Fire Department Response Time Analysis
A time segment not identified by the NFPA or Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) is from when the fire department is notified until it arrives on the scene.
The value of this measure is in how the fire department evaluates its specific performance, regardless of how the communications center performs. The overall fire department response time for the SCFD is 6 minutes, 47 seconds, or faster, for 90% of the responses. The following figure shows the annual fire department performance by incident type.
Figure 131: Annual Fire Department Response Times by Group (2019–2023) Total Response Time Analysis
The reason each time segment is analyzed is to get an understanding of where performance can be measured and improved. However, the primary performance measurement is the total response time. The person in need sees this as the fire department's performance. For example, as previously discussed, the SCFD's fire department time for all incidents is 6 minutes, 47 seconds, or faster 90% of the time.
However, the total response time is 8 minutes, 49 seconds, or faster 90% of the time. The following figure shows the annual first due total response time by incident type. 06:1607:51 07:06 06:21 06:59 06:49 06:35 07:26 07:08 06:48 07:27 07:25 06:48 08:57 07:32 00:00
01:26
02:53
04:19
05:46
07:12
08:38
10:05
EMS Fire Other
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
18.197
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 184
Figure 132: Annual Total Response Time by Group (2019–2023) The SCFD has adopted total response standards for population density zones within the jurisdiction, identified as Urban, Suburban, and Rural. The following figure lists the total response time by reporting district with the SCFD adopted standard.
Figure 133: Total Response Time Performance by Reporting District (2019–2023) Incident Type 90th Percentile Performance Performance Standard Overall 8:49 —
Urban 8:45 8:18
Suburban 9:18 12:18
Rural 13:20 20:18
One of the most straightforward methods of displaying the total response time was developed by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). Annually, the CFAI requires an accredited agency to report its performance through a response program in chart form. These charts show the incident time segments culminating in the total response time of the first unit and the entire ERF. While each element leading up to the total response time is self-explanatory and was explored in earlier sections of this report, the total response time can be confusing. 08:1809:23
08:51
08:32
08:54
08:26
08:40
09:26
09:04
09:08
08:56
09:14
08:58
10:21
09:19
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
EMS Fire Other
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
18.198
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 185
It may seem that the 90th percentile call processing plus the 90th percentile turnout and travel times would equal the 90th percentile total time. However, this is not usually the case.
Each time segment is analyzed independently, including the total response time. The total response time does not add the segments' percentiles due to the variability of the time segments within each incident.
Ocean Safety Program Review
Because of its proximity to the ocean, a city beach, the destination for many visitors, and the limited access to similar services, the SCFD provides the specialized service of marine safety. Evaluation of this type of service does not follow the traditional response operations model. What follows is a description of the Marine Safety Division (MSD) service delivery based on the limited information available.
Data Discussion
SCFD provided two data sources from which to evaluate the program. The CAD data contained some information for each dispatched lifeguard unit as part of an incident assigned by the regional 911 center. Once a unit is dispatched, an incident is generated in RMS, and the required information that categorizes the response type is provided by the responding units. The corresponding record in the CAD data provides unit identifiers and location information. When the division provides service to an individual without a 911 center dispatch, there is no CAD data to identify the response as belonging to the Marine Safety Division. Therefore, the analysis performed on the RMS data is limited to records with a corresponding CAD incident.
The second data source was the manual data the Marine Safety Division recorded for its annual reporting. Detailed information about the events captured in this data set was not provided. It is also not clear whether the incidents captured in the RMS are additional incidents or more detailed information for specific events enumerated in the summary data. The response categories in the division's report do not have a corresponding incident type in the RMS or CAD. Because of the lack of detail on the overall operations and the inability to relate the annual report to the RMS, trends and performance evaluations are limited.
18.199
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 186
RMS Reporting
Many incidents handled by the division are not captured consistently in the RMS. The following figure illustrates the gap between responses identified by the MSD as "Medical Aids – Major" and the Lifeguard unit responses in the RMS. Particularly evident in 2021, the RMS accounted for only 54% of the major medical responses. Likely, the incident was never captured in the CAD.
Figure 134: Division Reported Calls vs CAD-RMS Incidents (2019–2023) With the reporting gaps in mind, the following sections portray the temporal trends of Lifeguard unit responses in the RMS data and Marine Safety Division reporting. The RMS offers 400 incidents from 2019–2023, while the MSD records over 2,900 incidents for the same period.
Trends
While it is challenging to match RMS records to the MSD counts, the annual trends from each record-keeping system tell a consistent story. From 2019 to 2023, RMS incident volume peaked at 91 in 2022, followed by 89 in 2019. The MSD volume was highest in 2019 with 601, but 2022 was only slightly behind at 599.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
RMS - EMS not rescues MSD - Medical Aids-Major
18.200
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 187
Figure 135: Volume by Year (2019–2023)
In concert with other incident data, there is a drop in both systems from 2019 to 2020, while both show an increase in 2021 and a drop from 2022 to 2023. The year-over-year change for each record-keeping system is shown below.
Figure 136: Annual Percentage Change of Incidents by System 2019–2020 2020–2021 2021–2022 2022–2023
RMS -26% 34% 5% -24%
MSD -71% 132% 50% -44%
The Santa Cruz area follows the trend of many outdoor activity communities, and the demand for service is highly seasonal. The RMS volume peaks in July, while February and November have the lowest average number of incidents. Monthly values were not available for the MSD reports. Note the monthly values of lifeguard unit responses are likely autocorrelated with the staffing of these units. The following figure shows the MSD incident volume by month as captured in the RMS.
88 65
87 91
69 601173402599335
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
RMS Incidents
MSD Incidents
All - RMS All - MSD
18.201
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 188
Figure 137: Percent of RMS Volume by Month (2019–2023)
The demand by day of the week peaks on Saturday, while Friday represents the lowest percentage of call volume. It is unclear from the available data whether the variation in weekday demand reflects actual calls for service in the response area or merely the availability of the lifeguard units based on set staffing schedules. The results are also affected by an extremely low number of incidents in the study population.
The time of day may also affect response volume. The busiest time of day is 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. As before, the demand for service reflects only calls involving the lifeguard units.
The actual demand addressed by all units in the service area may reveal different trends.
The figure below shows the volume of incidents as captured in the RMS by day of the week.
Figure 138: Percent of RMS Volume by Day of Week (2019–2023) 7%
5% 5%
7%
9%
13%
14% 14%
12%
5% 5%
6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
% of Volume
15%
13% 11% 10% 9%
23%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
% of Volume
18.202
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 189
Marine Safety Division Response Categories
As mentioned, relating RMS records to the Marine Safety Division records is challenging. The incident reporting platform used by the lifeguard units provides categories for their activity tracking, including Rescues, Boat Rescues, Medicals (major and minor), Lost/Found Persons, and Prevents, among others. The following sections examine the annual trends in the MSD records by response type. A comparison will be made with the RMS volume for the given category, where possible.
Rescues
A review of "Rescues – Total" from 2019 to 2023 reveals the expected drop in 2020 but also a decline of 36% from 2022 to 2023. It will be interesting to note whether the decreasing trend continued, stabilized, or reversed in 2024.
Boat Rescues are identified as a sub-category of Rescues, and, as shown below, decreased from a high of 34 in 2019 to zero in 2023. It is unclear from the available data whether boat rescues decreased due to a lack of demand or resources to respond. The following figure shows the rescue category as captured by the MSD.
Figure 139: MSD Rescue Volume by Year (2019–2023)
Medicals
As described in the introduction of this section, there is little correlation between the RMS data for EMS responses that are not rescues and the MSD records for "Medical Aids – Major." This discrepancy indicates a significant opportunity for improved reporting or a clear distinction between major medical aid and EMS incidents. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
MSD Responses
Boat Rescues Rescues - Total
18.203
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 190
The following figure shows the annual trends for MSD medical responses, both major and minor. The steady decrease in "Medical Aids – Minor" is clearly demonstrated. A review of "Medical Aids – Total" from 2019 to 2023 reveals an expected drop in 2020 but also a decline of 38% from 2021 to 2023. Further investigation into the documentation processes is warranted to determine whether this trend is related to demand, capacity, or neither.
Figure 140: MSD Medical Aids Volume by Year (2019–2023) Lost/Found Persons
Annual response trends for MSD lost and found persons show a notable deviation from other incident types reviewed in this study. Specifically, there was a significant increase in 2022, followed by a return to lower levels in 2023. Within the Records Management System (RMS), the closest comparable incident type is “Search for person in water.” However, only 32 such responses by lifeguard units were recorded during the study period. These two data sources appear to reflect distinct types of incidents and, as such, should not be used to validate or supplement one another.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
MSD Responses
Medical Aids - Minor Medical Aids - Major
18.204
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 191
Population Growth & Service Demand Projections
In evaluating the deployment of facilities, resources, and staffing, consideration must be given to potential changes in workload that could directly affect such deployment. Any changes in service demand can require changes and adjustments in the deployment of staff and resources to maintain acceptable performance levels.
For this study, AP Triton utilized annual population estimates for the response area obtained from the California Department of Finance and UC Santa Cruz Office of Budget Analysis and Planning.65,66 The population of Santa Cruz has grown over the past fourteen years, but the rate has been impacted by years of growth and decline. If achieved, the goal of the City’s long-range plan will be to add 3,736 housing units by 2031, with an unknown impact on population.67 The upper confidence bound may be the more realistic outcome.
The University of California, Santa Cruz, impacts total population and incident demand.
UCSC has an ambitious goal to increase enrollment to 28,000 students by 2040. The following figure demonstrates the enrollment growth at the university over the last ten years, along with a forecast based on the current growth rate. A second planned growth forecast assumes the university achieves its goal by 2040, increasing enrollment at a linear rate.
65 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/. 66 https://iraps.ucsc.edu/enrollments/index.htmlU.S. Census Bureau. (2024) Explore Census Data. https://data.census.gov/.
67 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/long-range-policy-planning/ordinance-policy-updates/housing-element-update.
18.205
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 192
Figure 141: Future Population Projection
The forecasted incident workload is derived from a thirteen-year history of incidents to identify workload potential through 2034. The results of the analysis are shown in the following figure.
Based on population projections, service demand for the SCFD will potentially increase by 22% from 2023 through 2034. Policymakers should keep an eye on annual service demand and how it is impacted by changes in population.
59,946 63,507
69,599
17,045
20,938
24,786
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034 Population
Population Population Forecast
Lower Confidence Bound Upper Confidence Bound
Enrollment Enrollment Forecast
Planned Growth Forecast
18.206
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 193
Figure 142: Future Service Demand Projection
11,283
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034 Incidents
Incidents Incident Forecast
Lower Confidence Bound Upper Confidence Bound
18.207
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 194
Effectiveness of Inter-jurisdictional Response
It's in the best interest of the Santa Cruz Fire Department and its State and local partners to cooperate to achieve objectives of common interest and concern. A functionally integrated fire protection system involving Federal, State, and local government resources is the most effective method of delivering fire protection where life, property, and natural resource values are at risk.
There are various agreements at various levels of government and between agencies that allow for aid during emergencies. These agreements may help in the form of automatic or mutual aid, where assistance is rendered free of charge (non-reimbursable) for generally a short-duration assignment. The Santa Cruz Fire Department is a party to the Santa Cruz County Mutual Aid Agreement and the California State Office of Emergency Services Mutual Aid Plan.
18.208
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 195
Figure 143: Mutual Aid Map
18.209
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 196
The Santa Cruz County Mutual Aid Agreement is a voluntary agreement between local entities that describes the initial responses to incidents occurring within the Santa Cruz County Operational Area. Additionally, local agreements determine whether the responses are automatic aid instead of mutual aid. Automatic aid automatically shares resources between agencies, while mutual aid requires requesting resources. Automatic aid is generally the most effective and efficient way to provide aid between two or more adjoining areas of close proximity, especially when regional dispatch such as Santa Cruz Regional 911 is in place. Regardless of agency, the nearest unit can be deployed with a regional communications center and an automatic aid agreement. This is done without requiring operational requests at the time of dispatch. There is real strength in the automatic aid agreements between the career fire departments and districts within Santa Cruz County. These agreements reduce response times, improve interagency coordination, and make better use of limited fire and emergency service resources. In some cases, automatic aid and automatic vehicle location (AVL) responses can create imbalances.
The AVL system coordinates the global positioning satellite position of the units in the system with the incident through a dispatch interface. They can constitute a significant out-ofdistrict impact for agencies and should be monitored. The many volunteer agencies in Santa Cruz County supplement the system; however, there are inherent availability concerns.
When interdependence exists, there are sometimes challenges. This means that decisions and subsequent actions taken in one jurisdiction can have consequences for a partner or adjoining jurisdictions. Some differences noted in dispatch procedures between agencies led to line staff questioning the accuracy of automatic aid dispatch. Currently, procedures have dispatchers choosing between preferred districts and using AVL for close units depending on the agency. While this may be a short-term concern as all agencies adjust to the technology and update the system, it creates opportunities for human error and differences that lead to response staff confusion.
The California Office of Emergency Services Fire & Rescue Division plan makes participating in local government jurisdictions' emergency apparatus available for dispatch and use through the state in the spirit of cooperation. The system is managed through operational areas (counties) in six state regions. For local government agencies, like the Santa Cruz Fire Department, reimbursement begins 12 hours after the initial dispatch. It is retroactive to the time of the initial dispatch. If the duration of the assignment is less than 12 hours, there is no reimbursement.
18.210
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 197
Establishment of Performance Objectives
There are two aspects of developing performance objectives. The first is determining the resources needed by completing a critical task and deployment analysis. The second is establishing a performance monitoring process with specific standards and goals for evaluation.
Critical Task & Deployment Analysis
SCFD provides fire protection, first responder EMS, and other emergency services to the city and contract areas. It also responds to the surrounding area through mutual and automatic aid agreements. The SCFD has 4 engines, 1 truck, and 1 command vehicle responding from 4 stations. The ambulance service is provided by a private third-party company. The critical task and deployment analysis is designed to match expected tasks with the apparatus dispatch practices associated with each type of incident and corresponding risk.
During a fire, the critical tasks that must be performed can be broken down into two key components: life safety and fire flow.
Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants and their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety-related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims.
The fire-flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and creating an environment within the building that allows firefighters to enter.
The number and types of tasks requiring simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters needed to combat various fires. Without adequate personnel to perform these actions, the commanding officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological order rather than concurrently. These tasks include:
• Command
• Scene safety
• Search and rescue
• Fire attack
• Water supply
• Pump operation
• Ventilation
• Backup/rapid intervention
18.211
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 198
Critical task analyses also apply to all agency program categories. To effectively control an emergency, numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed. The SCFD's ability to quickly muster the needed numbers of trained personnel is critical to successful incident outcomes.
Risk levels for each response type have been identified throughout this document. They are generally classified into low, moderate, high, and maximum risks. These classifications apply across the five department programs of fire response, EMS, technical rescue, hazardous materials response, and wildland firefighting. Risk levels and classifications are found in the community risk section of this report.
The SCFD completed a critical task analysis during this study. Each hazard type was identified, and the expected number of personnel was determined based on critical tasking and operational procedures. The following summarizes the total personnel required by incident type and risk category.
Figure 144: Staffing Determinations Base on Risk
Incident Type Maximum
Risk High Risk Moderate Riske Low Risk
Fire 37 42 19 4
Emergency Medical 71 22 10 4
Wildland/WUI N/A 40 20 14
Technical Rescue 42 20 15 4
Hazardous Materials 31 25 14 7
Establishing resource levels needed for various emergencies is a uniquely local decision.
Factors influencing incident staffing include the type of equipment operated, training levels of responders, operating procedures, geography, traffic, and the nature of buildings and other protected risks.
18.212
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 199
Critical Tasking
The SCFD has developed the Critical Task Analysis in Figures 145 through 149 using risk matrices for various incident types. Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted promptly by firefighters early in emergency incidents. This intervention is essential to control the situation, stop loss, and perform the necessary tasks required for a medical emergency. The SCFD is responsible for ensuring those responding companies can perform all described tasks promptly, efficiently, and safely. The following figures are the SCFD's minimum number of personnel needed by incident type and risk severity by function.
Figure 145: Fire Response Critical Tasking
Function Maximum
Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
Command/Support 3 3 1
Safety 1 1 * 1
Size up (360°) 1 *
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 7 7 4 1
Water Supply 2 1
Standpipe/Sprinkler Control 1 1
Fire Attack 9 6 3 1
Fire Attack & Search and Rescue 2
Search, & Rescue 6 3
Ventilation/Utilities 6 3 2
Backup Line 2 3 2
Rapid Intervention Team 6 3 3
EMS Unit - ALS 2 1 1
Breathing Air Support 2 2
Total Effective Response Force 48 34 18 3
* Temporary or Concurrent Assignment
18.213
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 200
Figure 146: Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasking Function Maximum
Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
Command 3 1 1
Safety 2 1 * 1
Operations 1
Triage Group 9 2
Basic Life Support Treatment 4
Advanced Life Support Treatment 20 8 4 2
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 4
Evacuation Group 10
Transport Group 14 4
Size up (360°) 1
Staging 3
Total Effective Response Force 62 21 9 3
* Temporary or Concurrent Assignment
Figure 147: Wildland/WUI Fire Critical Tasking
Function High Risk Moderate
Risk Low Risk
Command 4 1
Safety 1 *
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 12 2 1
Fire Attack 2
Recon Group 1
Lookout 2 1
Flank Divisions 2 2
Water Supply 3
Evacuation 4 1
Structure Protection 12
Staging 1 1
Total Effective Response Force 42 8 3
* Temporary or Concurrent Assignment
18.214
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 201
Figure 148: Technical Rescue Critical Tasking
Function Maximum
Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
Command/Support 4 4 1 1
Safety 2 1
Size Up (360°) 1 1
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 3 6 1
Operations 2 1
Rescue Teams 8
Rescue Support Group 6 3
Advanced Life Support Treatment 12 6 3
Staging 3
Basic Life Support Treatment 2 1 1
Entry Team and Team Leaders 12
Total Effective Response Force 44 28 10 3
Figure 149: HazMat Critical Tasking
Function Maximum
Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
Command/Support 3 3 1
Safety 1 2 * 1
Size Up (360°) 1 1
Pump Operation/Decon 2
Hazmat Group Supervisor 1
Hazard Mitigation 4 2
Operations 2 2
Entry Team Officer and Team 6 6
Backup Entry Team 6 6
Hazmat Support Group 5 4
Decon Group 8 4
Medical Group 8 6
Staging 1
Breathing Air Support 2 2
Total Effective Response Force 31 25 14 7
* Temporary or Concurrent Assignment
18.215
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 202
Alarm Assignments
The critical task process intends to build a dispatch model that most effectively fulfills the tasking requirement for the various levels of risk. The agency and dispatch center must ensure the staffing levels are met with the initial dispatch. The following compares the agency's reported dispatch complement of units and personnel to the identified staffing requirements for the associated risk levels.
Figure 150: Fire Alarm Assignments by Risk
Dispatched Apparatus SCFD
Units
SCFD
Staff Aid Units Aid Staff Staffing
Low Risk (ERF staffing = 3)
Engine 1 3 — — 3
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 1 3 0 0 0
Moderate Risk (ERF staffing = 18)
Engine 4 12 — — 12
Ladder 1 3 — — 3
Battalion Chief 1 1 — — 1
EMS — — 1 2 2
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 6 16 1 2 0
High Risk (ERF staffing = 34)
Engine 4 12 3 9 21
Truck/Rescue 1 3 2 5 8
Battalion Chief 1 1 2 2 3
EMS — — 1 2 2
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 6 16 8 18 0
Maximum Risk (ERF staffing = 48)
Engine 4 12 7 21 33
Truck 1 3 2 5 8
Battalion Chief 1 1 2 4 5
EMS — — 2 4 4
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 6 16 13 34 2
18.216
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 203
Figure 151: Emergency Medical Assignments by Risk
Dispatched Apparatus SCFD
Units
SCFD
Staff Aid Units Aid Staff Staffing
Low Risk (ERF staffing = 3)
EMS Units 1 3 — — 3
Fire Units — — — — 0
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 1 3 0 0 0
Moderate Risk (ERF staffing = 9)
EMS Units — — 1 2 2
Fire Units 3 7 — — 7
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 3 7 1 2 0
High Risk (ERF staffing = 21)
EMS Units — — 4 8 8
Fire Units 5 16 — — 16
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 5 16 4 8 3
Maximum Risk (ERF staffing = 62)
EMS Units — — 7 14 14
Fire Units 6 16 8 21 37
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 6 16 15 35 (11)
Figure 152: Wildland/WUI Assignments by Risk
Dispatched Apparatus SCFD
Units
SCFD
Staff Aid Units Aid Staff Staffing
Low Risk (ERF staffing = 3)
Fire Units 1 3 — — 3
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 1 3 0 0 0
Moderate Risk (ERF staffing = 7)
Fire Units 3 7 — — 7
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 3 7 0 0 (1)
High Risk (ERF staffing = 42)
Fire Units 6 16 9 21 37
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 6 16 9 21 (5)
18.217
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 204
Figure 153: Technical Rescue Assignments by Risk
Dispatched Apparatus SCFD
Units
SCFD
Staff Aid Units Aid Staff Staffing
Low Risk (ERF staffing = 3)
Fire Units 1 3 — — 3
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 1 3 0 0 0
Moderate Risk (ERF staffing = 15)
Fire Units 3 7 — — 7
EMS Units — — 1 2 2
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 3 7 1 2 (1)
High Risk (ERF staffing = 20)
Fire Units 5 16 3 9 25
EMS Units — — 1 2 2
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 5 16 4 11 (1)
Maximum Risk (ERF staffing = 42)
Fire Units 5 16 9 21 37
EMS Units — — 3 6 6
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 5 16 12 27 (1)
18.218
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 205
Figure 154: Hazardous Materials Assignments by Risk
Dispatched Apparatus SCFD
Units
SCFD
Staff Aid Units Aid Staff Staffing
Low Risk (ERF staffing = 3)
Fire Units 1 3 — — 3
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 1 3 0 0 (4)
Moderate Risk (ERF staffing = 8)
Fire Units 3 7 — — 7
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 3 7 0 0 (1)
High Risk (ERF staffing = 25)
Fire Units 5 16 6 14 30
EMS Units 4 8 8
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 5 16 10 22 2
Maximum Risk (ERF staffing = 31)
Fire Units 5 16 8 20 36
EMS Units 5 10 10
Totals: Over/(Under) ERF 5 16 13 30 3
Something that became apparent through this evaluation is the lack of consistency in dispatch procedures and the estimated requirement for personnel based on critical tasks.
At first glance, the needs and the system requirements may be entirely out of sync.
Therefore, it will be essential to systematically review the critical tasks, how and in what order they are performed, and then update dispatch procedures to ensure the proper resources are assigned to incidents.
Response Time Performance Objectives
There are two primary goals for establishing an effective response force total based on critical staffing. The first is to align the incident need with available resources, creating an efficient methodology for responding to incidents. As is evident in the previous section, some areas require attention if the SCFD is to improve deployment efficiency. The other goal is to assess whether the deployment methodology effectively meets the needs of various incident types.
18.219
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 206
The deployment analysis based on an effective response force requires two components:
an effective response force and performance objectives. The most common methodology for a fire department to evaluate its performance is through time analysis. At a minimum, the arrival times of the first due unit and the ERF should be analyzed from the customer's perspective. This total time starts when the customer calls for service and includes meeting the benchmarks for first due and ERF arrival.
NFPA 1710 can be applied to the SCFD; the department indicated this was its benchmark time. This standard is described earlier in the report and does not need to be repeated. In addition, the ambulance service contract may indicate a different level of response.
However, the NFPA standard will likely be more aggressive and will naturally meet other standards. The SCFD has already adopted a few performance goals. The following figure is a recreation of the response time stamps indicated by NFPA for career departments and the response objectives adopted by the fire department.68 Figure 155: SCFD Response Time Compliance Requirements
Time Segment Compliance
Percentile Benchmark the SCFD 5-Year Performance
SCCECC Answer 90%
95%
15 Seconds
20 Seconds Unknown
SCCECC Call Processing 90% 60 Seconds 2:51
Turnout Time (EMS)
Turnout Time (Other) 90% 60 Seconds*120 Seconds*
2:05
2:07
Travel Time (First Due)
Travel Time (2nd Due)
Travel Time (ERF – L/M Risk)
Travel Time (ERF – High Risk)
90%
4 Minutes
6 Minutes
8 Minutes
10:10
5:27
7:40
Not enough
Data
Total Time Urban
Total Time Suburban
Total Time Rural
90%
8:18*
12:18*
20:18*
8:45
9:18
13:20
* The SCFD Adopted Performance Standard.
68 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 (2020) Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments & NFPA 1225 (2022) Standard for Emergency Services Communication.
18.220
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 207
The preceding time segments may be helpful for the SCFD to adopt. The most significant single improvement for the SCFD will be in turnout time, especially on EMS incidents, which can be improved through policy enforcement, crew evaluation, and improved station layout and technology. While the dispatch centers are not directly within the fire department's management purview, they can be influenced by the fire department through data requests and contractual performance language. With the cooperation of SCCECC leadership, this can be a manageable time segment. Finally, travel time will be predominantly affected by the location of the fire stations.
These time evaluations should also have a capability performance component. For example, an ambulance or battalion chief cannot effectively mitigate a fire incident. Each program and risk level should have a definition of what stops the clock and what an effective response force looks like. For example, based on the SCFD's moderate risk fire incident, the performance statement would look something like:
For a moderate risk structure fire, the first arriving unit will be capable of applying a minimum of 500 gallons per minute of water through a minimum of two hoses or one master stream, staffed by at least 1 firefighter, 1 engineer, and 1 captain. This apparatus will arrive within 8:45 after the communications center receives notification of the incident. The effective response force (ERF), consisting of nineteen firefighters, captains, and chief officers, and a minimum of one engine and one truck company, will arrive within 20:00 after the communication center receives notification.
This statement is to be considered a standard. However, since there was insufficient data to give the ERF total time, the 20:00 should be regarded as a work in progress and not adopted until the performance is conclusively defined. The next step is identifying improvement areas and adopting realistic response goals for each time segment. The goals are a moving target, never to be realized but always attainable, and will help the fire department and City leadership identify resource needs to attain these objectives.
Establishing time-centric response goals is the most common and typically easiest to produce. However, the city culture may be more accepting if the SCFD evaluates different metrics, such as outcomes, customer satisfaction, or other less time-driven concepts.
Therefore, it will be incumbent on the SCFD to explore appropriate and attainable measures. While defined goals are necessary, it is common for departments to develop performance zones to match services with demographic densities.
18.221
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 208
Fire agencies throughout the United States establish risk zones based on risk and population density. Risk or "demand" zones provide a more accurate picture of service delivery performance. This may be especially relevant for fire departments as extensive and diverse as the SCFD.
The preceding response discussion is presented as examples in the hope that it provides the SCFD with the information necessary to establish response standards and targets.
Setting response standards and performance goals should be viewed as a strategic planning tool for community loss control. For the SCFD, it should help determine whether the current department performance is satisfactory and what steps may be necessary to improve that performance.
18.222
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 209
Section IV:
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
18.223
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 210
Compliance Methodology Overview
This Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover presents a detailed picture of the SCFD's current performance. However, this is just a starting point for the agency to pursue improved performance. The SCFD will benefit from an ongoing data analysis system to maximize the information presented. The approach should demonstrate performance in a meaningful and actionable way to leadership and create performance transparency for elected officials and residents.
Designing an analysis system is time-intensive, requiring capital and talent. Leaders must understand and engage in data analytics. The SCFD will also need to identify and assign someone with a penchant for data analytics, statistics, databases, and mathematics, regardless of the technology used. The plan, do, check, and act framework presents an analytic system's design and implementation concept. This is called the Deming cycle of continuous improvement and is pictured in the following figure.
Figure 156: Deming Cycle69
69 www.getvetter.com/posts/129-define-continuous-improvement-8-experts-definitions.
18.224
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 211
Plan—Research & Codify
Creating a durable analytic system requires a definition and understanding of what the data should present, the impacts of the information, and what constitutes the data stream.
Once the descriptions are understood, they must be adopted as policies and acceptable practices. The following areas are presented for the SCFD to consider as they plan for performance improvement.
Adopt Overall Performance Objectives
The first step for the SCFD is to decide what key performance metrics they will monitor and manage. The SCFD's current performance reports focus primarily on call volume and finance, with very little evaluation of time metrics for performance enhancement or management. The performance evaluation information in this document is a good starting point for understanding and defining which objectives the agency wishes to evaluate.
The SCFD and City leadership must agree on what performance metrics the department will manage. This document should provide some direction and the foundation for these discussions. The managed time components should correlate to an overall service objective or area. Fortunately, the SCFD stated they have adopted specific performance standards and deferred to NFPA 1710 for other performance goals. While this is a laudable goal, achieving full compliance with these standards will be challenging, given the current resource distribution and performance.
These standards provide a strong foundation for developing a performance evaluation system. Understanding the total time requirements establishes a base for call segment benchmarks. Recall that this report's 90th percentile total response time goal for the first unit goal for all incidents is 8 minutes and 18 seconds, 90% of the time or faster in urban areas. The NFPA requires 6 minutes or quicker 90% of the time for all EMS incidents and 6 minutes and 20 seconds for all other incidents. With an actual performance of 8 minutes and 45 seconds or faster 90% of the time, the SCFD does not meet either of these standards. However, they should be able to meet the 8:18 standard with some basic improvements, but they may never meet NFPA. Since the U.S. Census no longer defines or accepts suburban as a density definition, the SCFD should either define this or remove it as a performance standard.
18.225
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 212
Establish Management Segments
As discussed earlier in the performance section, an emergency incident has several identifiable segments. Adopting time objectives based on these segments allows an agency to understand how actions affect an incident's total response time. While much of the analytics available for the fire service is based on time, this is not the only performance that can be measured. Each segment can identify areas where the performance objective may be other than time, such as quality or prevention. However, the most widely available and used metrics center around time, so that will be used here.
Once the agency masters time analysis, it should expand into the less traditional performance evaluation methods. The following figure identifies the emergency incident segment, potential metrics, applicable NFPA standards, and other comments.
18.226
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 213
Figure 157: Incident Segments
Segment Key Performance Metric Standard Comments
Normal State Community demographics
N/A
This base state
needs to be
defined. Prevention
mainly affects this.
Incident Initiation
Incident Counts
Incident Detection
Notification Action
PSAP Answer NFPA 1225 Prevention and
PSAP Notification Education.
PSAP Interrogation PSAP Transfer & Agency
Answer NFPA 1225 CAD-to-CAD
Agency Notification agreements.
Agency Interrogation
Call Processing
Total
Response
Time
NFPA 1221
& 1710
These segments
should be
evaluated at a
minimum. Each
segment should
have an adopted
performance
standard.
FD Notified
FD Unit Dispatched
> Turnout Time
> Travel Time
FD Unit Responding NFPA 1710
FD 1st Unit Arrives
FD ERF Dispatched
ERF Travel & Total Time NFPA 1710
FD ERF Arrives
EMS To Destination
> Destination Travel
> Wall Time N/A Applicable to EMS
transport agencies. EMS At Destination
EMS Clear Destination
FD Units Clear Incident
From dispatch to clear,
total time translates into
unit utilization.
N/A
Used to evaluate
unit workload and
availability.
Normal State
The outcome of the incident response is the gold standard for service delivery analytics. However, this advanced study is outside the scope of this report and requires unconventional research and analytic methods.
Expanding on the medical incident example, the time segments for the first arriving unit in a medical call will be call processing, turn out, travel, and total response times. However, due to dispatch performance, the SCFD could benefit from adding the call answer and PSAP transfer time segments as management components in its formal performance evaluations. The City and the SCFD leadership will need to make this decision.
18.227
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 214
For medical incidents, NFPA recommends a total response time of six minutes for the first unit. By evaluating the travel time extent map earlier in this report, it can be estimated that a travel time of four minutes is possible in certain areas near stations 1-3 but not other areas. In addition, station 4 is not placed in an area that would help facilitate a 4-minute travel time to the underserved regions of the city's center. Therefore, the benchmark for travel time for medical incidents cannot be reasonably set to four minutes for the entire area, and all first-due units would expect the same performance. A more reasonable standard would be to meet the current 6 minutes and set a goal, or benchmark, as 5 minutes. The relationship between the PSAP, the City police/fire dispatch, and SCCECC must also be considered. NFPA recommends a call transfer time of 30 seconds and a oneminute call processing time for the secondary PSAP for high-priority calls.
Additionally, the agency adopted a turnout time standard of one minute for medical calls and 120 seconds for non-medical incidents as a benchmark. The total time benchmark would be the expected travel time, turnout time, and call processing for the first response unit. In this case, the 8:13 standard would be the goal, and 8:45 is the standard. The difference is that a goal is to be reached, while the agency promises not to do worse than the standard.
Performance Specifics
The next step is defining what meets the analysis's performance requirements. For example, should command officers in a command car have the authority to stop the response clock, or should it be limited to an apparatus designed and equipped to address the incident specifics? Can an ambulance stop the clock on a structure fire, or should it be an apparatus that can begin to address the fire hazard, such as fire attack and water supply? There is no single answer to these questions, and leadership must define these criteria to align with the community's performance expectations.
18.228
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 215
The apparatus variable may be defined by type or a description of capabilities. If the capabilities of an engine company are well known, then stating a first-due apparatus as the engine company may suffice. However, if the engine companies differ in capabilities, a more detailed definition may be necessary. For example, a complete description might state, "the first arriving company capable of providing a minimum of three firefighters, officers, or engineers, and equipped with an AED and EMT-B firefighters." It will be up to the agency to clarify this component. However, CFAI expects clear definitions of the capabilities of the first arriving and effective response forces. For the SCFD medical incidents, the leadership could designate the first engine or ambulance as the clockstopping vehicle. This is what will be used in the example.
Another variable that should be defined is geographic limitations. The SCFD identified 3 areas they would evaluate differently based on population density. These areas are listed as Urban, Suburban, and Rural. Mountain and state response zones are also parted out. As stated earlier, the Suburban demographic will need to be defined.
The SCFD may add or limit the number of qualifying statements for any incident type.
However, the result remains the same: a performance chart based on incident type— possibly including severity—consisting of goals, standards, differences, and references. The following figure shows a potential performance statement example based on the abovementioned EMS information.
Figure 158: Performance Chart Example
Key Metric Baseline Benchmark Strategic
Improvement Reference
First-due engine or truck performance for medical incidents in urban areas.
PSAP Transfer Unk 0:30 City Dispatch
Center City Policy
Call Processing 2:51 1:30* SCCECC Service Contract
Turn Out Time 2:05 1:00 EMS
2:00 Other
Management
initiatives SCFD Policy
Travel Time 6:00** 5:00 Routing and
training Realistic goal
Total Time 8:45 8:00 EMS
9:00 Other
Turnout and
station location Realistic goal
* Priority Incidents Only
** In City Only
18.229
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 216
The preceding figure is an example and does not necessarily meet or follow the overall performance review acceptable by the SCFD and the City. However, it does illustrate the process. This process would be repeated for all the service areas the SCFD intends to manage with data. For example, as in this risk assessment document, the SCFD could continue to group fire, medical, and other incidents.
One concept to remember is that total response times are not an aggregate of call processing, turnout, and travel times. Because the evaluation in this case uses the 90th percentile, the baseline incident time segments do not stack vertically, and the total time is its own statistical analysis. In other words, adding call processing, turnout time, and travel time for all incidents will not necessarily equate to the 90th percentile total response time.
Develop Evaluation Methodology
A methodology should be developed to analyze performance, using the performance charts defined for each incident segment and type. During this stage, the agency should evaluate who will perform the analysis and what tools they need to complete their tasks.
Reporting periods and management expectations from the reports should also be defined.
It is common for leaders to see a technical report, such as a statistical evaluation of performance, and take little action. These statistical evaluations help leaders decide what to change, add, or maintain to provide the best service to the community. Unfortunately, technical reports that are not well understood or report irrelevant information are often useless. Such reports are received, read, filed away, and forgotten without connecting operations to the statistics.
Statistics are not a magic solution. Statistics were developed to reference complex issues and make them easier to comprehend. However, inaccurate or misleading evaluations can cause damage and other problems. For an excellent example of mathematical systems being inappropriately applied and corrupted by leaders, see the book "The Fires" by Joe Flood. Statistical measures need to be valid, representative, and consistently applied.
18.230
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 217
At its heart, statistics in emergency services should be designed to add an understanding of historical performance, reported in a way that is consistent and comparable to other similar agencies. To make this work for the SCFD, leadership must discuss and agree upon the statistical measures they will use. For example, they may use the mean or median measures for good reasons. However, the NFPA and CFAI have moved to percentiles for fire department performance analysis, typically the 90th percentile. Therefore, while the SCFD can choose its own statistical measures, it should consider continuing with the 90th percentile measures presented in this document.
When building an evaluation methodology, the final consideration is what data will be used in the analysis. There is significant debate within the fire service regarding what constitutes flawed data or outliers. Again, the decision on what to include and potentially exclude is up to the SCFD leadership. For credibility, these decisions should be well documented.
Errors in the records system are typically caused by people. For example, information in a record may be added incorrectly or left blank. These errors apply to time fields, code application, narration, and incident specifics an analyst uses to slice the data. Since these errors are usually created when the incident record is built, incorporating a robust quality assurance and training program is the most effective solution.
A quality assurance program involves reviewing each incident for errors and unacceptable performance. Once the incident report is complete, it is placed in a quality check queue.
A reviewer who has knowledge of the call but not necessarily on the incident will then evaluate the report for accuracy. The following list is an example of a minimum quality assurance review.
• Well-written narratives that are legally defendable.
• All dispatched units added the correct information.
• Incident type matches the incident findings in the narrative or what the quality evaluator knows to be true about the incident.
• Incorrect date and time-stamped information is corrected through a verification process.
• Unexpected date and time-stamped information is captured and explained.
18.231
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 218
Once the records are accurate, there may still be some abnormal data that will skew the results. In this case, an agency may want to disregard these anomalies in its performance analytics. If the agency defines what records they will disallow, those records identified as unexpected can be removed from the analysis. This outlier policy should be well documented and not designed to undermine the agency's credibility. A custom or trigger field can identify the disqualified incident record as an exception and not be included in the analytic.
Caution should be exercised when removing any record that accurately shows performance. For example, it seems unlikely that any unit would be able to turn out in zero seconds, so often that zero data is removed. However, if a crew is contacted directly and initiates the response, the turnout time would be zero. Therefore, in this example, a zero response indicates the deployment of units for this incident was very effective. Another example is a long drive along a road under bad road conditions. While the time may be extensive, it represents the actual performance. Therefore, it should be evaluated accordingly as a problematic response. Considering and defining all the potential anomalies before any analytics are completed helps make the analysis more transparent and adds trust.
A secondary method to remove incorrect data is to identify statistical outliers. The methodology for detecting these outliers is based on the data's shape and variability. For example, identifying statistical outliers by using 1.5 multiples of the standard deviation may identify those statistical outliers for data points evenly distributed along a typical distribution curve. Conversely, data points with a strong left or right tendency have a different shape.
For left or right tendency data, it may be more appropriate to evaluate those data points that are 1.5 multiples of the inner quartile range as a statistical outlier. Either statistical methodology may actually and incorrectly remove accurate anomalous information.
However, these methods have a good chance of finding and eliminating incorrect data.
Which approach is used becomes a compromise between absolute accuracy and time investment. The SCFD may consider consulting with the City, the university's mathematics and statistics faculty, or students to help determine appropriate approaches and methodologies.
18.232
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 219
Research and Adopt a Technology for Analysis
One or a few employees typically accomplish the initial analysis and development of goals, identification of capabilities and standards, and general service understanding.
Evaluating the data in large sets, determining rules, and answering other questions can be an enjoyable experience for the right temperament, leading to hours of discovery.
However, the ongoing reporting and analysis can be tedious and repetitive after this initial research. Therefore, it will be to the agency's advantage to start researching technological solutions early in the planning stage and finding the right personality to lead both segments of data analytics.
In the age of Microsoft Excel®, it is easy to believe a spreadsheet program is the ultimate tool for analysis. While Excel is a powerful tool, the agency should research and adopt other methods. Typically, this is a homegrown analytic with standard business analytic software or records management analytical systems. Other options are to look for a thirdparty fire-service-specific service or to hire external consultants to complete the analysis.
Consulting reports can be reliable and are often conducted by professionals. However, these lengthy reports do not always help agencies manage their ongoing operations promptly.
The SCFD should investigate other technological solutions that are available to them.
Whatever system the SCFD chooses, the solution should have three primary attributes. First, the system should be easy to master. Second, any analytic system should provide consistent results from data sets directly attached to the source. Finally, the system should be highly customizable for the current services the SCFD delivers and future service models.
One possibility is to use a third-party analytic vendor. This report will not name vendors for third-party analytics, as the field is highly competitive and changes constantly. Many vendors offer similar services but specialize in producing reports and analyses based on their expertise. Some of their products are truly exceptional and create complex calculations. The data they use is often directly tied to the CAD data and may miss some of the subtleties of the NFIRS system. However, if the SCFD can adopt performance objectives from CAD data, the agency may be able to write and manage its performance objectives effectively using a third-party system. One warning is that if a vendor closes its operations, the codes and mathematical assumptions are also gone. In addition, what they produce is not customarily owned by the fire agency. Another typical concern is the high initial and ongoing costs of these systems.
18.233
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 220
Another possibility is to use off-the-shelf analytic systems to create a reporting environment that is automated, researchable, verifiable, and valuable to management. Many vendors provide analytical software solutions, each with pros and cons. The current Gartner Magic Quadrant for business analytic software indicates that Microsoft's Power BI and Salesforce's Tableau remain the frontrunners in this field.70 However, many options exist depending on the agency's operating system environment, budget requirements, and other available systems. Additionally, ArcGIS software, an industry leader in geospatial analysis, is generally accessible to fire departments within a city. If the City owns a license, they usually provide a seat license to all departments. One concern for the homegrown approach is the need for technologically skilled personnel to create, maintain, and present these reports.
One final option would be to utilize the analytics intrinsic or available within the agency's RMS. The SCFD uses Emergency Reporting® for incident reporting and Image Trend for patient information. Emergency Reporting® is owned by ESO®, which has a significant presence in fire and EMS reporting, but has a history of purchasing and dismantling records systems.
Adopt Policies, Procedures, and Systems for Analytics (Standardize) Once all the above processes, definitions, and systems are evaluated and recommended, they must be officially adopted. This means capturing policies and procedures in writing. All analyses created will be conducted under the written rules to ensure consistency during the analysis period. These documents can be changed as the improvement process continues. However, the change process needs to be defined as well. In addition, changes should only be made if they can be reconciled with the previous analytics.
Do—Implement the Plan
Initial implementation of new plans can create dramatic organizational changes with minimal effort. This is typical because the changes primarily involve policy and procedure changes, not actual operations. However, as the continuous improvement cycle continues, implementing and evaluating change requires more effort and may have a less pronounced impact. Despite this, the most profound changes are usually encountered during these more difficult cycles.
70 www.gartner.com/en/research/magic-quadrant.
18.234
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 221
Implementing the planned analysis systems requires communication and training throughout the organization. Most fire service organizations have a training system in place that can be tasked to meet this requirement. However, without adoption by those who create the reports and those who supervise and quality-check the information, the system will not produce accurate results. The best results come from engaging these people early and communicating the expected benefits, expectations, and intended outcomes.
Communicating expectations to those affected is crucial, not only the requirements, but also what their efforts will likely produce. Explain the methodologies to be used and create an open environment to help. People who do not understand the overall strategy of statistical analysis for improvement may not feel comfortable admitting this. In addition, those whose actions are being evaluated may feel insecure and attack the process. This emotional reaction is natural and should be anticipated. Steps should be taken to alleviate it, including an open feedback forum.
Personnel may also require ongoing education and training to complete accurate and representative reports. Training on new business processes, systems, and technical infrastructure may also be required. This ongoing training is particularly needed as the U.S. government's database for fire incidents, NFIRs, is being retired at the end of 2025, and a new system is being introduced. The new system is the National Emergency Response Information System (NERIS). Efforts should be made to coach staff through the changes and identify individuals who need training and those who may move into roles requiring proficiency in the new processes.
Check—Perform the Analytics
Now that the agency has defined the metrics and the collection system and adopted the analytic methodology, it should focus on reporting. Multiple levels and types of reports should be generated, each tailored to different audiences. Some reports may go to the SCFD leadership, some to all department personnel, and others to City leadership and council. The following is an example of the reports to be produced. It will be up to the SCFD and the City leadership to approve the content, distribution, and timing. • Quality assurance information and exceptions.
• Overall time segments analysis by incident type and severity. • Unit time segment reports by shift, station, and apparatus. • First due and ERF Travel time by geographic area.
• Trend analysis by geographic location, unit, and overall.
18.235
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 222
The content and timing of these reports will be dictated by the intent of the information. For example, a daily report might be designed to identify data that may be incorrect and require evaluation and potential correction. A monthly statement for crews and leadership may indicate unit performance with trends to improve crew activity. A quarterly report could identify progress toward improvement goals and initiatives. Finally, annual reports would inform the public and the City leadership about the department's overall performance, improvements, gaps in service delivery, and potential needs.
Act—Improve Operations Based on the Analysis
The reason any agency should undergo this evaluation is to understand service delivery and to evaluate ways to enhance performance. The first step is identifying areas that could be improved, whether a geographic location or a specific unit at a particular station. The difference between expectations, goals, and actual performance is a gap analysis. Next, leaders and staff should evaluate what initiatives can be attempted and what outcomes are expected. Finally, after the proposal is implemented and a reasonable amount of time has passed, an analysis is reviewed against expectations. This comparative analysis allows management to see if the initiative has made the expected improvements.
These improvements may require a simple policy change, or the enhancements may be as financially prohibitive as new staffing or stations and take years to implement. Regardless of the improvement initiative, having solid analytic proof and definitive performance enhancement goals will improve the overall positioning and service of the SCFD.
Continuous Improvement
This process must be frequently repeated, keeping the process and analytics relevant. The intervals will be determined based on findings, initiatives, and systems. Initially, the method may need to be evaluated monthly or quarterly to ensure the information is pertinent and valid. However, after the initial build, the entire process must undergo formal evaluation at a less frequent but more defined interval. Performance indicators described in the CFAI 10th edition of their self-assessment manual may help create a formal review process. The following list shows a review process based on the CFAI documents. • Policies and procedures must be reviewed annually. This is an excellent time to ensure the analytic policies and practices are current with the incremental changes made within the year.
18.236
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 223
• Strategic plans should be produced every 3 years. The strategic plan should incorporate performance improvement initiatives. At this time, the types and levels of analysis may need to be redefined and adjusted.
• This Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover must be reviewed and updated every 5 years. The build-up to publishing this document is an excellent opportunity to determine whether the analytics still meet the agency's needs.
Because this process relies heavily on policy and documentation, there is a built-in standardization step each time the cycle starts again. The Deming Cycle is often pictured going up a ramp because without constant effort, the process can regress, and the organization will return to the beginning. Standardization, including the implementation and training of organization members, acts as a wheelchock. However, it may not be able to stop backward motion. Still, attention to the organization and standardization will help keep the ball rolling.
It does not matter what approach the organization takes to continually evaluate its operations and data. The critical concept is that the organization adopts a formal method that allows a deep understanding of improvement and guidance. The following figure is a review of the plan overview presented above.
Figure 159: Methodology Overview
•Analyze
•Report
•Review
•Compare
•Review
•Initiatives
•Train
•Implement
•Supervise
•Research
•Adopt
Objectives
•Standardize
Plan Do
Act Check
18.237
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 224
Alternative Operational Models
Exploring alternative operational models for the SCFD can help optimize emergency services.
Regionalization of Fire Services
Regional fire and emergency services are critical to public safety, offering advantages and challenges. On the positive side, regionalization can lead to improved resource sharing, enhanced specialized training, and greater consistency in service delivery across different areas. It allows for a unified command structure, which can be particularly beneficial during large-scale emergencies where a coordinated response is essential. Moreover, regional services can benefit from economies of scale, potentially reducing costs and increasing efficiency.
However, there are also downsides to consider. Regional services may face challenges related to the diversity of the communities they cover, such as varying risk profiles and community needs, which can complicate the provision of tailored services. There's also the potential for decreased local control and input, which can lead to a disconnect between emergency services and the communities they serve. Additionally, the initial transition to a regional system can be complex and costly, requiring significant upfront investment in time and money.
In the context of the SCFD and the rest of Santa Cruz County, public safety and communities have evolved over time, reflecting local funding and needs. The region's current model illustrates the complexity of designing a system that balances regional coordination with local control. Any potential regionalization efforts should be carefully studied when the opportunity is proper to determine the financial and operational impacts and possible benefits.
Public safety consolidation can include merging fire and emergency medical services.
However, EMS transport has some historical roots and presents its own pros and cons. While it can lead to increased savings and improved coverage, opponents argue it involves a significant identity shift, which can help with buy-in from elected officials and firefighters but also requires an initial investment.
Training for emergency services personnel is another area where regionalization has an impact. It can create increased opportunities for networking and improved regional services without too much loss of local autonomy.
18.238
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 225
Finally, regional collaboration in fire services involves more than just working together; it requires contributions from each member agency and often necessitates some sacrifice of individual autonomy for the greater good. The SCFD, other fire agencies, and Santa Cruz County would benefit from a thorough analysis of how regional fire and emergency services can offer improved efficiency and coordination while carefully addressing the unique needs of their communities, ensuring that the benefits outweigh any potential drawbacks.
The most logical first step to regionalization for the City of Santa Cruz is to disband the fire department as a City service and include it in the Central Fire District of Santa Cruz (CFD).
This process is not unprecedented in California but poses several legal and community concerns. Funding and taxes will be the most significant hurdle. The citizens will have to decide if they are willing, and if state law allows, to transition the fire department funding from a sales tax base to a property tax levy at the same rate as CFD. Instead of fully incorporating the city boundaries into the CFD taxation boundaries, the City can enter into a contractual relationship with CFD.
There are several reasons a CFD/SCFD merger appears to be the most appropriate combination of services. Geography and distance from existing facilities allow for a continuous service provision with minimal changes to staffing levels. These agencies work closely together now, making an operational shift relatively easy. Both agencies work on similar communication systems and are dispatched by the same regional communications center. The continuous geography and similar demographics also favor this type of consolidation.
While there are several benefits, there are arguments against this as well. In addition to the general concerns listed above, there does not appear to be significant employee or operational cost savings in a merger of this type. There is only a little duplication of staffing positions, and the service areas of the current stations do not overlap significantly. This indicates that staffing levels and equipment would remain relatively static. Some administrative positions may appear redundant, but the amount of work needed for the increased size of the organization will require most administrative staff to remain.
18.239
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 226
Peak Demand Units/Dynamic Deployment Models
One strategy employed to enhance efficiency and effectiveness is deploying additional fire units during peak hours when call volumes are highest or to large scheduled community events. This approach, combined with data and technology to dynamically adjust deployment strategies based on real-time information, represents a significant advancement in emergency response management.
Fire departments often experience predictable fluctuations in call volumes, with certain times of the day and days of the week seeing higher demand for services. Many departments implement peak-load staffing models to address this, which involve deploying additional fire or EMS units during these high-demand periods. This strategy ensures that adequate resources are available to respond to emergencies promptly, thereby reducing response times and improving overall service delivery.
The benefits of peak-load staffing are multifaceted. It helps to alleviate the strain on fulltime units, ensuring they remain available for critical incidents. Additionally, it optimizes resource utilization, as additional units are only deployed when and where they are needed most. This approach enhances operational efficiency and contributes to better outcomes for the community by ensuring timely and effective emergency response.
Alternative Response Vehicles and Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) The fire service has evolved significantly over the years, adapting to the changing needs of its communities to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and improve patient outcomes.
Alternative response vehicles and mobile integrated healthcare are specialized units designed to handle specific emergency calls, particularly those that do not require the full capabilities of a traditional fire engine or ladder truck. The vehicles are typically smaller, more maneuverable, and less costly. One of the primary goals is to reduce the strain on emergency departments and 911 systems by providing appropriate care in the community. They can also improve response times in congested urban areas where larger fire trucks might struggle to navigate.
These programs aim to provide proactive care, particularly for individuals who frequently use emergency services for non-emergent issues. These programs often involve a multidisciplinary team, including paramedics, nurses, and social workers, who work together to address the underlying causes of frequent emergency calls. Additionally, these programs can help to bridge gaps in the healthcare system, ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the care they need.
18.240
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 227
Integrating alternative response vehicles and mobile healthcare programs in the fire service significantly advances emergency response and patient care. These innovations not only enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of fire departments but also contribute to better health outcomes for the communities they serve. As these programs continue to evolve, they hold the potential to transform the landscape of emergency medical services, making them more responsive, cost-effective, and patient-centered.
18.241
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 228
Findings
A Community Risk Assessment and Standard of Cover project identifies a fire department's current conditions, risks, and ability to respond to those risks. This is a foundational document and a place for agencies to begin their journey to improvement. The following findings are developed from experience and, as part of the research process, lead to recommendations in the next section.
Aging Facilities
• The SCFD fire stations are older and do not meet the requirements of today's fire service. (Recommendation A-1)
• The stations lack adequate space and engineered systems to meet modern firefighting needs, including proper decontamination facilities for personnel and equipment. (Recommendation A-1)
• Firefighter fitness, decontamination, and equipment cleaning are all done in the apparatus bay at Station 2, creating an unhealthy firefighter environment. (Recommendation A-1)
• The administration building is historic but needs some upgrades to meet modern efficiencies, and the seismic safeguard status is unclear. (Recommendation A-1 & A-3) • Station 1 has a history of flooding during heavy rain events. (Recommendation A-1) • The estimated costs for new buildings (Station 1/Administration, Station 2, and a new Station 5) in the unfunded projects list may be significantly low based on recent fire station buildings. (Recommendations A-1 & A-2)
• Station 4 lacks sufficient grading, has one bathroom, and does not meet current accessibility or kitchen standards. (Recommendations A-2 & A-3) • The Marine Safety Division station at the wharf is not large enough for the seasonal staff. It has had several additions but is now weathered and in poor condition. (Recommendations A-3 & B-1)
• All the facilities appear to have deferred maintenance and upgrade projects, adding to the overall poor condition of most of the stations. (Recommendation A-4). • There did not appear to be a long-range capital equipment, apparatus, and facility replacement or repair plan. Capital project funding is on an ad hoc and as-needed basis. (Recommendation A-4)
18.242
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 229
• Deferred maintenance at each facility is beginning to accumulate. It will likely become more urgent and potentially more costly. (Recommendations A-1, A-2, A-3 & B-1)
• The number of needed reserve, staffed, and cross-staffed apparatus exceeds the number of bays available to store them. This forces the storage of some apparatus outside, reducing the apparatus's lifespan. (Recommendations A1 & A2) • Due to an extreme delay between apparatus orders and delivery, the planning and funding for apparatus placement should be done well before replacement needs. (Recommendation A-5)
Marine Safety Program
• Given the program's size and the aquatic environment's complexity, the current control span and classifications within the fire department's program should be reviewed. (Recommendation B-1)
• The SCFD lacks ownership or rapid access to a boat capable of general emergency response, including rescue, fire attack, or spill response. (Recommendation B-2) • The closest fireboat resource is from the Monterey Fire Department, which may take significant time to arrive during an emergency. (Recommendation A-3) • There is a need for a second Marine Safety Officer, as documented in a memorandum from the Fire Chief to the City Manager in January 2023, with a similar request made in October 2024. (Recommendation B-3)
• The Marine Safety Division's reliance on temporary, limited-term lifeguards has resulted in inconsistent coverage and training difficulties. Restrictions on hours and the nature of a part-time workforce have led to critical staffing gaps, particularly in the early summer months. (Recommendation B-1)
Training Program
• The training division comprises a single battalion chief. This may be inadequate to develop, manage, and deliver a training program for the 63 uniformed personnel with differing levels of certification and experience. (Recommendation C-1) • Except for some limited training props found at Station 3, there is little access to training facilities and equipment. (Recommendation C-2) Service Demand
• Engines 3110 and 3112 appear to be approaching a cautionary usage rate. However, the aggregate for Station 1 reliability is well within expectations if the truck company is included. (Recommendations A-2, D-1, & D-2)
18.243
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 230
• Incident volume is the densest around stations 1 and 2. (Recommendations A-2, D-1, & D-2)
• Approximately 70% of all incidents happen between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and 56% of the call volume is rescue-medical. (Recommendation D-1) • Service demand may increase by approximately 22% in the next 10 years. (Recommendations A-2, D-1, & D-2)
• While the planned increase in residential units does not significantly impact incident volume, the increased density may increase workload. Service delivery can be complicated by the increased area and height of buildings. (Recommendations A-2, D-1, & D-2)
Response Performance
• The call processing and unit turnout time do not meet the specified performance standard. (Recommendation E-1)
• Allowing the SCFD to stop the clock for the ambulance response may lead to potential abuse and reduced transport performance by the contracted ambulance service. (Recommendation E-2)
Performance Data
• Service demand and system analysis for 2020 and 2021 may be driven by the COVID19 pandemic and associated societal measures taken to prevent its spread. The research indicated a significant change in the utilization of emergency services. It is supposed that many people were reluctant to call for medical aid, leave their homes, or travel during the pandemic. As a result, incident volumes for these years may not be what agencies might expect in less restrictive times. For this reason, further evaluation is warranted as non-pandemic data becomes available. (Recommendation F-1)
• Eight percent of the incidents in CAD did not have a corresponding report in the RMS system. (Recommendation F-2)
• The coordination between the fire department standard incident records management and the lifeguard incident records does not help create a clear picture of incident response by the lifeguard units. (Recommendations F-2 & F-3) • The practice of maintaining the reserve unit designation makes a complete assessment of a crew's usage difficult to determine. (Recommendation F-4)
18.244
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 231
Recommendations
Recommendations are provided for policymakers as a general guide based on experience and industry best practices. These are guides only for leadership to review as potential areas for improvement in systems and services. The grouping follows the summary categories in the Overview and Executive Summary sections. These are not organized in order of priority, time of implementation, duration, or cost. Instead, they are presented as independent statements based on the experience of the members of AP Triton as a beginning point in the organization's planning effort.
Aging Facilities
Recommendation A-1: Replace or Substantially Renovate Fire Station 1 and Station 2 Description: Station 1, built in 1939, is rated " Fair " but has experienced surface street flooding and consistent internal flooding problems. Station 2, built in 1947, is rated in "Poor" condition and lacks dedicated areas for cleaning equipment and firefighter fitness. Both stations require significant upgrades to meet modern firefighting needs, including proper decontamination facilities for personnel and equipment after responses. The fire department leadership's plan to replace Station 1 and the administrative building with a new building will address the station issues and the administrative building's deficiencies.
Outcomes: Modernized facilities that meet current operational needs, improve firefighter health and safety, and enhance service delivery capabilities.
Financial Implication: The unfunded projects list identifies $19 million for Station 1 & Fire Admin replacement and $17 million for Station 2 replacement. However, based on the Kitchell study, the square foot estimate in 2027 would be $1,597. Increases are currently assumed to be planned at 5% per annum. The square footage of the station with associated administrative offices will necessarily be more extensive than a station alone. In addition, land costs must be included. However, due to the broad market values, the actual estimate is beyond the scope of this report. However, it is likely to run into millions for land in the heart of Santa Cruz, with a 0.28-acre lot in the new Everett Circle development listed at over $4 million.71
71 www.zillow.com
18.245
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 232
Recommendation A-2: Evaluate Moving Station 4 or Adding Station 5 Description: Station 4 is owned by the University of California and is staffed by SCFD to fulfill the emergency service delivery contract with the university. This station is in poor condition, and the City does not have direct control over upgrades and maintenance. The station is located along the northern border of the university property. It has a limited effective radius based on road access and travel distance. Additionally, there is a need to improve response travel time, reduce Station 1 and Station 2 apparatus usage, and improve coverage along the areas north of Stations 1 and 2. The following figure is the travel time map from the service delivery evaluation section, with the area highlighted in red as an underserved area.
Figure 160: Underserved Area
18.246
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 233
Having a station within this area may provide adequate coverage for the area indicated and the university and help relieve the pressure on the Station 1 apparatus. If moving Station 4 is impossible, adding a station in this area is also an option.
Outcomes: Modernized facilities that meet current operational needs, improve firefighter health and safety, and enhance service delivery capabilities.
Financial Implication: Based on the Kitchell study, the square foot estimate in 2027 would be $1,597. Increases are currently assumed to be planned at 5% per annum. In addition, land costs must be included. Still, due to the broad market values, the actual estimate is beyond the scope of this report. However, it will likely run into millions for land in the heart of Santa Cruz. No land was listed in the area, but homes near that location are listed between $1 and $3 million.72 Adding a station will necessarily require more staff and new apparatus. In 2024, the fully burdened staffing costs are approximately $1.5 million annually for a three-person company with a Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter-Paramedic, including overtime and coverage estimates. In addition, a new Type 1 engine will cost approximately $1 million and should be replaced every 5–10 years.
Recommendation A-3: Improve the Capabilities, Maintenance, and Usefulness of the Administrative Building and Station 4
Description: These buildings need significant upgrades and repairs. The administration building is ill-equipped to handle the current management functions required by modern fire service, and the security, energy efficiency, size, infrastructure capability, and seismic protection are questionable. The issues with Station 4 are not necessarily within the City's direct control. However, efforts should be made to influence UCSC to improve the building's functionality, safety, and livability. Drastic improvements may be delayed if Recommendation A-1 is adopted for a new administration building and Recommendation A-2 is adopted as a move for Station 4.
Outcomes: Improvements will allow administrative staff to function more effectively and create an improved living environment for the crews at Station 4.
Financial Implications: New facilities will cost approximately $1,597 per square foot in 2027 dollars. The cost of repairs and upgrades to the facilities is outside the scope of this study. 72 www.zillow.com.
18.247
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 234
Recommendation A-4: Develop a Comprehensive Facilities Replacement and Maintenance Plan
Description: The SCFD fire stations are aging and do not meet the requirements of today's fire service. There does not appear to be a long-range facility replacement or repair plan from the City. Additionally, it was not apparent if a facility maintenance schedule was in place. The planning and purchasing of apparatus appeared to be based on an asneeded or identified. Still, they can be easily planned years in advance. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. The plan should include HVAC, generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances.
Outcomes: A comprehensive facilities plan would allow the City to better plan for ongoing service from each station, prioritize repairs and renovations, and develop a more accurate long-term capital improvement budget.
Financial Implications: This study is primarily concerned with the 4 fire stations and the fire administration building, but this type of plan benefits all City buildings. Suppose Recommendations A-1, A-2, A-3, and B-1 are followed. In that case, most building systems will be improved, and the cost of creating an ongoing plan will be limited to either staff time or specialist consultants. If these recommendations are not approved, the cost of bringing the buildings up to date should also be incorporated into the planning process.
Recommendation A-5: Establish an Apparatus Replacement Fund and Schedule Description: The SCFD does not have a long-range apparatus replacement fund, with apparatus purchases undertaken as part of the annual budget process. Fire apparatus is costly (engines exceeding one million dollars and trucks in the two-million-dollar range), and a systematic approach to their replacement would help ensure operational readiness and financial planning. The plan should establish a life cycle for different types of apparatus and create replacement funds to prepare for these major capital expenses.
Because the lag time for apparatus delivery is extreme, committing to a replacement plan and pre-ordering before a fire truck becomes unserviceable is critical.
Outcomes: Improved financial planning for major apparatus purchases, reduced maintenance costs through timely replacement, and enhanced operational readiness.
Financial Implications: Staff time is the only consideration for direct expenses. Creating this type of schedule is much less complicated than a facilities plan, and several plans already exist. The staff time to make this plan should be limited.
18.248
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 235
Marine Safety Program
Recommendation B-1: Address Marine Safety Division Staffing and Facility Needs Description: The Marine Safety Division's heavy reliance on temporary, limited-term lifeguards has resulted in inconsistent coverage and training difficulties. Restrictions on hours and the nature of a part-time workforce have led to critical staffing gaps, particularly in the early summer months. Additionally, the Lifeguard Headquarters building, located at the Municipal Wharf, is in poor condition, undersized for seasonal staff, and has limited accessibility compliance.
Outcomes: Improved staffing consistency, enhanced safety for beach and water users, and a more functional facility for the Marine Safety Division.
Financial Implications: The unfunded projects list identifies $5 million for Lifeguard Headquarters Replacement. Staffing costs for an additional Marine Safety Officer would depend on the salary and benefits package. Still, they would likely be comparable to similar positions within the department, approximately $74,718 annually in 2024.
Recommendation B-2: Gain Permanent Access to a Fire Boat Description: The report notes that a fire boat is a unique resource required for a seaside community, especially one with a harbor and a wharf with buildings. Currently, the closest fire boat resource is from the Monterey Fire Department, which may take significant time to arrive during an emergency. This water-based firefighting and rescue capability gap could impact the department's ability to respond effectively to fires and other emergencies on or near the water.
Outcomes: Improved response capability for fires and other emergencies on or near the water, particularly in the harbor and wharf areas.
Financial Implication: The unfunded projects list identifies $2 million for a fire boat.
Additional costs would include ongoing maintenance, training, and staffing considerations.
18.249
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 236
Training Program
Recommendation C-1: Address Training Division Staffing Needs Description: The Training Division is a critical component of any fire department, dedicated to firefighters' continuous education and skill development. It encompasses a broad range of activities, from basic training for recruits to advanced courses for seasoned professionals.
The goal is to ensure that all firefighters have the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform their duties effectively and safely, reflecting the latest advancements in firefighting and emergency response. It appears evident that the single Battalion Chief, with other duties, struggles to keep up with the evolving demands of an all-risk fire department, potentially compromising the quality and frequency of training programs.
Outcomes: Improved training program and support for new and continued certification and skills for the multiple requirements of a modern, all-hazardous fire community.
Financial Implications: Two aspects of this program should be addressed. An administrative assistant, potentially part-time, can record training completion and certification requirements. In 2024, the cost of an Administrative Assistant 1 was listed at approximately $53,000. Another need is the ability to monitor and deliver training. This should be accomplished by at least one trained line employee, who may be of any rank, as long as they have the appropriate level of certification and the skills and ability to create and manage a training program. In 2024, the approximate annual pay for a Captain was listed at approximately $130,000, an engineer at $114,000, and a firefighter/paramedic at $116,000.
Recommendation C-2: Training Facility
Description: The firefighters do not have access to a proper training ground. Completing hose evolutions in parking areas, whether owned by the City or the public, creates inconvenience for City employees, the public, and the firefighters. Training space should be of sufficient size with sufficient training props to keep the firefighter skills updated, especially with high-risk, low-frequency incident types like structure fires.
Outcomes: Improved training capabilities and a place for firefighters to train with appropriate space and facilities.
18.250
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 237
Financial Implications: A regional training facility is in the works, and it is currently indicated that the SCFD portion would be $2 million. As time passes, this will likely increase. Another measure would be to add some "training by design" properties to the improvements needed at the stations, which can likely be included in the estimates in Recommendations A-1 and A-2.
Service Demand
Recommendation D-1: Consider Adding a 12-hour Mobile Integrated Healthcare Response Vehicle Located Near or Between Station 1 and Station 2 Description: The volume of incidents in the city center is causing pressure on Engine 3110 and Engine 3112, increasing their demand to above that recommended for overall area fire service reliability. 70% of all call volume is during the 12 hours between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. This is consistent throughout the week, and 56% of the incidents are medical.
Anecdotally, from the staff and members of the business community, a large number of these calls center around individuals with less than critical needs and potentially persons with mental disorders.
Outcomes: Adding this unit will alleviate the pressure on two of the busiest engines in the system. Adding a medical-focused unit will also help provide the appropriate unit to respond to the lower acuity and potentially specialized needs of mental health patients.
Financial Implications: Four considerations are needed to evaluate the economic implications. AP Triton assumes the staffing will be additional firefighters and firefighterparamedics to staff this equipment. Although civilian responders may be less expensive, it will be harder to backfill and cover overtime. It will take a minimum of 4 personnel to staff this unit every day for 12 hours. Assuming one paramedic and one firefighter EMT, the annual wage based in 2024 is $552,000. A standard vehicle like a pickup or SUV would be an additional $100,000 on start-up and every approximately 5 years. Additional start-up costs would be the equipment needed to outfit an ALS crew. Another consideration is whether the City can charge for this service and at what rate. There is currently no system to bill and recover medical costs from patients.
18.251
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 238
Recommendation D-2: Consider Regionalization of the Response Service Description: Mutual and automatic aid is robust and effective in Santa Cruz. The Station 2 area, especially on the east side, has access from surrounding jurisdictions. Regionalization could be as simple as a full boundary drop where the closest unit, regardless of agency, is dispatched to the regional emergency needs. Regionalization could also be as complex as merging with surrounding departments with similar structures and capabilities. The agencies primarily concerned with this type of merger would be the Scotts Valley and Central Santa Cruz Fire Protection Districts.
Outcomes: A complete boundary drop, either operationally or legal change in service provider, may reduce some of the workload on the busiest engines and improve performance on the east.
Financial Implications: The financial implications to the taxpayers are a minimal shift in overall costs. AP Triton does not see a significant change in the number of personnel needed to provide coverage or supervision. Additionally, the required capital improvements and apparatus replacement still need to be accomplished.
Response Performance
Recommendation E-1: Adopt Performance Expectations, Update Policies, and Make Periodic Reports to Elected Officials
Description: The fire department should adopt time-based performance objectives for each analytical time segment presented in this report. These segments and other performance objectives should be memorialized in the writing. Guidelines and policies allow all parties to know and understand performance expectations. They should be reviewed periodically for currency and accuracy. The CFAI recommends all policies be reviewed at least annually. The fire department should make periodic reports to the elected officials and the public based on these performance guidelines. When partnering agencies, such as the ambulance company or the communications center, do not meet expectations, they should be asked about their shortcomings. Improvements can be made by understanding and correcting the core reason for the deficiencies.
Outcomes: Improve overall time performance by the fire department.
Financial Implications: This will require staff time to update the policies and procedures.
Additional staff time will be necessary to capture and report the response information to the elected officials.
18.252
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 239
Recommendation E-2: Apply a Whole System Approach to Medical Emergency Performance Evaluation
Description: The county EMSA allows the SCFD's first responders to "stop the clock" for the performance of the contracted transport agency. This metric type can be misleading when evaluating response partner performance without a whole systems approach.
Abusing this can lead to longer scene times for SCFD apparatus and crews, reducing unit reliability. It can have the additional effect of increasing the time it takes for patients to reach definitive care. A clear disclosure of the whole system's performance is preferred when evaluating EMS responses.
Outcomes: Applying a holistic systems approach to medical response performance evaluation can reduce unit usage. In addition, if managed appropriately, this can increase collaboration between the involved response parties and improve overall medical service delivery to the patient.
Financial Implications: Staff time to measure and renegotiate the performance requirements with the EMSA.
Performance Data
Recommendation F-1: Review Incident Data Annually
Description: The potentially distorted data during the COVID-19 pandemic years, trends, and predicted demand may be flawed. It is essential to understand the full effect of the pandemic on service delivery, and that will only be possible with continued analysis.
Evaluating demand, service types, and other information annually until the pandemicspecific effects are fully accounted for and understood is critical. Until that effect is fully understood, the analytics created using the pandemic-era data have the potential to be misleading.
Outcomes: Creating an understanding of the pandemic era's effect on service delivery and performance analytics and creating appropriate adjustments to them.
Estimated Financial Cost/Savings: Costs will vary depending on the approach adopted. At a minimum, staff time will be required. Additional costs may include training, increased staff levels, compensation, equipment, or fees paid to outside vendors.
18.253
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 240
Recommendation F-2: Implement a Quality Check Process for Incident Reports Description: Daily review of incident reports is integral to improving fire service performance data. Preferably, someone who is not involved in the incident but has knowledge of the incident should review each component of the report and the report narratives.
Outcomes: More accurate, complete, and legally defensible incident records.
Estimated Financial Cost/Savings: Staff time.
Recommendation F-3: Improve Lifeguard Incident and Prevention Reporting Description: The depth of information within the lifeguard reporting system appeared lacking in detail. It wasn't clear if that was due to the program or how it was implemented.
There does not appear to be a standardized crossover between the lifeguard and fire department reporting system. Both issues may be addressed by policies and training or by using a single reporting system. There did not appear to be many options in Ocean Safety incident reporting software, and standard fire department records management software may not be easy to adapt to lifeguard operations. The least expensive option is creating a policy and process whereby the two systems report their operations. If the Marine Safety Officers fill out an RMS report or when a fire department resource responds, both systems would be updated to allow cross references.
Outcomes: A coordinated method of capturing incidents where the Marine Safety Division responds with the fire department or vice versa.
Estimated Financial Cost/Savings: Staff time to implement a program. Updating to a new system will depend on the system selected.
18.254
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 241
Recommendation F-4: Establish a Process to Capture Which Crew is Using a Reserve Apparatus
Description: SCFD uses the hard asset number for each response vehicle as the radio name for incident reporting. The incident data included responses from the reserve apparatus without quickly seeing which crew was on the incident or accounting for crew response times and performance. This is a common practice, and there are several ways to capture the correct crew. Having the crew track the apparatus, days, and times they work on a reserve unit. This information can then be applied to response data for analysis. Another option would be to add or use a custom field in the RMS indicating which unit and crew were assigned to a reserve apparatus. Another option would be to have a crew maintain its name regardless of what unit It is riding. For example, the Engine 3110 crew riding on Engine 3111 would keep the designation E3110. This has the additional benefit of command officers knowing which crew was working by name alone without having to look up a cross-reference riding sheet. This will require a different physical numbering system on the apparatus to avoid confusing teams working on an incident.
Outcomes: Complete capture of a crew's operations and performance.
Estimated Financial Cost/Savings: The policy and program will require staff time to develop and train crews in usage. Physically removing apparatus numbers from the equipment for accountability may add costs.
18.255
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 242
Section V:
APPENDICES
18.256
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 243
Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews
Introduction to the Stakeholder Interviews
Triton interviewed various Santa Cruz Fire Department's internal and external stakeholders.
These interviews aimed to better understand issues, concerns, and options regarding the emergency service delivery system, opportunities for shared services, and expectations from community members.
It is important to note that the information solicited and provided during this process was "people inputs" (stakeholders individually responding to our questions), some of which are perceptions reported by stakeholders. All information was accepted at face value without an in-depth investigation of its origination or reliability. The project team reviewed the information for consistency and frequency of comments to identify specific patterns and/or trends. Multiple sources improved the credibility of the observations, and the information provided was significant enough to be included in this report.
Stakeholders were identified within the following groups: Elected Officials, Department Heads, Business Community Leaders, Citizens, Chief Officers, Labor Leaders, Volunteer Chief Officers, Firefighters, Rank & File, and Administrative Staff. The following answers to the questions are summarized. In addition, duplicate or similar answers are presented here, with the most frequent answers organized from top to bottom.
Elected Officials, City Management, and Department Heads What strengths contribute to the success of the Fire Department? (What do they do well?) Respondents consistently mentioned professionalism, community engagement, accessibility, and a strong local workforce. Several highlighted the department's visibility in the community, participation in various City groups, strong collaborative relationships, and responsiveness to requests. The leadership's forward vision, proactive approach to wildfire prevention, and cultivation of local talent through pipeline programs were also praised.
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements? Suggestions included increased diversity in hiring, improved succession planning and administrative training, stronger financial expertise, better meeting plan review deadlines, enhanced state-mandated inspection compliance, alternative staffing models (EMTs vs. paramedics only), and addressing administrative resource gaps. Some mentioned the need for updated technology systems and improved communications.
18.257
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 244
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities of the fire department?
Common themes included consolidation possibilities, improved facility planning, enhanced financial resource management, technology integration improvements, crisis response alternatives, and state advocacy for local support. Training center development and interagency coordination were frequently mentioned. Several suggested leveraging City administrative resources more effectively.
Please share your thoughts regarding staffing utilizing 12-hour shifts and peak-hour units.
Most respondents indicated no specific input or deferred to department expertise. One mentioned looking into alternative work schedules like a 32-hour workweek.
What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today? Frequently mentioned issues included:
▪ Homelessness and related call volume
▪ Staffing (recruitment, retention, diversity)
▪ Financial constraints (equipment, facilities, CalPERS costs) ▪ Response to climate change and wildfire risks
▪ Development density and building height increases
▪ Mental health response challenges
▪ Succession planning and institutional knowledge retention If you could change one thing in the fire department, what would it be? Responses varied, but common themes included increased resources (financial, personnel, facilities), improved infrastructure (stations, training center, equipment), alternative response models for mental health calls, and better public communication about evacuation planning.
How would you describe the level of services provided by the fire department? Responses were overwhelmingly positive, with descriptions ranging from "excellent" to "beyond excellent." Respondents praised the department's professionalism, responsiveness, all-hazards capabilities, and community commitment. Several specifically mentioned the department's effectiveness in handling a wide range of situations while maintaining high service levels despite resource constraints.
18.258
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 245
Businesses, Community Groups, Community Members, and Volunteer Can you please describe your expectations of the Fire Department? Expectations centered on emergency response readiness, professionalism, and protecting life and property. Respondents expected rapid response, technical expertise, and trustworthiness. Several mentioned expectations for fire suppression, first response medical care, and fire investigation.
Which of these expectations are not being met to your satisfaction? Most respondents indicated that all expectations were being met or exceeded. One mentioned professionalism could occasionally be lacking, with concerns about workplace gossip and difficulties separating work from personal relationships. Another mentioned concerns about workload distribution.
What do you think the Fire Department is doing particularly well? Fast response times, high levels of professionalism, and a calming presence during emergencies were consistently mentioned. Several noted the department's effectiveness in managing homeless-related issues and their willingness to go "above and beyond" basic service requirements. Multiple respondents specifically highlighted the department's responsiveness compared to other agencies.
Are there services that you think the department should be providing that they are not providing now?
Most respondents couldn't identify missing services. Suggestions included more formal family support programs, deeper medical capabilities, and more equitable workload distribution. One respondent suggested the need for a mental health program for crisis response.
Are there services the department provides that should be discontinued or done differently?
Several mentioned right-sizing responses to better match the nature of the incident, particularly for medical or mental health calls in business areas. One suggested not using large apparatus for smaller incidents. Another mentioned leadership training could be improved.
When you dial 911 to report an emergency, how long should it take for help to arrive? Responses ranged from 5-10 minutes, with most expecting around 5-7 minutes for urban areas.
18.259
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 246
Do you believe that expectations should change depending on where in the community you are located?
Most respondents felt expectations should be consistent throughout the city, though one acknowledged the community might have location-dependent expectations.
Do you believe the Fire Department's first arriving response units are staffed and equipped to take appropriate actions given the emergency?
Most felt units were well-equipped, though one noted staffing concerns, explicitly mentioning the need for four-person crews rather than the current three-person configuration. This respondent also expressed concerns about overtime costs, injury rates, and mental health issues related to staffing levels.
Chief Officers, Labor Leaders, Administration, Rank and File.
What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? (What do you do well?) Interviewees consistently highlighted the department's strong community connection, with 85-90% of personnel being local residents. The department benefits from high-quality personnel selection, strong training programs, clear mission focus, and technical proficiency. Many noted the department's ability to maintain high standards despite resource limitations, emphasizing the pride, ownership, and area familiarity that comes from a locally-grown workforce.
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements? Several themes emerged regarding improvement areas: enhanced community outreach and public education efforts; strained labor-management relationships creating barriers to growth; succession planning challenges; departmental silos both internally and with other City departments; staffing and resource limitations relative to call volume; and facility inadequacies. Additionally, some pointed to communication challenges between administration and line personnel and across shifts.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities of the fire department?
Consolidation or shared services with neighboring fire agencies (Central Fire, Scotts Valley, Watsonville) was frequently mentioned. Other opportunities included expanded marine division services, the potential for a joint fire boat, additional funding/grants, expanded training facilities, increased staffing, and improved station locations to meet contemporary needs. County-wide block training was also suggested as a collaborative opportunity.
18.260
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 247
What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today? The most frequently cited issues were:
▪ Staffing levels and recruitment challenges
▪ Call volume increases, and service demand growth
▪ Development within the city requiring adaptive response capabilities ▪ Labor-management relationships
▪ Mental and physical health concerns for personnel
▪ Succession planning
▪ Ambulance/EMS response challenges
Please share your thoughts/ideas regarding alternative staffing and dynamic deployment to enhance staffing levels.
Responses were mixed. Some interviewees expressed openness to alternative models like QRVs (Quick Response Vehicles), two-person rescues, or different staffing configurations.
Others noted resistance to change would be likely, particularly from labor. Several mentioned the need for good communication if implementing such changes. The concept of EMT-only positions received mixed responses.
If you could change one thing in the fire department, what would it be? The most common responses were:
▪ Improved facilities, including additional stations and a training center ▪ Increased staffing, particularly four-person engine companies ▪ Improved labor-management relations
▪ Consolidation with neighboring agencies
On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the fire department's emergency services level? Please provide a 1 sentence reason for that score.
Ratings ranged from 8 to 10, with most around 8-9. Reasons included excellent response times, commitment to the community, technical proficiency, well-trained personnel, and high-quality service despite resource constraints. Some gave separate ratings for fire (higher) versus EMS (lower).
18.261
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 248
Appendix B: Risk Classifications
The following are the risk classifications determined by incident type.
Fire
Low Risk
These incidents are considered low-risk and minor in scope and intensity. These incidents require a single fire apparatus and crew to manage fires involving passenger vehicles, fences, trash or dumpsters, downed power lines, residential or commercial alarm investigations, or an odor investigation.
Moderate Risk
These incidents are the first alarm response needed to manage a moderate fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a building, small outside building fires, commercial vehicle fires, a single-family residence, a lightning strike to a building, an automatic fire alarm at a high-risk occupancy, or a hazardous materials pipeline fire.
High Risk
These incidents are a second alarm response needed to manage a high-fire risk incident.
These incidents include smoke in a high-life hazard property (school, skilled nursing, etc.), a single-family residence with injured or trapped victims, a multi-family residential building, or a moderate-sized commercial/industrial occupancy.
Maximum Risk
A third alarm response is needed to manage a maximum fire risk incident. These incidents include a hospital, assisted living facility, fire in an apartment building, high-rise building fire, a large commercial or industrial occupancy, hazardous materials railcar, or storage occupancy. Incident assignments will include additional command staff, recalling off-duty personnel, and mutual aid assistance for other critical tasking needs.
EMS Risks
Low Risk
A single EMS unit can manage a low-risk EMS incident involving an assessment of a single patient with a critical injury or illness, non-life-threatening medical call, lift assist, or standby.
Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk EMS incident. It involves assessing and treating one or two patients with critical injuries or illnesses or a motor vehicle crash with 1–2 patients.
18.262
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 249
High Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk EMS incident. It involves 3-8 patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will include triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and coordinated patient transport.
Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk EMS incident. It involves more than nine patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will include triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and a coordinated transport of patients. If this is an active shooter incident, the response may require a casualty collection area unit to treat patients not in the hot zone.
Technical Rescue
Low Risk
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk technical rescue incident involving minor rescues, such as a child locked inside a vehicle, elevator entrapment, or minor mechanical entrapment.
Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate technical rescue risk incident. Support is not usually required from a technical rescue team. This type of incident involves a motor vehicle crash that requires patient extrication, extricating a patient from machinery or equipment, or a person trapped by downed power lines.
High Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk technical rescue incident. This type of incident may involve full-scale technical rescue operations ranging from structural collapse to swift water rescues. It may involve multiple motor vehicles that require extrication, commercial passenger carriers, or a vehicle collision with a building.
Support is usually required from a technical rescue team. This incident may require multiple alarms.
18.263
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 250
Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk technical rescue incident. Support is required from a specialized technical rescue team and may involve multiple operations locations. This type of incident will involve full-scale technical rescue operations, such as victims at risk or trapped due to structural collapse, swift water, or earth cave-ins. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed.
Hazardous Materials
Low Risk
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk hazardous materials incident involving carbon monoxide alarms and other unknown hazmat investigations without symptomatic victims, fuel spills involving less than 20 gallons, natural gas meter incidents, downed power lines, equipment or electrical problems, attempted burning, or automatic alarms that may originate from a hazardous material.
Moderate Risk
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk hazardous materials incident. Direct support is not usually required from a hazardous materials team. This type of incident involves a carbon monoxide alarm with symptomatic patients, a fuel spill of 20–55 gallons, or a gas or petroleum products pipeline break not threatening any exposures.
High Risk
A multiple-unit response with a hazmat team is required to control or mitigate a high-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is needed for a Level 2 hazmat incident that involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. This response includes a release with 3-8 victims, gas leaks in a structure, hazmat alarm releases with victims, flammable gas or liquid pipeline breaks with exposures, fuel spills exceeding 55 gallons, fuel spills affecting underground drainage or sewer systems, transportation or industrial chemical releases, or radiological incidents. Additional assistance may be required to expand operations past the identified critical tasks.
18.264
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 251
Maximum Risk
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is required from an on-duty hazmat team and their specialized equipment. This type of incident involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. Examples include nine or more contaminated or exposed victims, a large storage tank failure, a hazmat railcar failure, or a weapon of mass destruction incident. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed.
Ocean Rescue Risks
Risk classification for such a specialized type of rescue will necessarily be based on natural conditions. While risk assessments for general fire department programs are very well understood, a large body of work does not appear to be on ocean rescue operations risks.
However, the few available resources tend to match the SCFD policies and guidelines73 on low-, moderate-, and high-risk situations.
Low Risk
A low-risk ocean rescue can be defined by the nature of the weather and surf. The Personal Watercraft Operations SOP defines this as a small surf, light winds, and a short distance from shore. It should be added that the rescue is a surface rescue without any predatory animals present and crowds at a manageable level. These rescues can be performed by a single lifeguard or rescue swimmer with safety shore support.
Moderate Risk
Moderate-risk ocean rescues require more rescuers and rescue swimmers with more specialized equipment in the water and a larger contingent of onshore support and safety.
Rescue watercraft are preferable and require a deckhand. The surf and winds would be moderate, the rescue would be within city limits, and additional support would be needed if predatory animals are reported but unobserved. The rescue may be an observed victim or a known last location of a victim that cannot be found on the surface. Crowd levels are still manageable within routine operations.
73 Santa Cruz City Fire Department, SOP 3 #3-2.3, Personal Watercraft Operations (2012).
18.265
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 252
High Risk
A high-risk operation requires a cautious approach with staffing similar to a moderate-risk event; however, two watercraft must also be present. During these events, rescuers are placed in an extremely hazardous condition. The surf, winds, or both would be considered high, or the rescue would happen in unfamiliar waters such as those during mutual aid deployment. An observed predatory animal is reported. A high-risk situation is also indicated when an above-normal crowd is present or during a significant crowd water event.
18.266
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 253
Appendix C: Table of Figures
Figure 1: Fire Department Organizational Structure .....................................................................5 Figure 2: Study Area Map ................................................................................................................8 Figure 3: The SCFD Apparatus & Minimum Staffing by Fire Station .............................................9 Figure 4: Ocean Rescue Area of Operation ...............................................................................15 Figure 5: EMS Dispatch Area for the Marine Safety Division.......................................................17 Figure 6: Mutual & Automatic Aid Resources Available to the SCFD.......................................19 Figure 7: Mutual Aid Map ..............................................................................................................20 Figure 8: SCFD Staffing by Position with Group/FTE.....................................................................24 Figure 9: Ocean Rescue Area of Operation ...............................................................................28 Figure 10: EMS Dispatch Area for the Marine Safety Division.....................................................30 Figure 11: Historical SCFD Budget Summary ................................................................................35 Figure 12: SCFD Historical Resource Summary.............................................................................37 Figure 13: SCFD Historical Combined Expenditures Summary ...................................................38 Figure 14: SCFD Expenditures by Division .....................................................................................40 Figure 15: SCFD Wages and Benefits Summary...........................................................................41 Figure 16: SCFD Wages and Benefits Summary by Division........................................................41 Figure 17: SCFD Services Expense Summary................................................................................42 Figure 18: SCFD Supplies Expense Summary................................................................................42 Figure 19: SCFD Non-Recurring Expenditures Summary .............................................................43 Figure 20: SCFD FY 2025 Budget CIP Unfunded or Underfunded Projects................................44 Figure 21: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition .................................................47 Figure 22: Summary of the SCFD Fire Department Buildings......................................................54 Figure 23: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition ...................................57 Figure 24: The SCFD Fleet Inventory (2024) ..................................................................................57 Figure 25: Population Estimates (2014–2024) ...............................................................................65 Figure 26: Population Density ........................................................................................................66 Figure 27: Age Risks.........................................................................................................................68 Figure 28: Gender by Age .............................................................................................................69 Figure 29: Population with a Disability ..........................................................................................70 Figure 30: Language Barriers .........................................................................................................71 Figure 31: Population in Poverty....................................................................................................72
18.267
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 254
Figure 32: Median Household Income .........................................................................................72 Figure 33: Population without Insurance......................................................................................73 Figure 34: Education Levels ...........................................................................................................74 Figure 35: Race and Ethnicity........................................................................................................75 Figure 36: Owner and Renter Occupied Housing.......................................................................76 Figure 37: Age of Housing..............................................................................................................77 Figure 38: Housing Units per Building.............................................................................................77 Figure 39: Average Monthly High Temperatures (2011–2023) ...................................................78 Figure 40: Average Monthly Low Temperature (2011–2023)......................................................79 Figure 41: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart .............................................................80 Figure 42: Average Monthly Wind Speeds (2011–2023) .............................................................81 Figure 43: Wind Rose ......................................................................................................................81 Figure 44: Average Monthly Precipitation (2011–2023)..............................................................82 Figure 45: Drought Monitor (2000–2025).......................................................................................83 Figure 46: Drought Conditions.......................................................................................................84 Figure 47: Fire Hazard Severity Zones............................................................................................87 Figure 48: Flood Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................90 Figure 49: Tsunami Inundation Areas............................................................................................92 Figure 50: Ten Most Likely Earthquake Scenarios in California...................................................94 Figure 51: Liquefaction Hazard Areas ..........................................................................................95 Figure 52: Water-Related Incident Types (2019–2023)................................................................96 Figure 53: Target Hazards...............................................................................................................98 Figure 54: Hazardous Materials Tier II Locations.........................................................................100 Figure 55: Annual Average Daily Traffic Vehicle and Truck Counts........................................101 Figure 56: Major Roads.................................................................................................................102 Figure 57: Energy Hazards............................................................................................................104 Figure 58: Railway Location.........................................................................................................106 Figure 59: Dam and Inundation Areas .......................................................................................108 Figure 60: Hydranted Area ..........................................................................................................110 Figure 61: Government Buildings ................................................................................................112 Figure 62: Land Use.......................................................................................................................114 Figure 63: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2023–2031) ....................................................115 Figure 64: Current Development Proposed or Under Construction ........................................115
18.268
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 255
Figure 65: City of Santa Cruz Zoning...........................................................................................116 Figure 66: School Locations.........................................................................................................118 Figure 67: Assembly Occupancies .............................................................................................119 Figure 68: Clinical Facilities and Hospitals..................................................................................121 Figure 69: Group Care Facilities ..................................................................................................122 Figure 70: Multi-Family Housing Units...........................................................................................124 Figure 71: Buildings Three Stories or More...................................................................................125 Figure 72: Buildings 50,000 Square Feet and Greater ...............................................................126 Figure 73: Buildings with Large Fire Flows (> 2,500 gallons per minute)...................................127 Figure 74: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process.........................................................................129 Figure 75: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence...................................................................130 Figure 76: Consequence to the Community.............................................................................130 Figure 77: Impact on Operational Forces..................................................................................131 Figure 78: Fire Response Risk Assessment ...................................................................................132 Figure 79: Fire Three-Axis Risk Classifications ..............................................................................132 Figure 80: EMS Response Risk Assessment ..................................................................................133 Figure 81: EMS Three-Axis Risk Classifications.............................................................................133 Figure 82: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment...........................................................134 Figure 83: Technical Rescue Three-Axis Risk Classifications......................................................134 Figure 84: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment ......................................................135 Figure 85: Hazardous Materials Three-Axis Risk Classifications.................................................135 Figure 86: Wildland Fires Response Risk Assessment..................................................................136 Figure 87: Wildland Fires 3-Axis Risk Classifications ....................................................................136 Figure 88: SCFD Property Loss per Capita..................................................................................140 Figure 89: Fires per 1,000 Population...........................................................................................140 Figure 90: Intentionally Set Fires in the City of Santa Cruz (2019–2023)...................................141 Figure 91: Data Skew....................................................................................................................144 Figure 92: SCFD Data Skew..........................................................................................................145 Figure 93: CAD Units Dispatched, By Arrival, Not Captured in RMS (2019–2023)...................146 Figure 94: Total Incident Count (2019–2023)..............................................................................147 Figure 95: Incident Density (2019–2023) .....................................................................................148 Figure 96: EMS Incident Density (2019–2023) .............................................................................149 Figure 97: Fire Incident Density (2019–2023)...............................................................................150
18.269
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 256
Figure 98: Top 5 Response Locations..........................................................................................151 Figure 99: Annual Incident Volume (2019–2023).......................................................................152 Figure 100: Incident Volume Percentage by Month (2019–2023)...........................................153 Figure 101: Incident Volume Percentage by Day of the Week (2019–2023).........................154 Figure 102: Month and Weekday Volume (2019–2023)............................................................154 Figure 103: Incidents by Hour (2019–2023).................................................................................155 Figure 104: Weekday and Hour Volume (2019–2023)...............................................................156 Figure 105: ISO 5-Mile Distance ...................................................................................................158 Figure 106: ISO 1.5 Mile Engine Company Distance.................................................................159 Figure 107: ISO 2.5 Mile Truck Company Distance....................................................................161 Figure 108: Workload by Apparatus Type (2019–2023) ............................................................162 Figure 109: Annual Incident Volume by Unit and Year (2019–2023).......................................163 Figure 110: Unit Type Average Commit Time by NFIRS Category (2019–2023)......................164 Figure 111: Unit Type Average Incident Commit Times (2019–2023).......................................165 Figure 112: UHU By Unit Groupings (2019–2023).........................................................................166 Figure 113: Concurrent in the City (2023)...................................................................................167 Figure 114: Concurrent Entire System (2023)..............................................................................168 Figure 115: Apparatus per Incident (2019–2023).......................................................................168 Figure 116: Common Unit Combinations...................................................................................169 Figure 117: Incident Lifecycle......................................................................................................170 Figure 118: Incident Segment KPIs..............................................................................................171 Figure 119: Call Processing by NFIRS Category (2019–2023)....................................................173 Figure 120: Call Processing by Hour (2019–2023).......................................................................174 Figure 121: Annual Call Processing (2019–2023)........................................................................174 Figure 122: Turnout Time by Apparatus and Incident Type (2019–2023)................................175 Figure 123: Turnout Time by Hour (2019–2023)...........................................................................176 Figure 124: Turnout Time Performance by Incident Type (2019–2023)....................................177 Figure 125: Annual Turnout Time Performance by Incident Type (2019–2023) ......................177 Figure 126: 4- and 8-Minute Travel Time Model.........................................................................179 Figure 127: First Due Travel Time by Incident Type (2019–2023)...............................................180 Figure 128: Travel Time by Hour (2019–2023)..............................................................................181 Figure 129: Annual Travel Times (2019–2023) .............................................................................182 Figure 130: Historical Travel, First Three Units (2019–2023).........................................................182
18.270
Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover & Deployment Analysis Santa Cruz City Fire Department 257
Figure 131: Annual Fire Department Response Times by Group (2019–2023)........................183 Figure 132: Annual Total Response Time by Group (2019–2023) .............................................184 Figure 133: Total Response Time Performance by Reporting District (2019–2023).................184 Figure 134: Division Reported Calls vs CAD-RMS Incidents (2019–2023).................................186 Figure 135: Volume by Year (2019–2023) ...................................................................................187 Figure 136: Annual Percentage Change of Incidents by System ...........................................187 Figure 137: Percent of RMS Volume by Month (2019–2023).....................................................188 Figure 138: Percent of RMS Volume by Day of Week (2019–2023) .........................................188 Figure 139: MSD Rescue Volume by Year (2019–2023).............................................................189 Figure 140: MSD Medical Aids Volume by Year (2019–2023)...................................................190 Figure 141: Future Population Projection....................................................................................192 Figure 142: Future Service Demand Projection .........................................................................193 Figure 143: Mutual Aid Map ........................................................................................................195 Figure 144: Staffing Determinations Base on Risk ......................................................................198 Figure 145: Fire Response Critical Tasking ..................................................................................199 Figure 146: Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasking........................................................200 Figure 147: Wildland/WUI Fire Critical Tasking............................................................................200 Figure 148: Technical Rescue Critical Tasking ...........................................................................201 Figure 149: HazMat Critical Tasking ............................................................................................201 Figure 150: Fire Alarm Assignments by Risk.................................................................................202 Figure 151: Emergency Medical Assignments by Risk...............................................................203 Figure 152: Wildland/WUI Assignments by Risk ..........................................................................203 Figure 153: Technical Rescue Assignments by Risk ...................................................................204 Figure 154: Hazardous Materials Assignments by Risk...............................................................205 Figure 155: SCFD Response Time Compliance Requirements .................................................206 Figure 156: Deming Cycle............................................................................................................210 Figure 157: Incident Segments ....................................................................................................213 Figure 158: Performance Chart Example...................................................................................215 Figure 159: Methodology Overview ...........................................................................................223 Figure 160: Underserved Area.....................................................................................................232
18.271
Brittany Inclan
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 4:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 18
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Community Risk Assessment Report has a tremendous amount of useful information. This report should have been considered when Kimley Horn did the Draft EIR for the South of Laurel area. Maps in the report showing risks of flooding, liquifaction, etc., illustrate the risk to development South of Laurel. Yet the Draft EIR states the risks are unimportant.
The Draft EIR needs to be re-done, especially because it did not take into account AB 1287, which allows 100% density bonuses. There needs to be time for the public to comment on the new Draft EIR (45 days at least).
This huge project must not be pushed through. Our lives must not be put at risk because of profit motives.
Thank you.
Judi Grunstra
18.272
Brittany Inclan
From: Becky Steinbruner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 9:10 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Cc: Becky Steinbruner
Subject: Public Comment for May 13, 2025 City Council Agenda Items #18 Dear Santa Cruz City Council and Mayor Keeley,
I am respectfully submitting comment below on item #18 on the May 13, 2025 Council Regular Agenda:
#18 Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover, and Deployment Analysis report as the Fire Department’s service review study, and direction to staff to utilize the findings and recommendations from this study to inform and guide future policy decisions, operational improvements, and resource allocations.
Thank you for this timely assessment that examines many potential risks to infrastructure due to environmental hazards associated with flooding, tsunami, liquefaction and wildfire. It appears that the downtown area is at high risk of liquefaction and flooding. Therefore, future land use planning must also take into consideration and abide by the reality of these risks and all future zoning should limit building heights of dense development to reduce risk to occupants of these areas I also am aware that on May 7, 2025, the Santa Cruz County LAFCO approved moving forward with potential consolidating fire districts of Santa Cruz City, Scotts Valley and Central Fire, and also approved spending $30,000-$60,000 for a consultant feasibility study.
Please hold town hall meetings to include the public in this deliberation moving forward.
Thank you.
18.273
Community Risk
Assessment,Standards of Cover & Deployment AnalysisClay Steward David RochaProject Manager Presentation City of Santa Cruz
Fire Department
18.274
AP Triton’s Scope of Work
Provide a comprehensive, data-driven Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis for the Santa Cruz Fire Department.
Community Risk Assessment
• Identify the department’s
hazards, threats, vulnerabilities, and risks to the coverage area compared to recognized standards and best practices, including considering benchmarks to compare future improvement.
Standards of Cover Analysis
• Outlines the fire department’s
distribution, concentration, reliability, and historical performance to ensure a safe and effective response. • Along with historical and
forecast rates to develop projections for future service demand.
Conclusions & Recommendations that discuss how to continue improvement, offer alternate models, and provide specific findings
18.275
Included in the Report
Section I:
Evaluation of Current Conditions
Section II:
Community Risk Assessment
Section III:
Standards of Cover
Section IV:
Findings and Recommendations
Section V:
Appendices
18.276
Current Conditions
18.277
Current Conditions
• Operationally, the Department is
Appropriately Sized for Risk
• Service Area is Well Defined• Good Partnerships Regionally with a solid Auto/Mutual Aid Program
• Normal Operations are Well Funded• Wide Range of Services Provided• The Marine Safety Division • The Public Trusts the Fire Department• A Significant Change in Building Stock
• Long History of Service
18.278
Current Conditions: Challenges
• Facilities Need Repairs & Upgrades
Station 1, 2 & 4 Lifeguard Headquarters Administration Building • Some Areas Underserved• No Training Facility• Delay Between Apparatus Orders and Delivery
• Limited Access to an All-Hazards Fire
Boat
• The Marine Safety Division is
Understaffed
• The Training Division is Understaffed
18.279
Current Conditions: Recommendations
• Recommendations:
Remodel Station 1 Remodel Station 2 Remodel Station 4 (UCSC facility) Build Station 5 Remodel Lifeguard Headquarters Build a Training Center Purchase an All-Hazards Capable Fire Boat Improve Training and Marine Safety Staffing • Best Practices – Best Investments:
Build New Station 1 & Administration Facility Build a New Station & Training Center to Cover University and Underserved Area
Remodel Station 2 Build Stations Utilizing Training By Design Techniques Remodel Lifeguard Headquarters Develop a Building Maintenance and Improvement Plan • Additional Best Practice:
Fully Fund Apparatus & Equipment Plan Vehicles & Apparatus Lifeguard Towers SCBA Radios
18.280
Community Risk Assessment
18.281
Community Risk Assessment
• Population
Density At Risk Populations Similar to State Projected Growth Limited • Environmental Hazards
Flood WUI Drought Earthquakes (Liquefaction)
WUI Flood Tsunami Liquefaction
Pop. Density
18.282
Community Risk Assessment
• Other Hazards
Buildings and Contents HazMat Transportation Infrastructure • Missing Some University Information• Risk Definitions and Scoring by Category Fire EMS Technical Rescue HazMat Wildland Ocean Safety Target Hazards
18.283
Standard of Cover &
Deployment
18.284
Standard of Cover
• Incident Volume is Heaviest Between
Stations 1 & 2
• EMS is 56% of the Volume• Volume is Increasing Post Covid-19• Busiest from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM (70% of Incidents)
• Service Demand is Expected To Continue
to Increase
0 1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
EMS Other 0%
1%2%3%4%5%6%7%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Percent of Incidents
Hour of the Day
Incident Density
Annual Volume
18.285
Standard of Cover: Challenges
• Allowing the fire units to Stop the Clock on EMS Calls May Be Abused
• Some Areas are Underserved Due to Station Locations• Engines 3110 and 3112 Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Percentages• Full Crew Usage Cannot Be Determined Without Tracking Reserve Unit Assignments
Unit Average 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Battalion 3103 2.74% 2.43% 2.78% 2.67% 2.75% 3.07%Station 1 - Engine 3110 8.55% 10.57% 5.62% 9.76% 8.17% 8.62% Station 1 - Truck 3170 4.93% 4.75% 4.81% 4.87% 4.53% 5.69%Station 2 - Engine 3112 9.84% 10.04% 10.54% 10.74% 8.51% 9.37% Station 3 - Engine 3113 6.28% 6.06% 6.89% 5.67% 5.73% 7.04% Station 4 – Engine 3114 2.90% 3.52% 2.86% 2.43% 1.97% 3.70% Reserve Units 4.86% 4.03% 9.46% 3.00% 3.76% 4.02%
Engine 3111 2.18% 1.76% 4.15% 0.58% 2.08% 2.36%
Engine 3115 0.38% 0.00% 0.94% 0.30% 0.33% 0.30%
Truck 3171 0.98% 1.37% 1.31% 0.62% 0.90% 0.69%
Engine 3116 1.32% 0.90% 3.06% 1.50% 0.45% 0.67%
18.286
Standard of Cover
• Recommendations:
Review the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) contract
to ensure that medical performance metrics are appropriately measured and that the SCFD is not being overutilized within the medical system. Add a 12-hour unit somewhere between stations 1 and 2 to relieve the pressure on Engine 3110 and 3112.
Add station 5 or move station 4 (see above) Consider Regionalization of Fire Services Track the reserve unit by crew ID versus shop ID. • Best Practice – Best Investments
Evaluate a Community Integrated Medicine Program as
the 12-Hour unit to relieve the lower acuity and repeat customer calls.
18.287
Evaluation of each time segment
Standard of Cover Performance
• Station• Unit• Incident Type
18.288
Overall Performance Summary
Standard of Cover Performance
Performance Applicable Standard
90th Percentile
Segment
NFPA 1225 – Priority Incidents
60 Seconds
1:30 SCCECC Contract
2:51 Call Processing
NFPA 1710 60/80 Seconds
(EMS/Other)
1:00/2:00 Policy
Turnout Time 2:05
NFPA 1710
4 Minutes Urban
Adopt Standard
6:02 Travel Time First Unit
NFPA 1710
6 Minutes Urban
Adopt Standard
7:40 Travel Time Second Due
NFPA 1710 & 1225
6 Min (EMS) 6:20 Other
Adopt Standard
8:49 Total Time First Due
Adopt Standards
The standards the city adopts should be reasonable and include the standard and the goal.
The standard is based on current performance.
The goal is based on what the fire department could reasonably accomplish with improvements
18.289
Standard of Cover
• Challenges
The Dip in Service Demand in 2020 Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Data Captured Was Not of the Highest Quality. Lifeguard Data Is Limited and Skewed to When Division is Staffed • Recommendations:
City Leadership Should Adopt Performance Standards Complete Periodic (Annual at a Minimum) Performance Evaluations
Implement a Quality Assurance Process for Incident Reporting Improve the Method or System the Lifeguard Program Uses to Capture Work
• Best Practice – Best Investments
Lifeguard system should integrate seamlessly with the fire department records management/incident software. Any dispatched Marine Safety Division person should fill out the associated unit section of an incident report.
18.290
Conclusions &
Recommendations
Discussed within the presentation
18.291
Appendices
Include stakeholder interview summation, risk classification details, and a table of figures
18.292
Questions?
18.293
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 9.90 OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, creating Government Code Section 7070, et seq., relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies;
WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used;
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the Santa Cruz City Council (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance 2022-09, adding Chapter 9.90 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) and adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy”);
WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(b) requires SCPD obtain approval from the City Council prior to amending its Policy;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(b), SCPD is requesting approval from City Council to amend its Policy to permit SCPD to use of military equipment not included in the Policy during exigent circumstances and pursuant to specified use and reporting requirements, only;
WHEREAS, the addition of this exigent circumstances language to the Policy will help SCPD respond to emergency situations in a timely manner while protecting the safety and security of community members;
WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(a)(1)(C) requires SCPD obtain approval from the City Council prior to acquiring military equipment; WHEREAS, Government Code section 7070(c)(1) defines unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicle as military equipment; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(a)(1)(c), SCPD is requesting approval from the City Council to add 5G technology to its five (5) Skydio X10 Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles “Drones”;
WHEREAS, the enhanced connectivity provided by 5G technology will enable the SCPD to more effectively deploy Drones for investigative purposes; WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071(a)(1)(G) requires SCPD obtain approval from the City Council prior to acquiring military equipment not otherwise described in the subsection;
19.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-07
2 WHEREAS, Government Code section 7070(c)(15) defines military equipment as all other equipment determined by City Council to require additional oversight; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(a)(1)(c), SCPD is requesting approval from the City Council to amend its Category 15 military equipment list to specify the types of AR-15/M4 style Carbine rifles owned by SCPD;
WHEREAS, the addition of this specificity as to the Category 15 rifles will provide further clarification as to the types of military equipment used by SCPD, in furtherance of Government Code Section 7070, et seq.;
WHEREAS, the City Council, having received the amended Military Equipment Use Policy, providing for use of military equipment in exigent circumstances, the addition of 5G technology for SCPD Drones, and the addition of further specificity as to the types of rifles used by SCPD in Category 15, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the amended Military Equipment Use Policy as set forth herein.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.90 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is amended as follows:
9.90.010 MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY.
(a) The city council hereby adopts the April 2025 military equipment use policy (“policy”) set forth in Santa Cruz Police Department Policy 705 after having made the following determinations:
(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;
(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.
(b) The police department has submitted a proposed policy to the city council and has made those documents available on the police department’s website for at least thirty days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The policy was considered by the city council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
(d) The policy shall be made publicly available on the police department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
19.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-07
3 (e) The police department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the city council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the city council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subsections (a)(1) through (4). (f) The city council shall review this chapter and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(2). (g) The city council approves the use of the policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d).
SECTION 2. Severability. If any section or portion of this chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter, which shall continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 22nd day of April, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Newsome, Golder, O’Hara; Vice Mayor KalantariJohnson.
NOES: Councilmember Trigueiro; Mayor Keeley.
ABSENT: Councilmember Brunner.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
19.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-07
4 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this 13th day of May, 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. 2025-07 and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
19.4 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:
That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:
May 7, 2025
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This 7th day of May, 2025, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
19.5 DECLARATION OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 2
nd day of May, 2025, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2025-07, to wit:
1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10
2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers
3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—4.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7 th day of
May, 2025, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
19.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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
20.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.)
20.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.
20.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.
20.4 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.
20.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.
20.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
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.
20.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-08
8 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Trigueiro, Newsome, Golder, O’Hara; Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson; Mayor Keeley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Brunner.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
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
20.8 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:
That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:
May 7, 2025
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This 7th day of May, 2025, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
20.9 DECLARATION OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 2
nd day of May, 2025, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2025-08, to wit:
1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10
2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers
3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—8.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7 th day of
May, 2025, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
20.10 Brittany Inclan
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 7:38 PM
To: City Council; Matt Huffaker; Bernie Escalante; Renee Golder Cc: 'krista lighthouserealty.net'
Subject: Ridiculous Downtown Vibrancy Plan !!!!
Dear City Council, Manager and Police Chief,
This plan to restore vibrancy to our downtown is so incredibly out of touch with the issues of local businesses, shoppers and property owners; I had to stop and email you. My wife as well as several of my fellow local business owners are in complete disbelief this is your “soluƟon” to our downtown’s problems. Local business owners are seething with frustraƟon at how our town is run. Its already such an unfriendly place to start and own a business and all you do is make it worse with each new rule and regulaƟon.
The reason our downtown is not aƩracƟve is first and foremost an issue of ever-present homelessness, rampant drug abuse, anƟ-social behavior, a perceived lack of safety and obvious lack of cleanliness. Our downtown is GROSS and sketchy and full of scary people high on meth, heroin and fentanyl. If you don’t see this you need to go to downtown Los Gatos, Carmel, Mountain View, Capitola or numerous other ciƟes in our area. We just had dinner in frickin Winters California, they have a way way nicer downtown!!!!! How does some podunk central valley farm town have a nicer downtown than us?? Even over here on the Westside its way way nicer (thank you Renee and Shebreh).
Penalizing local businesses and property owners because city policies have ruined our downtown is incredibly insensiƟve and disrespecƞul to the people who pay the taxes and provide the jobs that our city needs. Let’s look at what the city has done wrong over the past decade:
- Food Not Bombs operaƟng with impunity at the gateway to our downtown - Ever present tents, trash, loitering and drug dealing at the periphery of our downtown - Ever present drug zombies all over the place (you are expecƟng businesses employees to deal with these people???)
- Ever increasing amounts of cluƩer, hazards and obstacles (successful downtowns are minimalist, you just keep adding more “bright ideas”)
- Ever increasing amounts of low-income housing (sorry but these residents do not contribute economically to our downtown)
- Zero effort to create a pedestrian mall, instead focusing on a car centric experience - Barely any live music or vibrancy in the downtown (for some reason its all off to the side in Abbot Square)
20.11 - ConƟnued zoning, parking and planning rules that sƟfle businesses (like this ordinance) - Allowing ridiculous street vending and terrible street musicians You need to please stop harassing the brick-and-mortar business and deal with your bad management of our public spaces!!!!!!
Please, you need to stop with this nonsense and fully staff SCPD and make our downtown welcoming to shoppers and customers. Local businesses have basically given up calling SCPD because they are understaffed and overwhelmed. We need a strong statement from our city council vowing to fully staff our police and parks department and to clean up our downtown, otherwise shoppers and businesses will just keep fleeing….
Sincerely,
20.12 Brittany Inclan
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 5.13.25 Agenda Item #20 D-town vibrancy
5.13.25 Agenda Item #20 D-town vibrancy
What he said (what Peter Cook so well said).
In general, when you make if real cozy for the homeless, drug addicts, illegals, and well people who can't afford to live here compared to other places, we will have MORE homeless, drug addicts, illegals, and well, people who can't afford to live here. All at "other peoples expense" (socialism).
Simple huh? or should be.
Garrett Philipp - Westside
20.13 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-09
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.
21.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-09
2 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 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: Councilmembers Trigueiro, Newsome, Golder, O’Hara; Vice Mayor Kalantari-Johnson; Mayor Keeley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Brunner.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
21.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-09
3 PASSED FOR ADOPTION this 13th day of May 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
21.3 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:
That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:
May 7, 2025
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
This 7th day of May, 2025, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
21.4 DECLARATION OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 2
nd day of May, 2025, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2025-09, to wit:
1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10
2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers
3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—3.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7 th day of
May, 2025, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
21.5 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/24/2025
AGENDA OF: 05/13/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: State of Child & Youth Well-Being Report 2024/2025 LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept the State of Child & Youth Well-Being report for 2025.
BACKGROUND: In December 2021, the City Council adopted the first “Children and Youth Bill of Rights”, establishing a strong foundation that prioritizes the well-being and success of children and youth in the city. The Bill of Rights outlines key rights designed to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to thrive. These include the right to:
• A healthy mind, body, and spirit that enables them to maximize their potential; • A healthy attachment to a parent, guardian, or caregiver and an ongoing relationship with a caring and supporting adult;
• Safe and healthy environments—at home, in school, and throughout their neighborhoods and communities;
• Access to high-quality education that promotes future success in school, career, and life; • Life skills training to prepare them to live independently, be self-sufficient, and positively contribute to their community;
• Employment opportunities with protections from unfair labor practices; • Freedom from mistreatment, abuse, and neglect;
• Opportunities to express their views, develop leadership capacity, and engage in their community;
• Feel supported by the larger community and maintain a sense of hope for the future; • Explore and express their innate curiosity and creativity and the encouragement to do so.
In 2022, City Council directed Parks and Recreation Department staff to provide a “State of Youth” report to establish baseline metrics associated with the Children and Youth Bill of Rights. The report was intended to be updated and utilized year-over-year to evaluate needs, impacts, and successes resulting from the City’s investment in Santa Cruz youth and affirm commitment to the Bill of Rights.
22.1 The City and the Children’s Fund Oversight Subcommittee worked with Nicole Young of Optimal Solutions Consulting to prepare a draft report which was presented to the City Council in October of 2022. With useful feedback around getting newer and more relevant data and ensuring that the youth voice was a key component of the effort, staff is now returning with the latest report.
The State of Child & Youth report is intended to serve as a performance measurement and reporting tool associated with key components of the City’s Health in all Policies (HiAP) framework. Specifically, the report will speak to aspects of health/wellness and equity as it relates to Santa Cruz youth. Furthermore, the Children and Youth Bill of Rights and Children’s Fund are also rooted in equitable access and investment in the health and wellness of young people. The report is one of the tools used to make funding decisions for the Children’s Fund.
DISCUSSION: In March of 2023, oversight of the State of the Youth program and the Children’s Fund Oversight Committee transitioned to the City Manager’s Office. To continue building on the previous work of the subcommittee and the Parks and Recreation Department, the subcommittee held a State of the Youth community forum in May 2023. The subcommittee offered a second State of Youth and Family Town Hall in March 2025, and provided a survey that was open from January to May 2025. The forum brought together representatives of the community from all professions and cultural backgrounds and clearly demonstrated support for ensuring that Santa Cruz is a place for youth to thrive. The forum was facilitated by Vice-Mayor Kalantari-Johnson and Councilmember Golder with the ultimate goal of utilizing feedback from the forum in combination with updated data from a variety of resources to produce a second, comprehensive State of Child & Youth Well-Being report for 2025. Members of the Youth Liaison Program participated in both the planning and facilitation of the town hall meeting and guided discussions around some of the biggest challenges youth face today and ideas to support their wellbeing.
This report on The State of Child & Youth Wellbeing is a companion to the Bill of Rights that highlights how children and youth in the city of Santa Cruz are faring in multiple dimensions — or Collective of Results and Evidence-based Investments (CORE) conditions — of health and well-being. The report provides context and data to help inform the City’s priorities, decisions, and actions to advance youth well-being in the Bill of Rights.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The proposed Council action is not a “project” under CEQA because it does not have the potential to cause a physical change in the environment directly or indirectly.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative framework designed to improve population health by integrating health considerations into decision-making processes across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is built on three core pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. Its primary goal is to ensure that policymakers fully consider the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during development. This report aligns with HiAP by supporting key rights of children and youth throughout the city.
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
22.2 FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The fiscal impact was $10,000 for consulting services provided by Optimal Solutions Consulting which will be funded from the Children's Fund.
Prepared By:
Gina Liebig
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:
Michelle Templeton
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. WELL-BEING OF YOUNG PEOPLE 2025.PDF
2. THE STATE OF CHILD AND YOUTH WELL-BEING PRESENTATION.PDF
22.3 2 0 2 5
THE WELL-BEING OF
YOUNG PEOPLE
IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Prepared by
Nicole M. Young, MSW
Optimal Solutions Consulting
1 22.4
T
ableofContents
City of Santa Cruz
Children & Youth
Bill of Rights 3
Quick List:
Opportunities
for Action 4
Our Commitment to
Young People’s
Well-being 5
City Programs 6
Actions &
Accomplishments 7
Data Snapshot 9
Community
Insights
18 Opportunities
for Action
20 2
References
23 22.5
Have a healthy mind, body, and spirit that enables them to maximize their potential.
1. Develop a healthy attachment to a parent, guardian, or caregiver and an ongoing relationship with a caring and supporting adult.
2. Have a safe and healthy environment, including homes, schools, neighborhoods, and communities.
3. Have access to quality education that promotes future success in school, career, and life.
4. Have training in life skills that will prepare them to live independently, be self-sufficient, and positively contribute to their community.
5. Have employment opportunities with protections from unfair labor practices.
6. 7.Have freedom from mistreatment, abuse, and neglect.
Voice opinions in matters of interest to them, develop their leadership capacity, and engage in their community.
8. Feel supported by the larger community and maintain a sense of hope for the future.
9. Be encouraged to explore and express their innate curiosity and creativity.
10. All children and youth have the right to:
City of Santa Cruz
Children & Youth Bill of Rights
Adopted by the Santa Cruz City Council, December 2021
“The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children — their health and safety, their material security, their education and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and included in the families and societies to which they were born.”
Unicef Report Card 7 3
22.6 Continue to develop and/or enhance child- and youth-centered City policies and programs. Amplify the voices and role of young people in City decision-making processes.
This report describes community strengths, challenges or concerns, and opportunities for action by the City of Santa Cruz to promote and protect the rights and well-being of young people from birth to age 24. Key themes are listed below for quick reference.
Quick List: Opportunities for Action
Opportunities for Action
Increase and/or enhance recreational facilities or activities for young people of all ages.
Engage with young people and families regularly and consistently, in places and ways that are natural and convenient for them.
Explore new revenue sources. Communicate with the public about how the City is using its current funding and resources to support the well-being of young people and their families.
Continue to expand and deepen partnerships with other
organizations serving children, youth, and young adults.
Strengths & Promising Trends Challenges & Concerns
1.Child care costs and availability
2.Mental health and wellness
3.Substance abuse and risky behavior
4.Education and opportunities
5.Safety
1.Youth-centered programming
2.Youth Liaison program
3.Children’s Fund grants
4.Strong Start “birth assets”
5.Student well-being
4 22.7
All young people — children, youth, and young adults — have the right to live happy, healthy, fulfilling lives, no matter who they are, what they look like, where they were born, where they live, what language they speak, or what they believe. No young person should be treated unfairly for any reason.
Our Commitment to the Well-being
of Young People in Santa Cruz
Yet structural inequities exist in both the public and private sectors and across all systems that touch the lives of young people and their families: education, health, housing, employment, criminal justice, child care, philanthropy, and more. The inequities stem from historical and ongoing patterns of discrimination based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. They are "structural" because they are deeply embedded in society's institutions, laws, regulations, and norms, making them persistent and difficult to eliminate without systemic change.
This is why the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the Children & Youth Bill of Rights (Bill of Rights) in December 2021, becoming the first body of electeds in the county to do so. The Bill of Rights serves as both a compass and an accountability tool to ensure that City leaders keep the needs of young people at the forefront of decisions about budgets and government.
This biannual report on The Well-Being Of Young People in the City of Santa Cruz (Well-being Report) highlights strengths, challenges, and opportunities for action related to the well-being of young people, from birth to age 24. The Well-being Report provides data and insights from the community to help inform the City’s priorities, policies, programs, and actions. The report was informed by information gathered through:
A bilingual online survey co-developed by the City and Youth Liaisons and administered by the City. Twenty-five adults and one youth responded.
A Youth and Family Town Hall, hosted by the City and co-developed and cofacilitated with Youth Liaisons. Attendees were primarily “youth allies” – staff of youth-serving agencies and other community liaisons.
Community-level data
Departmental updates on actions that the City Council and staff have taken since the 2023 Well-being Report.
Planning meetings with a subcommittee of City Councilmembers, staff, and Youth Liaisons. 5
22.8 Opportunities for youth to develop leadership skills, job seeking skills, and work experience through programs such as:
Teen Job Fair, the paid Teen Intern Program, and the Summer Youth Trails Program Junior Leader program and Junior Guard Captain Corps
Youth Liaison program
Year-round programming, including seasonal classes, summer camps, and enrichment activities
21 playgrounds, 3 skate parks, multiple beaches, athletic fields, a BMX park, and bicycle pump tracks
Free or discounted facility use or rental rates for youth sports organizations The City of Santa Cruz offers multiple programs for young people that align with and advance the Children and Youth Bill of Rights.
City Programs for Young People Ages 0-24
Recreation Activities and Facilities
6 Support and Safe Spaces
Teen Center - a safe and welcoming place for youth to have daily support from caring staff, get academic help, participate in group discussions, and experience community outings
School-based lessons on online safety and cyberbullying offered by the Santa Cruz Police Department
Leadership Development and Work Experience
The London Nelson Community Center is home to the Santa Cruz Teen Center, the Children’s Theatre, and the County Office of Education’s London Nelson Community School
The City also hosts the Museum of Natural History in Tyrell Park for a nominal fee ($1/year) and partners with the Museum on their Garden Learning Center, school field trips, and service learning opportunities
Community Spaces and Partnerships
22.9 Since the release of the 2023 Well-being Report, the City of Santa Cruz has taken concrete actions to increase access to opportunities and supports for young people who live in Santa Cruz.
Actions & Accomplishments
7 Key accomplishments include:
Used the Children & Youth Bill of Rights
and the 2023 State of Child & Youth
Well-being Report to inform
development of the Children’s Fund
grantmaking process and the SugarSweetened Beverage Revenue Measure Implemented plans to open Harvey
West Pool, with the goal of opening by
Memorial Day 2025
Hired a Recreation Coordinator, which
enhanced the Teen Center’s capacity to
continue providing critical services to
youth, often in partnership with Santa
Cruz City Schools
Trained high school students on
Student Safety & Wellness Programs
(healthy relationships, dating violence,
cyberbullying, violence prevention) in
partnership with Santa Cruz City
Schools
Resumed the Public Safety Teen
Academy in 2023, a collaboration
between the Santa Cruz Police and Fire
Departments and the District Attorney's
Office
Partnered with United Way’s Youth
Action Network to create the City’s
Youth Liaison program, which began in
October 2024 with four Youth Liaisons.
The Youth Liaisons are a connection
between young people and City
Councilmembers, ensuring that youth
perspectives are considered in
decision-making processes. The
current Youth Liaisons serve as
representatives on four City
committees and commissions. This
increases youth voice and leadership
in the City’s decision-making
processes. Each Liaison receives a
stipend of $500.
Shared strategies and collaborated
with County staff around efforts to
diversify recruitment and
representation on City and County
committees and commissions. In
August 2024, the County provided an
update on their Youth Advisory Task
Force to the Health in All Policies City
Council Committee. The City’s Parks
and Recreation Department is
currently exploring ways to best
integrate youth into City decisionmaking processes.
22.10 Actions & Accomplishments
8 Continued
The Children’s Fund Advisory Committee (CFAC) established funding priorities and the application process for the distribution of the Children’s Fund. In 2024, the City Council approved the CFAC’s funding recommendations, awarding over $740,000 in 2- year grants. Eighteen programs received Children’s Funds to provide services to City of Santa Cruz children and youth ages 24 and younger, with a particular focus on reaching youth impacted by poverty, trauma, or violence.
The remaining two-thirds of the funds
($501,009) was awarded to agencies to
provide a range of services for youth and
young adults ages 6 to 24, including:
Culturally responsive mental health
education and services;
Food justice and empowerment;
Free or reduced-cost afterschool and
recreation activities;
Inclusive recreational activities;
Grief counseling; and
Youth leadership and engagement in
local government
One-third of the funds ($240,000) was
awarded to agencies that provide early
care and education for children under
age 6.
Grantees are using the funds in various
ways, including:
Expanding infant/toddler care
Providing scholarships and slidingscale tuition for families with low incomes
Providing nutritious meals
Providing trauma-informed mental
health support that includes play
therapy and home visits
33% 66%
22.11 Age
Children, youth, and young adults (young people), ages 0-24, make up nearly half (42%) of the City of Santa Cruz's population of 60,953 people. This percentage is higher than in other cities and the overall county. 1
Data Snapshot: The Well-being of
Young People in the City of Santa Cruz
The majority of people ages 0-
24 in the City are young adults,
ages 18-24. 2
9 Income Level
Young adults ages 18-24 years make up the largest share (85%) of people ages 0-24 in the City with incomes below the poverty level. The remaining 15% are children or teens under age 18. 3
22.12 Race and Ethnicity
Fifty-eight percent of young people under age 25 in the City of Santa Cruz identify as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color (BIPOC). 4
10 Language
About 34% of children and youth and 25% of adults in the City of Santa Cruz speak a language other than English at home. Spanish is spoken most often, followed by IndoEuropean, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other languages. 5
22.13 Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
Fifty-one percent of young people in the City of Santa Cruz are female, and 49% are male. The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), completed by a sample of students in grades 7, 9, 11 and Non-Traditional (NT) schools, provides a more nuanced understanding of how students in the Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) District define their gender and sexual orientation. Data from the 2022-23 CHKS are the most recent data available.
6 Between 2–5% of students in grades 7-9 and Non-Traditional schools who completed the CHKS identified their gender as Nonbinary or Something Else. Another 2–5% said they are Transgender or are Not Sure. The remaining students either did not answer this question (3–5%) or said they are not transgender (86–92%). 7 11 In the same survey, 15–20% of student respondents identified their sexual orientation as either Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB) or Something Else, while 4–10% were Not Sure. 8
22.14 Positive Trends in Young People’s Well-being
In 2021, the City of Santa Cruz had a
Strong Start Score of 10.2. This means
that babies were born with an average of
10.2 out of 12 “birth assets” that promote
resilience. The Strong Start Score is a
measure of the conditions into which
children are born. It is calculated by
counting the number of birth assets in
four domains:
12 Strong Start Score
9 In Santa Cruz City Elementary Schools, the percentage of all 3rd grade students meeting or exceeding grade-level standards for English Language Arts/Literacy has been improving since the pandemic. However, the percentage is significantly lower among students who are Latine, Economically Disadvantaged (families have low incomes), and have ever been classified as an English Learner.
3rd Grade English Language Arts/Literacy
10 22.15
Santa Cruz City School students in grades 6-12 are self-reporting improved levels of social-emotional wellbeing, satisfaction with their families and themselves, and feelings of belonging and purpose. These upward trends are good news, particularly after the concerning declines during the pandemic.
13 Student Well-being
11 The percentage of Santa Cruz
City High students who
graduate high school within
four years remains high. This
is true among all students,
with no or minimal
differences between student
groups based on racial or
ethnic identities.
High School Graduation Rates
12 22.16
Residents in the City of Santa Cruz have access to parks and open spaces. This reflects the strengths of the City’s policies and programs.
14 Access to Parks and Open Spaces
13 Data on young people who
were unhoused are not
available at the city level.
However, countywide, the
percentages of children (0-
17 years old) and young
adults (18-24 years old)
decreased in 2024, after a
spike in 2023.
100% of City residents live within a half mile of a park. 74% of City residents live in areas with 3 or more acres of parks or open space per 1,000 residents
The number of persons experiencing homelessness in the City of Santa Cruz decreased significantly between 2022 and 2024. The percentage of persons experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered decreased to 58% in 2024.
People Who are Unhoused
14 22.17
Gaps and Barriers to Young People’s Well-being
There is an extreme shortage of child care and afterschool care in the City of Santa Cruz. If every family sought care for their children, there would only be enough spaces to meet 16% of the need for infant/toddler care (0-24 months) and 27% of the need for afterschool care (5-12 years). Similarly, there are only enough subsidized spaces to serve one-third of children ages 0-12 who are eligible for subsidized care. 15 Child Care and Afterschool Care
15 Countywide, the majority of parents/caregivers read frequently with their young children (ages 0-5). However, the percentage of parents/caregivers who said they read every day of the week decreased in 2023, with a corresponding increase in parents/caregivers who said they read 1-2 days per week. This may be a sign of the impact of stress on family bonding time.
Family Reading
16 This data should be interpreted with caution, due to the small sample size of the survey.
22.18 The percentage of Santa Cruz City Schools 8th grade students meeting or exceeding grade-level standards for Mathematics increased across all students groups in the 2023 school year but then declined in 2024. Percentages have not returned to prepandemic levels for any of the student groups, but percentages are lowest among students who are Latino (14%) and have Ever been identified as an English Learners (11%).
16 8 Grade Mathematics
th 17
The percentage of Santa Cruz City Schools students who said they had one or more drinks of alcohol in the past 30 days increased between 2021 and 2023, particularly among 11th grade students. The percentage was highest in 2023 among students who attend Non-Traditional, or alternative, schools.
Substance Use
18 Over half of the renters in the
City spend 30% or more of their
household income on rent.
Although this percentage has
decreased over time, many
families are still struggling to
make ends meet.
Housing Affordability
19, 20
Countywide, 33% of households have incomes that are below the Real Cost Measure, — the minimum income necessary for a household to afford basic living expenses such as housing, food, child care, and transportation.
22.19 The high cost and limited availability of child care was a common concern, particularly among survey participants, as seen in the quotes below. Some families also need afterschool care and child care outside of traditional work hours, but the options are limited. Additionally, although recreation programs are not meant to be a substitute for quality early care and education, families with young children expressed a desire for more options for summer camps and recreation activities for children under age 6.
Participants in the Youth and Family Survey and the Town Hall shared their insights and feedback about their biggest concerns about the wellbeing of young people in the City of Santa Cruz.
Community Insights
Child Care
17 The majority of responses fell into one of the following five categories:
Affordable quality childcare for 0-3 year-olds is the single most important thing we need more of in this city.
– Survey respondent (parent)
I'm pregnant and looking for infant care when I have to go back to work. Every center we talked to for infant care were booked out with a waitlist of 1 to 1.5 years from today (aka, the earliest I could get my child in — signing up at 4 months pregnant — would be when they're 7-13 months old.
– Survey participant (parent)
Childcare is a huge problem for families with young children in Santa Cruz. There isn't enough of it. It's wildly expensive, and this even extends to elementary years.
Our local emblem school has an afterschool care program, but it only has capacity for 1/5 of the school's population and the waitlist is endless. It's no surprise young families are leaving the area in droves.
– Survey participant (parent)
22.20 Anxiety, depression, and stress among children, youth, and young adults was the predominant concern mentioned in the survey, particularly when combined with other related concerns about peer pressure, the influence of social media, unhealthy body image, and self-esteem challenges. Town Hall participants raised questions and concerns about access to healthcare for all age groups — which is closely related to accessing mental health care — and how to provide more services or specialized supports for young children (ages 0-5), earlier and at no cost.
Mental Health and Wellness
18 During the Town Hall, participants shared their perspectives about the norms and attitudes about substance use in Santa Cruz, particularly marijuana or weed. Some described weed as having a reputation of “not really [being] a drug,” and that the prefix for City phone numbers, 420 (a number associated with cannabis consumption), might contribute to an undesirable image or perception of Santa Cruz.
Some Town Hall participants discussed the normalization of marijuana use as the number of consumption lounges and dispensaries — some of which are located near schools — has grown. Some shared concerns about substance use among elementary and middle school students and the need for prevention and intervention as early as 3rd – 5th grade.
Substance Abuse and Risky Behavior
Several survey participants identified lack of access to quality education and opportunities, job opportunities, and affordability of higher education as high-priority concerns. One survey participant said: “Addressing generational inequality when lowcost or free youth service workers are not earning enough to pay their own costs of living is the main problem to be solved by a coordinated, multi-faceted systems approach, not piecemeal.”
Education and Opportunities
Two survey participants
identified Safe streets
and Safety/violence in
schools as one of their
top three concerns, and
both were parents of
children under age 6.
Safety …I simply do not feel safe letting my children play outside on their own, not like I used to as a kid.
People using residential streets like they're
freeways, texting and driving. The kids on the
electric bikes driving like they're on motorcycles ...
but in the wrong side of the road or the sidewalk.
It's terrifying. No basic traffic laws are enforced,
clearly not in way that has any effect anyway.
– Survey participant (parent)
22.21 19
Survey and Town Hall participants provided input and insights about City policies and programs that would address their concerns and make life better for young people and families.
Opportunities for Action
Key themes included:
Continue to develop and/or enhance child- and youth-centered City policies and programs. Amplify the voices and role of young people in City decisionmaking processes.
Increase and/or enhance recreational facilities or activities for young people of all ages.
Engage with young people and families regularly and consistently, in places and ways that are natural and convenient for them.
Explore new revenue sources. Communicate with the public about how the City is using its current funding and resources to support the well-being of young people and their families.
Continue to expand and deepen partnerships with other organizations serving children, youth, and young adults.
These themes, responses, and quotes from participants are summarized on the following pages.
Each of the suggestions will require further discussion and planning to determine whether and how the City should pursue them and identify partners and other resources needed to succeed. However, these suggestions represent Opportunities for Action that can be designed and implemented with youth and community leaders.
22.22 Continue to develop and/or enhance child- and youth-centered City policies and programs. Amplify the voices and role of young people in City decisionmaking processes.
Increase access to affordable, high quality early childhood education programs
Create opportunities for groups of school-age children to connect around things they have in common
Provide education about safety for school-age children
Increase access to afterschool activities
Improve mental health support and counseling services
Strengthen substance abuse prevention and treatment programs Increase youth-friendly options downtown
Offer more recreational activities and spaces (examples described below)
Improve public transportation for youth (routes to school, public facilities, on-time operations)
Provide more internship opportunities for high school-aged youth Regulate marketing of vapes to kids (Tobacco Product Waste ban) Opportunities for Action
20 Increase and/or enhance recreational facilities or activities for young people of all ages.
Summer programs for toddlers and preschoolers
Recreation activities for children under age 6
Youth-oriented open space
Art and music programs and events
Free events and activities
Downtown activities
Sports fields
Skate parks
Year-round Junior Guards or surf club
Aquatics (swimming pool, open swim, swim lessons)
“Young people want a tribe, and we need to help build that for kids.” – Town Hall participant
22.23 21
Create ways for ordinary people to share and express concerns or needs
Recognize who can’t attend [City-hosted] meetings (families, youth, etc.) and gather information in other ways
Find ways to amplify voices of youth who [were] not at the [Town Hall] Hold feedback sessions (or focus groups) at places where children, youth, young adults, and families are — schools, sports, arts, child care, Teen Center, Boys and Girls Club, etc. Do this periodically (instead of one main event), since needs often change throughout the year
Continue integrating Youth Liaisons into the City’s planning and decision-making processes. Communicate with the community about the Youth Liaisons’ roles and how they are influencing City policies and programs
“Youth want a public pool, a world-class aquatic facility where tournaments can happen, aquatics, soccer, etc.” – Town Hall participant “The City could buy warehouses and convert them to fields, indoor fields, and courts to alleviate competition for limited space in Santa Cruz – possible revenue generation.” – Town Hall participant
“Reimagine retail space as recreational space.” – Town Hall participant “Depot Park has a great field, but with its central location it could house a Recreation Center with indoor courts, weight rooms, dance studios, and a swimming pool so that families can access low cost recreational centers in the City. Many other cities have these — Santa Cruz should too.” – Survey respondent (parent)
Engage with young people and families regularly and consistently, in places and ways that are natural and convenient for them.
“Young residents have offered many good suggestions at youth-oriented meetings. Yet their info doesn't get integrated into the meetings' results/info. This is unfortunate since their input is the direct pulse of Santa Cruz youth needs.” – Survey participant (grandparent)
22.24 22
Examples include, but are not limited to:
Look to, and consult with, other similar communities and sister cities to learn about and explore models
Partner with Santa Cruz City Elementary Schools, Santa Cruz County Office of Education, First 5 Santa Cruz County, and other early childhood educators to support local implementation of Universal PreK, including Transitional Kindergarten
Continue to expand and deepen partnerships with other organizations serving children, youth, and young adults.
Use funds from the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage tax wisely
[Increase] awareness of the Children’s Fund and how resources are allocated
Look for ways to generate funding to have positive impacts on the community
Explore new revenue sources. Communicate with the public about how the City is using its current funding and resources to support the well-being of young people and their families.
Looking Ahead
The City of Santa Cruz remains committed to promoting and protecting the rights and well-being of children, youth, young adults, particularly during times of heightened stress and uncertainty.
While the City cannot solve all the challenges that young people and their families are facing, the City Council and staff will continue to build relationships and use their institutional power to advocate for and implement policies and programs that will help make life better for young people in the City.
This Well-Being Report reflects the City’s commitment to listen to young people and families, reflect on strengths and challenges, and take action so that all young people in Santa Cruz—regardless of age, background, or identity—feel seen, supported, and hopeful about their futures.
22.25 23
References
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (2023). Sex by Age. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table B01001.
1. 2. ibid.
U.S. Census Bureau (2019-2023). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Age American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
3. U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Sex by Age. American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Selected Population Detailed Tables, Table B01001.
4. U.S. Census Bureau (2023). Age by Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
5. 6. ACS 5-year estimates (2017-2021). Sex by Age, Table B01001.
Santa Cruz City High School District (SCCHSD). California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), 2022-2023:
Main Report. San Francisco: WestEd for the California Department of Education. Accessed March 2025 at https://data.calschls.org/resources/Santa_Cruz_City_High_2223_Sec_CHKS_Grd6-8.pdf
7. 8. ibid.
9. Strong Start Score: California Strong Start Index, 2021. https://strongstartindex.org/map 3rd Grade English Language Arts/Literacy: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASPP), 2018-2024. https://caaspp-elpac.ets.org/caaspp/.
10. Student Well-being Trends: Aggregate report provided by Santa Cruz City Schools, Grades 6-12, 2017-2024.
11. High School Graduation Rates: California Department of Education (accessed via County Office of Education Data Portal). https://dataportal.santacruzcoe.org/.
12. Access to Parks and Open Spaces: Parks for All Californians, Park Access Tool, 2020. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess/?
overlays1=parks%2Cnoparkaccess&overlays2=parks%2Cparksper1000.
13. Unhoused: Housing for Health, via ASR, Point In Time Survey 2024. https://www.housingforhealthpartnership.org/LearningCenter/Point-in-TimeCounts.aspx
14. Subsidized Child Care: Childhood Advisory Council Strategic Plan, 2023-2028. https://santacruzcoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Santa-Cruz-County-CAC-Strategic-PlanFINAL.pdf
15. Family Reading: California Health Interview Survey. Days Per Week Reading Books with Child 0-5. 2023. https://ask.chis.ucla.edu/AskCHIS
16. 8th Grade Mathematics: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASPP), 2018-2024. https://caaspp-elpac.ets.org/caaspp/.
17. Substance Use: California Healthy Kids Survey, 2023. (accessed via County Office of Education Data Portal). https://dataportal.santacruzcoe.org/.
18. Rent Spending: DataShare Santa Cruz County. https://www.datasharescc.org/indicators/index/view? indicatorId=393&localeId=281
19. Households Below the Real Cost Measure: Data Share Santa Cruz County. https://www.datasharescc.org/indicators/index/view?indicatorId=14927&localeId=281
20. 22.26
The Well-being of Young People
May 13, 2025
in the City of Santa Cruz
22.27 Our Process
Planning meetings
• Councilmembers
• Staff
• Youth Liaisons
• Consultant
Community Engagement
• Bilingual online survey,
co-designed by staff
and Youth Liaisons
• Youth and Family Town
Hall, co-designed and
co-facilitated by City
staff and Youth
Liaisons
Department Updates
• Actions and
accomplishments
since the 2023 Wellbeing report
Data
• Community-level
data (specific to
City of Santa
Cruz)
22.28 2025 Well-being Report
City of Santa Cruz Children & Youth Bill
of Rights
Quick List: Opportunities for Action
Our Commitment to Young People’s
Well-being
City Programs
Actions & Accomplishments
Data Snapshot
Community Insights
Opportunities for Action
References
22.29 Quick List: Opportunities for Action
Strengths & Promising Trends Challenges & Concerns
1. Youth-centered programming
2. Youth Liaison program
3. Children’s Fund grants
4. Strong Start “birth assets”
5. Student well-being
1. Child care costs and availability
2. Mental health and wellness
3. Substance abuse and risky behavior
4. Education and opportunities
5. Safety
Opportunities for Action
Continue to develop and/or enhance child- and youth-centered City policies and programs. Amplify the voices and role of young people in City decision-making processes.
Engage with young people and families regularly and consistently, in places and ways that are natural and convenient for them.
Increase and/or enhance recreational facilities or activities for young people of all ages.
Continue to expand and deepen partnerships with other organizations serving children, youth, and young adults.
Explore new revenue sources. Communicate with the public about how the City is using its current funding and resources to support the well-being of young people and their families.
22.30 Youth Liaisons
Insights Recommendations
22.31 Brittany Inclan
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 1:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda 5.13.25 Item #22 Youth Well Being
Agenda 5.13.25 Item #22 Youth Well Being
Dear Council,
While generally feel that youth well being is primarily the responsibilities of parents, no one can say it isn't important and the city could do a lot helping out, and does. It also does not in many ways.
What is disturbing is the first few paragraphs under the "Our commitment ..." P2 of the well being document. While there is something to be said in favor of parts of those comments, mostly they are pure leftist drivel , a Marxist "victim -oppressor" far left narrative that paints a picture of oppressions and victimization that go unstated/unproven, and are in themselves a very unhealthy perspective for youth to grow up enduring or believing in.
As far as equal treatment goes, it DOES matter what language people speak, they should speak ENGLISH if they are citizens, and if illegals should probably not be here at all since they are then criminals.
I see zero reference to illegal aliens, telling. I see zero reference to the amount of money that is spent on illegal aliens, telling. How much is that?
There are far too many uses of the words "justice" in most city documents, including here. "Food justice?" More leftist drivel. Who writes this stuff?
I would imagine the reason why such a large number of 0-24 yrs "youth" exist in the city is because, big surprise, the 10's of thousands of UCSC students 18-24 which are adults. Strange definition of youth.
If you consult UC's own documents, the number of students actually from Santa Cruz is minuscule, and large percentages are from LA, or out of city, county, state, and country even students. Here today, in a few years gone. Anyone attending UC not from Santa Cruz hardly deserves our financial concern by permanent residents. Yep, they are residents, (maybe UC shouldn't be in the city?), but very temporary ones.
2-5% of youth 7-9'th grade said they considered themselves transgender or couldn't say? WHAT? I'd say we are failing at education or something
15–20% of same student respondents identified their sexual orientation as either Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB) or Something Else, while 4–10% were Not Sure.
22.32 I seriously doubt people of that age are developed enough to know squat about their gender or sexuality, and those figures are a growing trend that is the result of leftist cultural revolutionary indoctrination, not some liberated narrative.
A big problem you don't even acknowledge. Not well being, confused indoctrination, and it is getting worse.
Trans ideology including trans rights are based on a reality falsehood. Biological Men cannot be become women (and visa versa) and should not be entitled to the rights, and protections of biological women, period. BY not acknowledging this, you are making that problem worse, and their well being worse.
I could go on, but you get the idea (or should but won't).
Sincerely, Garrett Philipp
22.33 The Well-being of Young People
May 13, 2025
in the City of Santa Cruz
22.34 Our Process
Planning meetings
• Councilmembers• Staff• Youth Liaisons• Consultant
Community Engagement
• Bilingual online survey,
co-designed by staff and Youth Liaisons
• Youth and Family Town
Hall, co-designed and co-facilitated by City staff and Youth Liaisons Department Updates
• Actions and
accomplishments since the 2023 Wellbeing report
Data
• Community-level
data (specific to City of Santa Cruz)
22.35 2025 Well-being Report
City of Santa Cruz Children & Youth Bill
of Rights
Quick List: Opportunities for Action Our Commitment to Young People’s Well-being
City Programs Actions & Accomplishments Data Snapshot Community Insights Opportunities for Action References
22.36 Quick List: Opportunities for Action
Strengths & Promising Trends Challenges & Concerns
1. Youth-centered programming2. Youth Liaison program3. Children’s Fund grants4. Strong Start “birth assets”5. Student well-being
1. Child care costs and availability2. Mental health and wellness3. Substance abuse and risky behavior4. Education and opportunities5. Safety Opportunities for Action
Continue to develop and/or enhance child- and youth-centered City policies and programs. Amplify the voices and role of young people in City decision-making processes.Engage with young people and families regularly and consistently, in places and ways that are natural and convenient for them.Increase and/or enhance recreational facilities or activities for young people of all ages.Continue to expand and deepen partnerships with other organizations serving children, youth, and young adults.Explore new revenue sources. Communicate with the public about how the City is using its current funding and resources to support the well-being of young people and their families.
22.37 Youth Liaisons
Insights Recommendations
22.38 From left to right: Youth Liaisons Sammy
Lambert, Alan Lee, Ben Sommerville at the
Youth & Family Town Hall
Scarlett Folger presenting to CPVAW the
planning for Sexual Assault Awareness
Month activities at Pacific Collegiate
School with Monarch Services
22.39 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE SANTA CRUZ DOWNTOWN PLAN EXPANSION FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion (the "Project") was issued by the Planning and Community Development Department of the City of Santa Cruz on September 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a SEIR Scoping Meeting was held on September 28, 2022, to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the SEIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR" or "Draft SEIR") was prepared and issued by the City for agency and public review and comment on January 8, 2025, for a 45-day review period that ended on February 21, 2025; and WHEREAS, seventy-four (74) comment letters and emails were received on the Draft SEIR from agencies, organizations and private individuals; and WHEREAS, a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR" or "Final SEIR"), incorporating all comments received on the DSEIR and responses to comments was issued on April 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the complete Final SEIR consists of the January 2025 Draft SEIR, comments received on the document and responses to comments contained in the April 2025 FSEIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft SEIR that also are included in the FSEIR, appendices to the Draft and Final SEIRs, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Reg Section 15000 et seq.) (the "State CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the FSEIR and the Project on April 17, 2025;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the FSEIR and the Project on May 13, 2025, at which time it considered the Planning Commission comments as well as staff and public comments from both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
23.1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
The City Council certifies that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto. The City Council hereby finds that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final SEIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received prior to adopting this resolution.
The City Council therefore hereby certifies the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED:
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
23.2 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 05/08/2025
AGENDA OF: 05/13/2025
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Downtown Plan Expansion, Extending and Amending the Downtown Specific Plan, Including for Areas South of Laurel Street, Roughly to the Roundabout at Pacific and Center Streets, and Making Related Changes to the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, Beach/South of Laurel Plan, and Zoning. Applicant: City of Santa Cruz. CEQA: EIR (PL)
LOCATION: District 4
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR); 2) Adopt a resolution adopting the Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the significant and unavoidable impact to Historic Resources;
3) Adopt a resolution amending the 2030 General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map; 4) Adopt a resolution amending the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan and the LCP Land Use Map;
5) Adopt a resolution amending the Downtown Plan, which constitute LCP Implementation Plan (IP) amendments;
6) Adopt a resolution amending the Beach/South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan, which constitute LCP IP amendments; and
7) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending the Municipal Code including the zoning map, as proposed in the attached documents, which constitute LCP IP amendments.
BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz (City) Downtown Plan was first adopted as the Downtown Recovery Plan in 1991 in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. The Downtown Plan Expansion project proposes to adjust the boundaries of the Downtown Plan to
23.3 incorporate the area south of Laurel Street between the west side of Pacific Avenue and the San Lorenzo River, and south to the roundabout at Center Street and Pacific Avenue, including three parcels on Center Street. Maps of the project area are included in the attachments.
Timeline and Council Direction
In late 2020, City Council provided support for project grant funding, and in 2021, provided direction to staff regarding the intended boundary for the study area. The project boundary was selected based on the goals for the project together with the existing zoning, General Plan, and physical conditions in the area. Below are the goals for the expansion of the Downtown Plan, which are implemented through the proposed project:
1. Increase the total number of housing units that can be built in the City by adding capacity for multi-family housing.
2. Create opportunities for public amenities and infrastructure including parks, the Santa Cruz Riverwalk trail, or other spaces for community use.
3. Better connect downtown with the river and beach areas, which will:
1. Give the community better access to the river and beach and
2. Help visitors see more of Santa Cruz, including its local businesses.
4. Work with the Santa Cruz Warriors to establish design standards and use allowances that accommodate potential development of a permanent arena facility.
5. Create new economic opportunities for local businesses and workers.
6. Generate new tax revenue for the City.
7. Improve the pedestrian experience through thoughtful urban design measures.
Over the past four years, the project has included various phases of information gathering, community outreach, analysis, collaboration with the Santa Cruz Warriors and other major property owners, and drafting of the Downtown Plan amendments and supporting documents.
Following City Council direction on project initiation in 2020 and 2021, the City Council provided direction on the effort at three other key points: in June of 2022, January of 2023, June of 2024, and October of 2024.
In June 2022, the City Council directed staff to initiate work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the area identified for expansion of the boundary of the Downtown Plan and:
A minimum of 1600 housing units;
Maximum heights not to exceed 175 feet on one taller building and not to exceed 150 feet on remaining taller buildings, with each height being inclusive of anticipated height increases associated with a 50% density bonus and with the taller building elements comprising only a portion of shorter podium building forms; An option for auto circulation including the permanent closure of Spruce Street east of Pacific Avenue;
The creation of new civic space in the closed Spruce Street right of way; Enhanced pedestrian connections between the Downtown and the beach; Options for the location of a permanent arena facility for the Santa Cruz Warriors, with a preferred location being on the south side of Spruce Street between Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
23.4 City Council direction in January 2023 revised the June 2022 direction to specify that the plan should strive to achieve three key outcomes:
The Plan area should support the addition of around 1,600 new housing units (while studying up to 1,800 units in the Environmental Impact Report). Of these 1,600 new units, at least 20% of them (320 units) should be available at belowmarket-rate rent or sale prices. The land use requirements should seek to limit development to a maximum of twelve stories in height to the greatest extent possible.
In June of 2024, during a joint session of the Planning Commission and City Council, consensus direction was provided stating that staff should:
Return at the earliest possible date with an analysis of the following recommendations for inclusion in the Downtown Expansion Plan:
Leave the existing General Plan densities in place, except that blocks B, D, and H will be studied at 3.5 FAR
Support an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone for blocks A, B, C, and D; and Provide incentives in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to allow increases in FAR to a point that sufficiently increases the use of the City’s Density Bonus Law (thus increasing the total number of affordable units), and the maximum height to 12 stories for development, working towards the goal of providing at least 20% of the units as affordable.
At the October 2024 meeting, City Council provided direction on the Downtown Density Bonus proposed in the Plan:
The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone notion above is to be integrated into the Downtown Density Bonus policy.
The Downtown Density Bonus policy should be available to all sites in the South of Laurel Area, in the same way that the State Density Bonus is available to those parcels; The Downtown Density Bonus should include sufficient incentives to out-compete the State Density Bonus for sites within the Downtown Plan Expansion project area. The City Council directed staff to work with a Planning Commission subcommittee to draft guidance for the Architectural Review Committees that will be convened to review project applications on an as-needed basis. This work was completed in Fall of 2024.
The Downtown Density Bonus Policy should facilitate the construction of affordable housing in the following order of preference:
The most appealing option should be that market rate and below market rate units are built together on the same parcel,
The second most appealing option should be that below market rate units are constructed off-site from the market rate units, and
The least attractive option should be that an in-lieu fee is paid by a market rate developer. Any funds generated by the in-lieu fee should be leveraged to support below market rate housing that includes a preference for local households.
In response to these directions from City Council over the past four years, and robust input from hundreds of community members, staff has developed the proposed Downtown Plan
23.5 amendments and all the supporting policy documents that constitute the Downtown Plan Expansion project. This report will focus on how the staff proposal responds to the above direction from City Council and demonstrates how the proposal meets the outlined goals of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Overview
The City has long expressed a desire to improve connections between the Downtown core and the popular destinations at the Municipal Wharf, Main Beach, and the Boardwalk. This desire for connection is one of several factors that led to the selection of the South of Laurel Area (SOLA) as the best location to expand the boundaries of the existing Downtown Plan. By changing the Downtown Plan boundary to include SOLA, Santa Cruz will expand opportunities to add housing, businesses, public spaces, a new multipurpose arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors, and enhanced bike and pedestrian connections. This is an important step in increasing the vibrancy of the downtown and offering more amenities to Santa Cruz residents and visitors alike. The many benefits of this project are briefly described below and further detailed in the attached Downtown Plan Appendix 8 and the Amendments to Downtown Plan Chapter 4.
Key Highlights
Downtown Santa Cruz is amenity-rich and a primary urban hub in the region. The Downtown Plan Expansion project seeks to carry its pedestrian-friendly retail environment south of Laurel Street in a cohesive manner to continue that positive experience for residents, workers, and visitors. As development in SOLA takes place over time, a few major components will give shape to the character of the changing neighborhood:
Relocation of the Laurel Street Extension to the base of Beach Hill in order to allow the closure of Spruce Street to automobiles;
A new public plaza at Spruce Street with safe, welcoming places to pass through or linger in as it connects to the San Lorenzo Riverwalk;
An upgraded San Lorenzo Riverwalk to include a wider path for cyclists, separated areas for pedestrians and bicycles, and patio areas;
Ground floor commercial businesses along the Riverwalk and elsewhere providing employment and generating new tax revenue that are accommodated by changes to the land use policies in the area;
New housing that is market and below-market rate;
A new Downtown Density Bonus Policy that achieves the minimum 20% below-market rate housing target set by the City Council;
A Downtown Density Bonus Policy that supports funding for a local tenant preference affordable housing program to further equity and anti-displacement efforts; Zoning for a new Arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors;
New development design standards and guidelines in the Downtown Plan, building on the existing design sensibilities of Pacific Avenue, north of Laurel Street; More support for pedestrians and cyclists with widened sidewalks, protected bike lanes, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and a new Roundabout at the intersection of Front Street and Pacific Avenue.
All these features work together to achieve the goals of the plan and execute the direction provided by City Council. The components are related and interconnected, generating a cohesive
23.6 policy approach that seeks to achieve the vision of a new chapter for the SOLA neighborhood, where both existing and new residents and businesses can enjoy new opportunities for housing, business, and recreation.
Frequently-Raised Issues
Building Heights and State Density Bonus Law. Members of the community have expressed concerns over the building heights that could be expected in the SOLA, both with and without density bonuses. First, heights planned in the area (both with and without density bonuses) have been steadily reduced as the plan has progressed. In June 2022, the Council reduced the target building heights, as noted above, and then in January 2023, the Council further reduced building heights to a target of a 12-story maximum.
Staff subsequently worked to establish a creative approach that further incentivizes maximum building heights of 85 feet, broadening the ways the City is addressing community concerns.
While the State Density Bonus could result in a building greater than 85 feet in height under the current or proposed conditions, where a floor area ratio (FAR)1 of 3.5 is the maximum controlling factor, building heights above 85 feet are unlikely to occur in SOLA for two reasons.
First and most importantly, construction requirements change substantially when buildings exceed 85 feet in height, and those changes (including but not limited to typically needing to shift to concrete or steel construction in lieu of conventional wood framing) add significant costs to a project. Second, the City’s Downtown Density Bonus strongly incentivizes developers to stay below 85 feet in height by offering unlimited FAR below that height, coupled with affordability requirements that are more competitive than the State Density Bonus.
It is also a misconception that this plan is creating a new, increased height allowance of 12 stories. That height could potentially already be achieved (and exceeded) through the State Density Bonus. This plan innovatively responds to Council’s direction by creating strong incentives for developers to cap projects at 12 stories should they wish to build buildings taller than 85 feet. In this way, the proposed 12-story option is a safety net, not meant to raise heights per se, but instead meant as good policy to out-compete options already available that could allow for buildings even taller than 12 stories.
As previously mentioned, the FAR serves as the limiting factor for development in the existing downtown and would serve as such in all of the SOLA, as proposed. The area north of Laurel Street has a FAR limit of 5, whereas the SOLA currently has a maximum FAR of 3.5 under the General Plan. The General Plan’s maximum 3.5 FAR would remain in effect in the proposed project, though it would apply to six additional parcels compared to existing conditions. For developers to exceed 85 feet in height, they typically need to have a substantial number of additional stories to make up for the cost differential between buildings below and above that height. Even in the area north of Laurel Street, where the FAR is 5 and where a 100 percent density bonus could yield an FAR of around 10, developers have not chosen to exceed 85 feet, including since the 100 percent density bonus took effect for market rate projects in 2024.
Notably, 100 percent affordable housing projects that have an unlimited density in the downtown (since the law changed in January 2020) have also not pursued heights above 85 feet, for the same reasoning related to costs. In the SOLA, with a maximum 3.5 FAR, developers would be 1 FAR refers to the ratio of building area to lot area. With a FAR of 1, a property could, for example, have a singlestory building covering the full site or a two-story building covering one half of the site.
23.7 even less likely to go over 85 feet in height than in the areas north of Laurel Street, because they will be eligible for even less square footage, meaning fewer floors above 85 feet in height, meaning greater per square-foot expenses if the 85-foot threshold is exceeded. Couple that with the aforementioned Downtown Density Bonus’ unlimited FAR for a project less than 85 feet in height, and the likelihood of buildings exceeding that height is that much more unlikely. This is exactly the case with the first project submittal for the SOLA area, where the site bounded by Laurel Street, Pacific Avenue, Spruce Street, and Front Street (the site with Ace Hardware as a current tenant) has submitted a preliminary development application that proposes to use the Downtown Density Bonus and stay under 85 feet in height.
This topic is discussed extensively in the Final Environmental Impact Report’s (FEIR’s) Master Response 1, responding to claims that the City should have studied the 100 percent density bonus and taller building heights. See pages 42 to 49 of the FEIR, available online (along with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and other related documents) at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/ceqa.
Finally, because FAR serves as the limiting factor for density bonus projects, building heights cannot occur in the forms that plan opponents claim. Inaccurate renderings have shown buildings taking up the entirety of sites that rise 20 to 30 stories. These renderings are not formal City documents and do not represent buildings that would be feasible to construct in the forms shown.
With the way FAR works, as noted above, a one-story building covering an entire property would have an FAR of 1. A 30-story building covering an entire property would have an FAR of
30. With the maximum FAR of 3.5 existing and proposed in SOLA, the maximum FAR possible under the 100% State Density Bonus is 7.0, a lower development intensity than shown in the opponents’ renderings that were submitted to Planning Commission.
Increased Development Capacities. Only six parcels are being proposed to have their General Plan development capacities increased, out of a total of 42 parcels, for a total increase in potential housing that is less than 25% relative to the current potential for development in the neighborhood. Despite this project being an extension of the existing Downtown Plan, none of the parcels in the plan area, whether proposed for increased General Plan capacity or not, allow for the same level of development intensity that is currently allowed in the Downtown area north of Laurel Street. Further, because of the state law no-net-loss requirement requiring this project to also provide units to counteract the downzonings ascribed to the 111-119 Leonard and 2394 Delaware Avenue projects (to be heard on this same Council agenda), the Downtown Expansion Project amounts to less than 150 housing units gained for the City, before any density bonuses are sought.
Given the local, regional, and statewide housing shortage, as well as the state housing targets the City is striving to meet and exceed, staff continues to believe that the downtown area is the best place for more housing, and any underutilization is a missed opportunity to achieve the City’s goals. That said, as this compromise stands, this minor increase in development capacity of six parcels still meaningfully encourages development of underutilized parcels and helps create more vibrancy in the downtown. Completely removing the increased General Plan capacity of the Plan, as some opposed to the Plan have voiced, reduces the likelihood of redevelopment, reduces the likelihood that the public infrastructure enhancements (like the Riverwalk improvements) will be built, goes against prior Council direction and the housing goals of the Downtown Expansion Plan (and more broadly, the housing goals of the City), reduces affordable
23.8 housing opportunities, and reduces chances for greater downtown vibrancy. This plan represents a small but incremental step on the path towards a more vibrant City and a prosperous downtown for all to enjoy.
Displacement of Existing Residents. While SOLA currently includes only around 100 housing units on parcels expected to redevelop, demographic data shows that many lower-income households reside in the area. State law and local ordinances provide multiple protections for households facing direct displacement due to redevelopment. For example, when low-income households are directly displaced due to any new development said households receive 42 months of relocation assistance and first right of refusal to occupy replacement low-income units, which must be provided on-site with new housing construction, or elsewhere within the City limits in the case of non-residential development. The Housing Element calls for the Council to adopt additional anti-displacement strategies, and the attached staff report for the City Council’s October 22, 2024 discussion of the Downtown Density Bonus policy speaks to existing and potential future anti-displacement protections associated with both direct and indirect displacement, including the potential establishment of local tenant protections under Senate Bill 649, the Local Tenant Preferences to Prevent Displacement Act.
The relocation requirements for the Adult Residential Care Facility located at 126 Front Street are also strictly protected by California state law. As stated in the proposed Appendix 8 of the Downtown Plan, the 47-bed facility cannot be closed or redeveloped until an alternative location is identified that can provide appropriate housing and care for all the existing residents, and all existing residents are successfully relocated to that facility or another facility of the same type.
Parking. The downtown METRO station is considered a high-quality transit station, meaning that under state law, the City cannot require parking for new projects or existing uses within a half mile of the station, which (when combined with other qualifying stations) covers all of downtown. Some members of the public have expressed concerns that no parking will be provided in new development, resulting in inconveniences for current and future residents, as well as business employees and customers. Just because parking is not required does not mean that parking will not be built. Some real estate lenders even require that parking be included as a condition of lending for a project, as they anticipate that future users will demand it, even if parking is not a requirement of the City. Market rate developers recognize both their future tenants’ needs and the lending realities of today. Parking is a significant development cost, and not having parking requirements allows for right-sizing of parking provided and can lead to greater feasibility of housing development. Every large market rate project built in the City to date has included parking. The only three large projects in the City without parking (two built and one under construction) are 100 percent affordable projects and all in close proximity to the downtown METRO station. As a supporting example, the project proposed on the aforementioned Ace Hardware site includes 256 parking stalls where no parking is required.
Vehicular Traffic and Circulation. In addition to transportation study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a local transportation analysis was prepared and posted on the project website at: www.cityofsantacruz.com/downtownplanexpansion. This local analysis is not a part CEQA review because CEQA requires review of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than the level of service analysis, which is a measure of traffic delay that many people associate with traffic as they experience it.
23.9 The local transportation analysis shows that even at full development, the plan does not by itself create transportation deficiencies for vehicle operations that cannot be mitigated. The additional development does further congestion at intersections in the City that are currently known to need improvements and are a part of the Traffic Impact Fee program. The parking supply downtown is shown to be sufficient for the low-end of anticipated residential development which provides the City time to evaluate if transportation demand management solutions will be sufficient to mitigate anticipated demand before considering the need for additional parking supply.
Undoubtedly, the City and the region will continue to add housing and jobs. From the perspective of limiting traffic, no better place exists in the region for new development than downtown. Development anywhere else in the City or region would create more traffic than is the case here, because so many daily needs (trips to restaurant, grocery store, pharmacy, retail, and entertainment uses) can be met without a personal car in the downtown.
Water Supply, Flooding, Emergency Response, and Other Issues Raised. Commenters on the DEIR included questions about these topics, as well as various others. The master responses starting on pages 49 to 65 address these and other topics.
The April 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report contains further detail on project components and consistency with the LCP policies
(https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2490&docty pe=1). For the sake of brevity, those sections have not been repeated in this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2025 which was attended by over forty members of the public. Following the staff presentation, the Planning Commission asked a number of questions ranging from details of the Downtown Density Bonus Policy, to design standards, to requirements of state law and the potential for different roadway alignments. Individual Commissioners raised concerns over options for ownership housing, the potential for the discretionary review of the Architectural Review Committee proposed with the Downtown Density Bonus to serve as a disincentive for developers, expressed appreciation for the proposed bike and pedestrian improvements shown in the plan, and made a variety of comments about building design.
When the public hearing portion of the item was opened, 22 members of the public spoke on the item, with one group, Santa Cruzans for Responsible Development, requesting additional time to address the Commission. Public comment was primarily focused on three topics: concerns over additional height and development intensity in the Downtown, requests to postpone Planning Commission action to allow for additional time to review the Final EIR, and concerns over the impact of State Density Bonus Law. Other comments mentioned issues with traffic congestion, a desire for a greater rate of below-market-rate housing, a need for new housing construction to serve a growing population, interest in creation of new community spaces and job opportunities, and the need for housing in our downtown to create demand for downtown businesses and generate energy in the area. Members of the Local Carpenter’s Union also provided comments asking the Planning Commission to add language to the Plan to encourage use of local labor that incorporates apprenticeship and benefits on new development projects.
A first motion failed due to lack of a second. Because it did not receive a second, no discussion ensued. Thus, an attachment to this report highlights various concerns associated with its content.
23.10 The Planning Commission then discussed and ultimately passed a motion to recommend that the City Council take the actions included in the Staff Recommendation at the top of this report, and additionally, recommended:
adding another qualifying option to the Downtown Density Bonus to allow for land donation;
an additional policy addressing future options for pedestrian-, bike-, and transit-focused roadway improvements to be considered as new development is added over time; further language reinforcing the activation of Spruce Street Plaza through incorporation of regular community events such as street fairs, performances, markets, and programming to ensure maintenance and safety for all users; and lastly, incorporating language encouraging developers to utilize local labor in their construction projects.
The policy recommendations of the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the attached Appendix 8 and Amendments to Downtown Plan Chapter 4. They are shown in purple text in those documents. The full text of the Commission’s recommendation is included in the attached summary of their meeting.
The additional Downtown Density Bonus qualifying option was recommended by City staff for Planning Commission consideration based on communication with local builders currently working on creating a development application that utilizes the Downtown Density Bonus. The policy option was outlined by staff for the Commission during the staff presentation and is not part of the Commission’s written agenda materials. Creating an option to allow for land donation, in conjunction with a substantial financial contribution to cover staff time and development fees, could serve to generate even more below-market rate units than the existing policy allowing for off-site development of below-market units, and it also has the potential to serve deeper levels of affordability. While the specific details of the policy were not available for Planning Commission’s review, they recommended that City Council consider the policy as part of this review. At the Commission hearing, staff noted that the policy would accomplish the following objectives:
A substantially larger amount of below-market rate housing would be produced through land dedication than through the off-site development option, City staff costs for project management would be covered by the market rate developer, and
Development fees for the affordable site would be covered by the market rate developer.
Staff has spent the intervening weeks working on the specifics of the policy, which is broadly summarized as follows:
The land donation option requires a fifty percent (50%) increase in the amount of affordable housing square footage as compared to the option where an affordable housing project is delivered to the City. Where an off-site affordable housing project is delivered, it would be expected to provide approximately 26.7% of the total market rate units as affordable. Whereas, where an off-site land dedication is provided, the City can expect to develop a total number of affordable housing units equivalent to approximately 40% of the total market rate units.
The land donation option requires the developer to entitle and dedicate the affordable housing project prior to occupancy of the Density Bonus site.
23.11 The developer would cover the costs of staff needed to manage the project by paying a fee equivalent to one year of salary and benefits for a Development Manager staff member. This currently equates to approximately $227,000. Rather than have the applicant pay for specific permit costs as those costs come due, a $9.54 per-square-foot of required affordable housing would be deposited into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The per square foot cost would escalate annually with the Consumer Price Index. The $9.54 was calculated as the average estimated persquare-foot charge for City fees associated with four recent downtown development projects – two affordable and two market rate. While using the prior projects as examples does not capture recent fee increases, this approach does offer benefits to both the applicants and the City. For applicants, this approach provides more cost certainty, as the City fees can change over time. The City benefits because the payment is due prior to occupancy of the market rate project. As various fees for the affordable housing project would not be due until occupancy of that project, this provides money to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund years earlier than when it may otherwise be collected, and it allows for the City to then use the funds to facilitate the off-site affordable housing project or other affordable housing projects in the City. For reference, in addition to providing the land with an entitled project that would be expected to provide approximately 40% of the total market rate units as affordable and in addition to paying approximately $227,000 for staff time, the preliminary review application at 201 Front Street would also pay over $580,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
If the entitled project results in more than the required amount of affordable housing, for a period of seven years from occupancy of the market rate project, the same developer can apply that excess affordable housing capacity to a future Downtown Density Bonus project.
Additional provisions address issues such as City approval of the off-site site and location, timing for performance, support for tenants currently residing at the off-site location, and entitlements for the off-site project.
These and additional details have been added to Section K, part 14 of the proposed amendments to Downtown Plan Chapter 4, attached. All changes to text that have been made since the Planning Commission hearing are shown in purple text.
While not discussed by the Planning Commission, one additional notable change to the Downtown Density Bonus criteria, shown in purple text in Section 14.c.iii.3, states that all affordable units may not be restricted in perpetuity based on state or federal restrictions..
City staff have experienced affordable housing financing challenges with perpetual affordability requirements and certain types of funding, and this change provides the flexibility, when necessary, to make that modification. A similar edit was made in Section 14.h.2, as it relates to the use of in-lieu fees.
The comments from the Commission expressed optimism for expanding housing and commercial development options in the SOLA, and their comments supported creating a “center of gravity” for Downtown around a new arena and significant public plaza space. Commissioners addressed the need for market rate and below-market rate housing for current and future community members, including for many Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycles to come, and there was a general consensus that the best place for more housing is in the Downtown area, close to employment and transportation options.
23.12 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION: The Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) held a study session on the draft of the Downtown Plan Expansion project in November of 2024. The session was held during a regularly scheduled meeting of the TPWC and provided an opportunity for the Commission to review and discuss the transportation and mobility components of the proposed plan in a forum that is open to the public. Following a staff presentation that provided background on the project with additional focus on the transportation and mobility improvements that are part of the proposal, the Commission had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the various components of the plan.
The discussion was generally supportive of the concepts of increasing intensity of development in coordination with improvements for cyclists and pedestrians. Commissioners offered a range of ideas, including ensuring space for both residential and commercial loading within the private property lines, requests for future plan lines for the SOLA area and throughout the Downtown to allow for Commission review of the details of the public rights-of-way, and questions about the details of intersection configurations and connections between plaza, roadway, and the Riverwalk. Staff responded to these questions and comments, providing context that the current project sets early goals for the overall width of the public rights of way that will allow future development to create sufficient space to ensure that build out of the envisioned cross sections is possible in the future. The Commission spent a great portion of the meeting debating the merits, costs, politics, and urban design considerations of providing parking along Pacific Avenue.
During the public hearing, one member of the public spoke at the hearing in favor of the urban design and mobility components of the plan and shared ideas for further improvements to transit options.
The Commission passed a motion “to request staff to create an alternative cross-section on Pacific Avenue south of Laurel Street, with bike transportation prioritized.” Staff has provided this alternative for the City Council in the form of the attached Alternative Pacific Avenue Cross Section. This maintains the existing right of way but modifies the overall dimensions of the sidewalks, reducing them from the proposed 16-foot inclusive of curb zone to 12-foot sidewalk and a 6.5-foot sidewalk level separated bike lane. This alternative shows sidewalk level separated bike lanes in place of on-street parking. Notably, the Fire Department is still reviewing this proposal and has concerns about the proposed layout.
The alternative cross section would eliminate 45 parking spaces along Pacific Avenue. The only existing off-street public parking within this area facility is proposed for redevelopment as part of this planning effort. Because of this, the limited on-street parking serves as an increasingly valuable resource, even when parking is balanced with other mobility needs. Parking spaces inside the Coastal Zone are also monitored by the California Coastal Commission, so the City makes an accounting of the parking spaces gained and lost through various public projects.
Through the proposed redevelopment of existing public parking lots in the project area, the project already proposes to reduce the amount of parking by approximately 67 (47 metered and 20 surface lot spaces). The additional removal of parking on Pacific Avenue, south of Laurel Street would bring this to a loss of 112 parking spaces (92 metered and 20 surface lot spaces).
Both alternatives stay within the required 3,690 spaces in the Beach and South of Laurel Planning Area, and the proposal would remain in conformance with this standard.
City staff recommends that the Council approve the cross section included in the attached Appendix 8 that preserves the on-street parking in this location. Improvements to Front Street
23.13 and the San Lorenzo Riverwalk are intended to support mobility for bicyclists moving through the project area from east to west and north to south. Pacific Avenue is prioritized for people walking, dining, and lingering along the public sidewalks, and traffic here should be slow, sticky, and mixed in order to achieve those goals.
Community Outreach
The Downtown Plan Expansion has been thoroughly debated over the past four years, and the planning work has been significantly influenced by the range of community feedback. Outcomes and feedback gathered during various outreach events and surveys are summarized on the project website at www.cityofsantacruz.com/downtownplanexpansion. Agenda reports for the public hearings are posted on the project website as well. Key connections with the community and opportunities for public feedback included the following:
December 2020: City Council public hearing
June 2021: City Council public hearing
September-October 2021: Community Survey (~35 responses) November 2021: First Community Meeting, online (~20 participants) April 2022: Second Community Meeting, in person at the Kaiser Permanente Arena (~150 participants)
May 2022: Planning Commission public hearing
May 2022: Downtown Commission study session
June 2022: City Council public hearing
September 2022: Scoping meeting for environmental review January 2023: City Council public hearing
July-August 2023: Second Community Survey (~1,000 responses) October 2023: Community Focus Groups (~50 participants discussing transportation and circulation, building design, civic spaces and the arena, and then also consisting specifically of nearby neighbors, both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking, June-July 2024: Public Review Draft Plan, public comment (~80 comment letters) June 2024: Joint Study Session with City Council and Planning Commission October 2024: Downtown Density Bonus concept at City Council January 2025: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Public Review (74 comment letters, responses to which were published in April 2025) April 2025: Planning Commission public hearing
The above-noted opportunities for public engagement were advertised through a variety of means. Announcements for public meetings were mailed to property owners and occupants within the plan area and within 1,000 feet of the plan area, covering approximately 2,500 households, in addition to other publicity in local newspapers and on social media. Other meetings, such as the community focus groups, had more targeted outreach. Social media and the City’s website were used to promote meetings and surveys, and various articles have been written in local media outlets by City representatives, members of the public, and journalists that have called attention to the planning process and associated opportunities for engagement. The plan was also the primary target of a recent ballot measure just one year ago (March 2024) that failed with 60 percent of voters voting against it. The ballot measure spurred many additional community conversations about the merits of the plan.
23.14 Through the numerous opportunities for public engagement many voices contributed to the proposed plan. Over the past four years, the plan has evolved significantly and efforts have always been made to balance a variety of needs, goals, desires, and realities as part of this project. Based on community feedback, one major area of change is that the overall scale of the project shifted from the initial proposal to allow for buildings over 200 feet in height to now include strong encouragement and support for development that reaches a maximum height of 85 feet, with an allowance for limited portions of some projects to reach 145 feet through use of the Downtown Density Bonus Policy. Another larger change was to enhance the policies relating to the pedestrian and cyclist experience in the project, which now incorporate more best practices like pedestrian leading intervals at intersections, sidewalk-level bike lanes, and enhanced pedestrian crossings throughout the project area. Numerous other policies have been adjusted over the course of the project to more closely reflect the preferences of the community while still working to achieve the project goals.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: After completing an Initial Study, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of this project. Kimely Horn and Associates, in their role as prime consultant for the Downtown Plan Expansion project, led preparation of the EIR, with the support of Dudek as subconsultant. The law firm of Remy, Moose, Manley supported the City in ensuring that all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were met in full. The project team determined that the best approach was to prepare a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) to the EIR previously prepared for amendments to the Downtown Plan in 2017.
Details of the scoping process and Draft Subsequent EIR (DEIR) timeline are included with the April 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report. The Final Subsequent EIR (FEIR) was posted to the City’s CEQA webpage, and an email and/or mailed Notice of Availability was provided to all those who submitted comments, in addition to State Agencies and anyone who previously requested notice of CEQA actions at the City, on April 15, 2025. CEQA law requires that the FEIR be made available to the public a minimum of 10 days prior to contemplated action by the decision-making body, City Council in this instance, and that standard was met.
The FEIR includes written responses to significant environmental issues raised in comments received during the public review period for the DEIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 as well as text changes and additions to the DEIR that became necessary after consideration of public comments. None of the conclusions of the DEIR were altered in the FEIR, and the impacts identified and disclosed are unchanged.
Due to the size of the FEIR document, it can be accessed electronically on the City website at the link provided in the attachments listed below. Hard copies are available upon request for members of the City Council.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact
The DEIR and FEIR identify one significant impact (to historical resources) that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, despite application of mitigations to reduce the significance. This issue is addressed in Section 2.2, starting on page 2-2 in the FEIR, and Chapter 17 - Project Alternatives of the DEIR examines alternatives that seek to eliminate or reduce the level of significance of this impact. All project alternatives result in a significant and
23.15 unavoidable impact to historical resources due to alteration or modification of historical buildings. Because redevelopment of existing sites is permitted under the City’s regulations, even the no project alternative includes this significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the Downtown Plan Expansion project due to the inability to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level despite the mitigation measures proposed.
Significant Impacts
The following impacts were found to be potentially significant but could be reduced to a lessthan-significant level through mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project at the time of final action on the project. These items are discussed starting on page 2-4 of the FEIR. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. Future development and growth accommodated by the project would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during short-term construction.
Indirect Impacts to Nesting Birds. Future development as a result of the project could result in disturbance to nesting birds if any are present in the vicinity during construction. Tribal Cultural Resources. Future development accommodated by the project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Less-Than-Significant Impacts
The EIR found the following impacts would be less-than-significant. Mitigation measures are not required.
AES-1: Scenic Views
AES-3: Visual Character of the Surrounding Area
AES-4: Introduction of Light and Glare
AQ/GHG-2: Criteria Pollutant Emissions
AQ/GHG-3: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
AQ/GHG-4: Objectionable Odors
BIO-1a (DPA EIR Impact 4.3-2): Impacts to Sensitive Riparian Habitat BIO-1b (DPA EIR Impact 4.3-1): Indirect Impacts to Special Status Species and Riparian and Aquatic Habitat
BIO-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.3-2): Indirect Impacts to Birds BIO-3 (DPA EIR Impact 4.3-3): Indirect Impacts to Nesting Birds CUL-1 (DPA EIR Impact 4.4-2): Historical Resources
CUL-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.4-1): Archaeological Resources CUL-3 (DPA Impact 4.4.-1): Tribal Cultural Resources
HYDRO-1: Stormwater Drainage HYDRO-2: Water Quality HYDRO-3: Flood Hazards
NOI-1: Permanent and Temporary Noise Increases
NOI-2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration
POP-1: Inducement of Substantial Population Growth
POP-2: Displacement of People or Housing
PUB-1a (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-1a): Fire Protection Draft Subsequent EIR January 2025 Downtown Plan Expansion City of Santa Cruz Page 2-6 | Summary PUB-1b (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-1b): Police Protection
PUB-1c (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-1c): Schools
23.16 PUB-1d (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-1d): Parks
PUB-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-2): Parks and Recreation
T-1: Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy, or Ordinance T-2: Conflict with VMT Thresholds
T-3: Design-Safety and Emergency Access
UTIL-1 (DPA EIR Impact 4.8-1): Water Supply
UTIL-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.8-2): Wastewater Treatment
UTL-3 (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-3): Solid Waste Generation
UTL-4: Solid Waste Generation
UTL-5 (DPA EIR Impact 4.6-4): Energy Use
Impacts Not Found to be Significant
The EIR found no impacts for the following:
AES-1 (DPA EIR Impact 4.1-1): Scenic Views
AES-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.1-2): Scenic Resources
AQ/GHG-1 (DPA EIR No Impact): Conflict with the AQMP
BIO-5: Conflicts with Local Ordinances
LU-1: Physically Divide and Established Community
LU-2 (DPA EIR Impact 4.9-1): Conflicts with Policies and Regulations Environmentally Superior Alternative
The DEIR considers alternatives to the proposed project that could serve to reduce the identified significant impacts. Alternative 1, which considers a reduced project where the General Plan Land Use Designations are not increased on blocks B, D, and H, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative based on the following changes to impacts:
“Under this alternative, the identified significant unavoidable impact CUL-1 related to historical resources would remain unchanged. The identified significant impact AQ/GHG-3 related to exposure to sensitive receptors would be slightly reduced. The identified significant impacts BIO-3 and CUL-3 would remain unchanged. No new significant impacts would occur under this alternative. Other identified less-than-significant impacts would be remain the same as the project or slightly reduced in magnitude due to the reduction in the number of housing units.”
The policy choice presented by this alternative is whether a slight reduction in short-term air quality impacts, common with any new development, is worth the loss of the potential for over 250 permanent housing units. Staff recommends that the City Council pursue the long-term housing goals in a responsible manner, incorporating mitigations to significant environmental impacts without sacrificing the opportunity to provide more housing for our current and future residents over the coming years. Further concerns with making this policy choice are addressed above as part of the report of the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The components of the current proposal are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability in that they would encourage creation of both needed housing and economic opportunities and foster greater accessibility between the Downtown, San Lorenzo River, and beach areas. Development in the
23.17 Downtown area is in close proximity to transit, jobs, amenities, and a wide range of entertainment and recreational activities, making it one of the most sustainable places to grow in the region. From an equity perspective, the project area will include space for new inclusionary low-income housing, including replacement housing for any existing low- and very-low income residents. This project encourages active transportation modes that support both personal health and environmental sustainability. Active transportation modes also support equity, in that they reduce overall transportation costs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes
2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No
3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: This report is part of the grant-funded project to expand the Downtown Plan boundary. The total project cost is currently scoped to be $815,000.
Planning was awarded a grant for this project, totaling $300,000, and the general fund has covered the cost of the project beyond the grant amount to date. The City has adopted a General Plan Maintenance Fee that is applied to new development, and those funds are expected to cover the remaining general fund expenses, which are incorporated into the proposed budget for FY 2026.
As the project area is built out, staff anticipates that the additional property, admissions, and sales taxes, together with any special assessments elected for the project area, will have positive impacts on the City’s long-term fiscal conditions. Provision of services to the area will result in additional costs to the City, but given the location, density, and efficiency of land uses under consideration, revenues should be expected to exceed expenses. Creating a new destination with distinct urban character and a major events venue of regional importance could make this project the center of a highly successful economic development endeavor, bringing residents and visitors from throughout the region into Santa Cruz and helping them navigate between key points of interest like the beach, river levee, and the downtown. Precise information on the longer-term fiscal implications will not be fully known until new uses and buildings are constructed and operating.
Related to but separate from this action, the City Council has also initiated procedures for the establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) that could, if ultimately established, support construction of infrastructure projects in the SOLA and the larger, overall district. The EIFD would take a portion of the property tax increment above the base year and use leveraged tax money collected and expected to support the infrastructure construction. The EIFD does not create a new tax. Based on a fiscal impact analysis conducted by an independent consultant, the general fund will positively benefit from the creation of the EIFD. Funds from the EIFD will go towards infrastructure projects that a) would sometimes be covered by the general fund anyways and that b) would contribute to increased general fund revenues. The EIFD is proceeding through its own, separate process.
23.18 Prepared By:
Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matthew VanHua, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted By:
Lee Butler, LEED AP, AICP
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINAL AND DRAFT SEIR.DOC
2. FINAL AND DRAFT SEIR (AVAILABLE ON CITY WEBSITE AT
WWW.CITYOFSANTACRUZ.COM/CEQA)
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS.DOC
4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.DOC
5. GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, STRIKEOUT AND UNDERLINE.PDF
6. GENERAL PLAN AND LCP LAND USE MAP, EXISTING AND PROPOSED.PDF
7. LIST OF PARCELS PROPOSED FOR REDESIGNATION IN THE GENERAL PLAN.PDF
8. RESOLUTION ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS.DOC
9. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, STRIKEOUT AND UNDERLINE.PDF
10. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENTS.DOC
11. DOWNTOWN PLAN CHAPTER 4 AMENDMENTS, STRIKEOUT AND
UNDERLINE.DOC
12. PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PLAN APPENDIX 8: SOUTH OF LAUREL AREA.PDF
13. RESOLUTION ADOPTING BEACH-SOUTH OF LAUREL COMPREHENSIVE AREA PLAN.DOC
14. BEACH-SOUTH OF LAUREL COMPREHENSIVE AREA PLAN TEXT
AMENDMENTS, STRIKEOUT AND UNDERLINE.PDF
15. EXISTING AND PROPOSED BEACH-SOUTH OF LAUREL COMPREHENSIVE AREA PLAN BOUNDARY MAPS.PDF
16. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP, CLEAN.DOC
17. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING MAPS.PDF
18. LIST OF PARCELS PROPOSED FOR REZONING.PDF
19. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS, STRIKEOUT AND UNDERLINE.PDF
20. TABLE OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY FOR NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS.PDF
21. PACIFIC AVENUE SOUTH OF LAUREL STREET, ALTERNATIVE CROSS SECTION.PDF
22. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTS JUNE 2022, JANUARY 2023, JUNE 2024, AND OCTOBER 2024.PDF
23. APRIL 17, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – DRAFT ACTION SUMMARY.PDF
24. STAFF RESPONSES TO FAILED PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION.PDF
23.19 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE SANTA CRUZ DOWNTOWN PLAN EXPANSION
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion (the "Project") was issued by the Planning and Community Development Department of the City of Santa Cruz on September 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a SEIR Scoping Meeting was held on September 28, 2022 to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the SEIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR" or "Draft SEIR") was prepared and issued by the City for agency and public review and comment on January 8, 2025, for a 45-day review period that ended on February 21, 2025; and WHEREAS, seventy-four (74) comment letters and emails were received on the Draft SEIR from agencies, organizations and private individuals; and WHEREAS, a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR" or "Final SEIR"), incorporating all comments received on the DSEIR and responses to comments was issued on April 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the complete Final SEIR consists of the January 2025 Draft SEIR, comments received on the document and responses to comments contained in the April 2025 FSEIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft SEIR that also are included in the FSEIR, appendices to the Draft and Final SEIRs, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Resources Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal.
Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) (the "State CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR outlined various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project's significant effects on the environment, as well as a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, which would provide some environmental advantages over the Project; and
23.20 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz is required, pursuant to CEQA, to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of a proposed Project; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), requires a public agency, before approving a Project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible; and WHEREAS, Sections I through VIII of Exhibit A to this Resolution is a set of Findings of Fact prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a); and
WHEREAS, as the Findings of Fact explain, the City Council, reflecting the advice of City and Agency Staff, and input from the community, has expressed its intention to approve the proposed Project in spite of its significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistently with the CEQA mandate to consider feasible Project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of the Project as proposed; and WHEREAS, some of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project, as approved, can either be substantially lessened or avoided through the inclusion of mitigation measures proposed in the Final Subsequent EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council in approving the Project as proposed intends to adopt all mitigation measures set forth in the Findings of Fact; and WHEREAS, those significant effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures will necessarily remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based on the reasons and substantial evidence set forth in the Findings of Fact, that none of the alternatives analyzed in the Final Subsequent EIR are feasible and environmentally superior to the Project, except that Alternative 1, was determined to be environmentally superior, but it is not feasible based on the Findings set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15093 require the Agency to adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before approving a project with significant unavoidable environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project as mitigated and
23.21 adopted, there exist certain overriding economic, social and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council, in its legislative capacity, believes justify the occurrence or potential occurrence of those impacts and render them acceptable; and WHEREAS, Sections IX and X of Exhibit A attached hereto is a Statement of Overriding Considerations specifying the economic, social and other benefits that render acceptable the significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the mitigated Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the City’s obligation, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to ensure the monitoring of all adopted mitigation measures necessary to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B to this Resolution is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan prepared in order to comply with § 21081.6, subdivision (a); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
In approving this Resolution, the City Council adopts Sections I through VIII of Exhibit A attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21081, subdivision (a);
In approving this Resolution, the City of Santa Cruz adopts Sections IX and X of Exhibit A attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code Sections 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15093;
In approving this Resolution, the City Council adopts Exhibit B attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a); and The City Council hereby approves the Project and directs City Staff to file with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research in Sacramento a Notice of Determination commencing the 30-day statute of limitations for any legal challenge to the Project based on alleged non- compliance with CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
23.22 APPROVED:
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
23.23 EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
for the
Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion
April 13, 2025
23.24 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 1 Statement of Overriding Considerations I.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Cruz (“City”), as lead agency, prepared a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion (“the Project”). In its entirety, the SEIR consists of the January 2025 Draft Subsequent EIR (“Draft SEIR” or “DSEIR”) and the April 2025 Final Subsequent SEIR (“Final SEIR” or “FSEIR”). The Subsequent EIR is a program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State “CEQA Guidelines” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). The SEIR is prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and updates the certified Downtown Plan Amendments (DPA) EIR (SCH # 2017022050) to reflect current conditions and analyze the Project under existing environmental conditions. The Project consists of amendments to the City’s adopted Downtown Plan to expand the Plan area to incorporate a 29-acre area south of Laurel Street with new development regulations for that area. The Project also includes amendments to the City’s Geneal Plan 2030, Local Coastal Program (LCP), Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan (B/SOL Plan). (SDEIR, p. 1-1.) These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations in Section IX, infra, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines, the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Santa Cruz CEQA Guidelines. The DSEIR and FSEIR are hereby incorporated by reference to these findings and this attachment.
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The approximately 29-acre project area is located in downtown Santa Cruz and includes the South of Laurel Area (SOLA) (see Figure 1-1 in the DSEIR). The City of Santa Cruz is located along the northern shore of Monterey Bay, approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco, 30 miles south of San Jose and 40 miles north of Monterey. The project area is generally bound by Laurel Street on the north, the San Lorenzo River on the east, Front Street on the south, and Center Street, Cedar Street and neighborhoods west of Pacific Avenue on the west. The project area is located in the coastal zone.
The project area contains a variety of commercial and multi-family residential land uses. This includes the temporary Kaiser Permanente Arena (the arena), various single-story and ground-floor commercial retail and entertainment uses, multi-family housing, and a number of large at-grade paved parking lots. The project area
23.25 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations is located adjacent to residential uses to west, including the multi-family Sycamore Street Commons, which are located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The southern end of the project area includes two hotels. (DSEIR, p. 3-1)
B. Overview
The Project consists of a series of amendments to the City’s Downtown Plan extending the boundary of the existing Downtown Plan to incorporate the project area and add development standards and design guidelines for the study area, and other policies and standards to the City’s Downtown Plan (amended October 24, 2023) associated with future development or redevelopment within the project area. For consistency purposes, the Project also includes amendments to the City’s General Plan 2030, the Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map), and the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. The Project would allow for increased development as a result of various circulation, land use and infrastructure revisions. (DSEIR, p. 3-5)
C. Project Objectives
The CEQA project objectives, developed by the City, are as follows:
(NOTE: The * indicates objectives that are also the core objectives as described in the Downtown Plan, Appendix 8: South of Laurel Area District Plan (as amended).
Housing
1. Increase the total number of housing units that can be built in the City by adding capacity for multifamily housing, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 and Program 2.2.2. *
2. Provide additional housing to help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as described in the City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element.
3. Facilitate the development of new housing focused in the downtown area, consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy 1.2 and related programs.
4. Encourage a mix of housing types and affordability levels consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 2.1 and 2.2.
Development With a Mix of Uses
23.26 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 3 Statement of Overriding Considerations
5. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the project area that integrate into the rest of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods and provide a safe and attractive environment for living and working consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, in particular Policy 2.2 and Programs 2.2.2 and 2.6.3.
6. Provide uses that meet the Downtown Plan’s objective to have higher-density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
7. Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land uses and development.
8. Ensure that all new development has sufficient public improvements, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Program 4.1.4.
Economic Growth
9. Create new economic opportunities for local businesses and workers. *
10. Generate new tax revenue for the City. *
11. Work with the Warriors to establish design standards and use allowances that accommodate potential development of a new arena facility. *
12. Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
13. Add commercial, entertainment, and other uses that will have a synergy with and support the City’s existing commercial and tourism economy, developed in an existing urbanized area, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1.
14. Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible project.
15. Develop a project that supports the long-term success of existing and new commercial uses through careful site planning and infrastructure design.
Mobility and Connectivity
16. Create opportunities for public amenities and infrastructure such as parks, the Santa Cruz Riverwalk trail, or other spaces for community use. *
17. Better connect downtown with the river and beach areas, which will give the community better access to the river and beach and help visitors see more of Santa Cruz, including its local businesses and entertainment destinations. *
18. Improve the pedestrian experience through thoughtful urban design measures. *
23.27 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations
19. Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses.
20. Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the development.
21. Facilitate new development that, to the extent practical, minimizes the number of automobile trips, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 5.1, 5.3 and 5.6.
23.28 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations Responsible Growth
22. Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing infrastructure and utilities.
23. Ensure that new development minimizes the obstruction of important views and viewsheds and complements the overall skyline of the greater downtown area consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.6.
24. Develop underutilized land in the city limits that is well connected to existing neighborhoods and commercial areas.
25. Ensure that there is sufficient and reliable water supply to accommodate future growth and development using the City’s existing and planned water supply, consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.7.
26. Ensure that new development is consistent with the City’s environmental protection plans, policies, and regulations, including the Community-wide Climate Action Plan for 2030 (2022, as amended),
27. Ensure that new development minimizes or mitigates potentially significant environmental impacts in and around the project area consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.4.
28. Provide mobility and recreation improvements along the San Lorenzo Riverwalk consistent with the City’s San Lorenzo Urban River Plan and General Plan Land Use Element Program 3.4.11. (DSEIR pp.3-3 to 3-5)
Based on its own review of the SEIR and other information and testimony received in connection with the Project, the City Council finds these objectives to be acceptable. In choosing to approve the Project, the City thus accords these objectives significant weight in considering the feasibility of alternatives analyzed in the EIR, and in invoking overriding considerations in approving the Project. (See California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001–1002 (CNPS); Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1507–1508; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills).)
D. Project Description
The Project consists of a series of amendments to the City’s Downtown Plan by extending the boundary of the existing Downtown Plan to incorporate the SOLA (see Figure 1-1 in DSEIR) into the Downtown Plan boundary, to incorporate development standards and design guidelines for the project area and add other policies and standards to the Downtown Plan (last amended October 24, 2023) that will facilitate future redevelopment of
23.29 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations the project area. The Project also includes amendments to the City’s General Plan 2030, the Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Municipal Code to provide updates consistent with the currently proposed amendments to the Downtown Plan. (DSEIR, p. 3-5) A new Appendix 8 – South of Laurel Area District (the project area) will be added that includes a conceptual development plan, public realm improvements, streetscape design guidelines, and conceptual infrastructure improvements. Make revisions and add a new subsection to Chapter 4 in the Downtown Plan to expand the applicability of the Downtown Plan to include the project area, create design and development standards for the project area, and to amend and clarify existing standards.
Amendments to the General Plan 2030 consist of minor clarifying changes to General Plan 2030 text for the Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) Land Use Designation and revision to the General Plan 2030 Land Use Maps to apply the Regional Visitor Commercial designation to all parcels in the project area as shown in Figure 3-11 in the DSEIR, which would include re-designation of six parcels as detailed in Appendix B of the DSEIR. (DSEIR, pp. 3-10 to 3-11, FSEIR, p. 1-9)
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 24) consist of deletions of the Central Business District Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue (CBD-E) zone district (text and map); minor edits to the Central Business District (CBD) zone district text; and clarification of how parking obligations are determined in Parking District 1. The Project includes amendments to the zoning map to apply the CBD zone to all parcels in the project area, as shown in Figure 3-12 Existing and Proposed Zoning Map of the DSEIR, which would include rezoning of 56 parcels as detailed in Appendix B of the DSEIR. (DSEIR p. 3-11, FSEIR p. 1-9) Amendments to the LCP includes addition of a footnote to Table LU-11 clarifying that the Downtown Plan governs development allowances for all property within the boundary of that plan and amend Map L-11: LCP Land Use Map to be consistent with the amended Land Use Designations in the General Plan 2030. The proposed amendments to the Beach/South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan and Design Guidelines are also Local Coastal Program Amendments. (DSEIR p. 3-11, FSEIR p. 1-9) Amendments to the Beach / South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan and Design Guidelines include edits to remove outdated, irrelevant, or superseded text; remove references to the Project area from the plan and Design Guidelines; and revise Figure 3-13 Existing and Proposed B/SOL Plan Area to modify the boundary to exclude the Project area. (DSEIR p. 3-11, FSEIR p. 1-9) Implementation of the Project would facilitate additional development as a result of various circulation, land use, and infrastructure revisions. For purposes of environmental review, the project area is conservatively anticipated to accommodate:
23.30 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 7 Statement of Overriding Considerations Future Development: Up to 1,800 housing units and 60,000 square feet (sf) of gross commercial area.
Redevelopment would replace approximately 66 dwelling units and 76,770 gross sf. of commercial uses. New Arena: Construction of a new approximately 180,000 sf permanent sports and entertainment arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors basketball team. The arena would contain a main event court with spectator seating for approximately 3,200 seats for basketball, and approximately 4,000 seats for concerts, performances, etc. Additional facilities would include a practice facility consisting of an additional court and training spaces, and supporting concession, retail and administrative uses. This would replace the existing 35,000 sf. temporary arena with 2,475 fixed seats for basketball and 3,100 fixed and temporary seating for other entertainment events. Building Height: No new development shall exceed the base heights of 85 feet, 70 feet, or 50 feet except as the result of compliance with any density bonus program or provision of state or local law (as discussed below). Building heights adjacent to Beach Hill hillside shall be limited to no more than 70 feet to provide a transition in height adjacent to the Beach Hill neighborhood. Additional height is permitted through application of a State Density Bonus, the City’s proposed Downtown Density Bonus, or other local density bonus provision.
Community Spaces: Existing and planned public streets and the Santa Cruz Riverwalk are envisioned to be designed to accommodate public gatherings and events such as pre- and post-arena events, holidays events and festivals, and informal gatherings.
Mobility: Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation improvements envisioned as part of the creation of the community spaces:
o Create a circulation network that integrates the built environment and civic spaces, both within and adjacent to the SOLA neighborhood.
o Create a new Spruce Street Plaza along Spruce Street by permanently closing Spruce Street to vehicular traffic east of Front Street to the Santa Cruz Riverwalk. Emergency, maintenance, and delivery vehicle access shall be maintained through the use of removable barriers or bollards. o To create better opportunities for the public to engage with the San Lorenzo River, realign the connection to Laurel Street Extension to the base of Beach Hill, just north of the Cliff Street stairs. This improvement can only be initiated after existing residents and support facilities have been relocated, consistent with City policies and State law. o Consider removing the surface parking and public roadway north of the realigned Laurel Street Extension, and thereby creating a more developable Block B. o Construct a new roundabout and associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the southern convergence of Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
23.31 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 8 Statement of Overriding Considerations o As redevelopment proceeds, the City will further evaluate and discuss with the community the possibility of closing Spruce between Pacific and Front Street to auto traffic during special events. (DSEIR, pp. 2-1 to 2-2; 3-5 to 3-14; 3-17)
Consistent with the City’s General Plan, Community-wide Climate Action Plan for 2030, and other policy documents including the requirements of the CALGreen Building Standards Code and the City’s Green Building Program, future development in the SOLA will incorporate a range of sustainability features intended to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions, promote water-use efficiency, and minimize waste. The area will also be built as required to withstand the potential for inundation since the project area, like much of the Downtown, is located within the flood areas mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Lastly, being located adjacent to the San Lorenzo River, future development will carefully consider and minimize any potential adverse biological and hydrologic effects including water quality, aquatic and riparian plant and animal species, and migratory birds. (DSEIR, p. 3-10)
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft EIR on September 16, 2022. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15023, subdivision (c), and 15087, subdivision (f), the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research was responsible for distributing environmental documents to State agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment.
The City followed required procedures with regard to distribution of the appropriate notices and environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse made that information available to interested agencies for review and comment. The NOP was circulated by the City for a 30-day review period on September 16, 2022. Additionally, one EIR Scoping Meeting was held on September 28, 2022 to solicit comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the DSEIR. (DSEIR, p. 1-6)
The EIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas:
Aesthetics
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
23.32 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 9 Statement of Overriding Considerations Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population and Housing
Public Services
Transportation
Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy Conservation
23.33 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 10 Statement of Overriding Considerations IV.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project includes the following documents:
The NOP (September 2022), including related comments from agencies, organizations and individuals, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; The DSEIR for the Project (January 2025) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
The FSEIR for the Project (April 2025) and all appendices, as well as all documents cited or referenced therein;
Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
Any and all resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in the DSEIR and FSEIR and these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
23.34 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 11 Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the Planning Commission, City Council, or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the Downtown Plan Expansion Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391–392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents informed the experts who provided advice to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission or City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the Planning Commission’s recommendations and City Council’s decisions relating to the Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.1 The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public by appointment at the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California 95060.
V.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must adopt a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
23.35 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 12 Statement of Overriding Considerations agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) Under CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.
The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001–1002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less- than-significant level. CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is included herein in Section IX, infra.
VI.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B) has been prepared for the Project, and will be approved by the City Council by the same Resolution that adopts these findings, if the Project is approved. The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
23.36 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 13 Statement of Overriding Considerations VII.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The DSEIR identified significant environmental effects (or impacts) resulting from the implementation of the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion. One of these significant environmental effects, however, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. Thus, this environmental effect will be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section IX, infra, however, the City has determined that overriding considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effect associated with the Project implementation.
The City’s findings with respect to the Project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth below for each significant impact. The following statement of findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the SEIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the DSEIR or FSEIR and adopted by the City, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures, accompanied by a brief explanation. Full explanations of these environmental findings, conclusions and supporting evidence can be found in the DSEIR and FSEIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the FSEIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the DSEIR and FSEIR and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the DSEIR and FSEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level A. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
AQ/GHG-3: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. Future development and growth accommodated by the Project would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during short-term construction but not during long-term operations.
Impacts from development accommodated by the Project may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air
23.37 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 14 Statement of Overriding Considerations pollutants (HAPs). The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel-particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks that generate diesel exhaust. DPM has established cancer risk factors and relative exposure values for long-term chronic health hazard impacts; however, no short-term, acute relative exposure level has been established for DPM.
Due to the unknown parameters of future development accommodated by the Project, including the levels of potential TAC emissions in relation to the location of sensitive receptors, the potential associated health risk (including cancer risk and chronic hazard index) during construction cannot be estimated with a level of accuracy. Therefore, the potential of the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and associated health risk during construction would be conservatively considered potentially significant without mitigation.
Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ/GHG-3-1 identified in the DSEIR will mitigate potential impacts of future development on sensitive receptors to a lessthan-significant level.
MM AQ/GHG-3-1: Construction Equipment Exhaust Control. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower shall be zero-emissions or equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 compliant engines. Alternatively, CARB Tier 2 or Tier 3 compliant engines can be used if CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled equipment. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City of Santa Cruz when equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and when corresponding reductions in diesel particulate matter are achieved from other construction equipment on the project. An exemption may only be granted if total estimated project generated construction emissions will not exceed applicable Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) risk thresholds as verified using industry-standard emission estimation methodologies.
FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during short-term construction activities can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of MM AQ/GHG-3-1, which has been required or incorporated into the Project. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.
B. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-3 (DPA EIR Impact 4.3-3): Indirect Impacts to Nesting Birds. Future development as a result of the Project could result in disturbance to nesting birds if any are present in the
23.38 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 15 Statement of Overriding Considerations vicinity of construction sites along the San Lorenzo River.
While the Project would not result in new development that would directly affect nesting birds, future development accommodated by the Project could result in impacts to nesting birds at the time of construction. Tree removal during the breeding season (generally March 1 to August 1) could result in direct mortality to nesting avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act due to destruction, if active nest sites are present. Initiation of construction activity during the nesting season could result in noise and increased human presence that would indirectly affect nesting adults and result in nest abandonment or failure. The DPA EIR found that measures in the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan require pre-construction surveys where construction may affect nesting birds in order to prevent disturbance, if nesting is occurring when construction is initiated. This was considered a potentially significant impact in the DPA EIR and would also be a potentially significant impact resulting from future development accommodated by the Project. (DSEIR, pp. 7-10 to 7-11.) Mitigation Measures. Implementation of DPR EIR MM 4.3-3 identified in the DSEIR and as revised in the FSEIR will mitigate potential impacts on nesting birds of future development under the Project to a less-than-significant level.
DPR EIR MM 4.3-3: Preconstruction Nesting Survey. Require that a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist if construction activities, including grading, excavation, and tree removal, adjacent to the San Lorenzo River is scheduled to begin between February 1 and August 31 to determine if nesting birds are in the vicinity of the construction sites. The survey shall be conducted no more than seven days before the start of any construction activities on the site (including tree removal, clearing, and excavation). If nesting raptors or other nesting species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Fish and Game Code (§3503) are found, construction may need to be delayed until late-August or after the wildlife biologist has determined the nest is no longer in use or unless a suitable construction buffer zone can be identified by the biologist, taking into account typical buffers recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan Standard 12).
FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project on nesting birds can be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level by the imposition of DPR EIR MM 4.3-3, which has been required or incorporated into the Project. The mitigation measure was revised with updated standards in the Final SEIR in response to comments received on the Draft SEIR. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.
C. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
23.39 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 16 Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact CUL-3 (DPA Impact 4.4.-1): Tribal Cultural Resources. Future development accommodated by the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.
According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR and updated in 2018, the Project area is located in an area mapped as “sensitive” for archaeological resources, and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) reported a positive finding for the Sacred Lands File search, although there are no details as to what resources may occur when there is a positive finding. The archaeological records search and the City’s outreach to Native American tribes did not identify specific tribal cultural resources. However, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista submitted a letter providing recommendations if any positive cultural or historic sensitivity findings have been identified. These recommendations include conducting Sacred Lands Files search and CHRIS records search and contact NAHC, providing construction crews with cultural sensitivity training, and providing an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor during construction activities involving earth movement.
Adoption and implementation of the Project would not directly result in new development, but future development indirectly accommodated by the plan could result in construction that could result in potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources if any exist on a site that is being developed.
Compliance with the City’s requirements for preparation of archaeological reports for development projects located in sensitive areas, compliance with local regulations regarding archaeological resources and accidental discovery of archaeological resources and human remains during construction, and notification and consultation requirements per state requirements regarding tribal cultural resources would ensure protection of any tribal cultural resources identified. However, recommendations from two Native American tribes also include construction worker training and monitoring during construction when there is a positive finding per the Sacred Lands Files search, which are included in MM CUL3.1. (DSEIR, p. 8-10.)
Mitigation Measures. Implementation of MM CUL-3.1 identified in the DSEIR will mitigate potential impacts of future development under the Project on tribal cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level.
MM CUL-3.1: Cultural Sensitivity Training and Tribal Monitoring. Require Native American construction monitoring of future development projects within the project area to include cultural sensitivity training for construction workers and tribal monitoring during ground disturbing construction.
23.40 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 17 Statement of Overriding Considerations FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project on tribal cultural resources can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of MM CUL3.1, which has been required or incorporated into the Project. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
D. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1 (DPA EIR Impact 4.4-2): Historical Resources. Future development accommodated by the proposed plan amendments could result in impacts to historical resources due to alteration or modification of historical buildings.
The Project does not propose any specific new development in the project area, but could lead to redevelopment and intensified development of existing developed properties in the project area with new development projects proposed in the future. Future redevelopment of existing developed sites may result in alteration or removal of historical structures, affecting the significance of historical values if the structure is considered an historical resource under applicable definitions. There are five structures within the project area that are listed in the City’s Historic Building Survey, and seven residential structures and 15 commercial structures that are over or near 50 years in age, all of which may be considered a historic resource. Buildings that are over the age of 50 years old and are proposed for modification or alteration as part of future development projects would require evaluations to determine eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places, and/or City Historic Building Survey, and if so, could be determined to be historically significant. It is assumed that such evaluations would be implemented as part of the CEQA environmental review of future development applications. If a significant impact is identified, appropriate mitigation measures would be required and/or a project-specific CEQA review required to consider substantial alteration or demolition of a historic resource that would substantially and materially alter the significance of the resource. It is noted that potential redevelopment of existing properties and potential impacts to historical resources could also occur without the Project.
Public Resources Code sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) provide information regarding the mitigation framework for historical resources and indicate that requiring consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would reduce an impact on historical resources to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a significant historical
23.41 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 18 Statement of Overriding Considerations resource impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if designed to be consistent with these standards. However, since this is a program SEIR and no specific development projects are proposed, it is not possible to determine whether individual projects would be able to attain the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Furthermore, preservation, reuse, maintenance, and/or avoidance of historical resources may not always be feasible, especially with potential redevelopment and intensification of uses in the project area, and recordation of a significant historical resource, alone, would not constitute full mitigation for a substantial adverse change to a historical resource meeting the definitions under CEQA. Therefore, because the potential for future development accommodated by the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to an historical resource cannot be precluded, impacts to historical resources are conservatively considered potentially significant. (DSEIR, pp. 8-6 to 8-7.) Mitigation Measures. Implementation of MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2 identified in the EIR would reduce the impact on historical resources, but not to a less-than-significant level; therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
MM CUL-1.1: Historic Resources Assessment and Project-Level Mitigation. Require preparation of an historic resources evaluation for any development proposal containing a structure or structures 50 years old or older and that are not identified as historic resources in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. If the structure(s) may potentially meet the criteria for listing as an historic resource, and proposed development would have the potential to impact the historic significance of the structure(s), the development applicant shall provide an historic assessment of the structure(s) prepared by a qualified historic consultant. If it is determined by the City Planning and Community Development Department based upon the historic assessment that a development would impact a structure that is eligible as an historic resource under CEQA definitions, the City shall consider measures that would enable the Project to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the building or structure, including designs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the building or structure can be preserved, but remodeling, renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
MM CUL-1.2: Resource Documentation. If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved and/or demolished, the City shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscape and setting. Documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record/history of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. The record shall be prepared in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and filed with the Office of Historic Preservation. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and
23.42 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 19 Statement of Overriding Considerations appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.
FINDING: The potentially significant impact of the Project on historical resources cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level despite the imposition of MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2, which have been required or incorporated into the Project. The City hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Because the Project is a plan and the SEIR is a program-level analysis and no specific development projects are proposed, it is not possible to determine at this time whether individual projects would be able to attain the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Furthermore, preservation, reuse, maintenance, and/or avoidance of historical resources may not always be feasible, especially with potential redevelopment and intensification of uses in the project area, and recordation of a significant historical resource, alone, would not constitute full mitigation for a substantial adverse change to a historical resource meeting the definitions under CEQA. Therefore, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures identified in the EIR that would avoid or reduce the significant impact on historical resources to a less-than-significant level.
VIII.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Basis for Alternatives-Feasibility Analysis
As noted earlier, Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, 999.) As explained earlier, grounds for such a conclusion might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000–1003.) Alternatives may also be determined to be economically infeasible and can be rejected on that ground. (The
23.43 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 20 Statement of Overriding Considerations Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 621–623.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative as infeasible for such reasons.
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EIR should be able to “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]” For this reason, the objectives described above in section II(C) of these findings provided the framework for defining possible alternatives. Based on the objectives, the City developed two alternatives in addition to the No Project Alternative that were addressed in detail in the Draft EIR.
Per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 and the Project’s objectives, the following alternatives to the Project were identified:
No Project – Required by CEQA
Alternative 1: Reduced Project
Alternative 2: Restricted Building Heights on Blocks B & D The City Council finds that that a good faith effort was made to evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project’s objectives and might be more costly. Alternatives were considered that would result in a substantial reduction or elimination of identified significant unavoidable historical resources impacts, as well as the three identified potentially significant impacts that could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures outlined in this SEIR. (DSEIR, p. 17.4.)
1. Significant Unavoidable Impact of the Project
Approval of the Project will result in the following significant unavoidable impact, which can be lessened, though not avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level, through implementation of feasible mitigation measures adopted in connection with the Project:
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resoures. Historical resources as described in section VII(D) above.
23.44 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 21 Statement of Overriding Considerations
2. Scope of Necessary Findings and Considerations for Project Alternatives As noted above, these findings address whether the various alternatives substantially lessen or avoid the significant unavoidable impact associated with the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion and also consider the feasibility of each alternative. Under CEQA, “[f]easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) As explained earlier, the concept of feasibility permits agency decision makers to consider the extent to which an alternative is able to meet some or all of a Project’s objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence.
B. Description of Project Alternatives and Determination of Feasibility Potential alternatives to the Project were evaluated with respect to the objectives of the Project as discussed in Chapter 17, “Alternatives” of the DSEIR and this section of the findings. The DSEIR identified and compared in detail the environmental effects of the No Project Alternative and two alternatives listed below with environmental impacts resulting from the Project. (See DEIR, p. 17-6.) The range of alternatives selected by the City is reasonable given the proposed uses, identified significant impacts and Project objectives. None of the project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, would avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts, and none would eliminate the identified significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources. Of the alternatives considered, Alternative 1 would best achieve Project objectives, while also slightly reducing but not avoiding the identified significant impact related to historic resources and therefore, is considered the environmentally superior alternative of the alternatives reviewed. A comparison of impacts between the Project and the alternatives is presented in Table 17-1 in the DSEIR. (DSEIR, pp. 17-15 to 17-16.)
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1. Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the impacts of a “no project” alternative be evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. Section 15126(e) also requires that the No Project Alternative
23.45 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 22 Statement of Overriding Considerations discuss the existing conditions that were in effect at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved and therefore the identified project impacts would not occur in the manner analyzed by the SEIR. For the purpose of the Alternatives discussion, the No Project Alternative assumes that in the foreseeable future, proposed amendments to the Downtown Plan, General Plan, Local Coastal Program (LCP), zoning, and Beach/South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan (B/SOL Area Plan) would not be adopted. Thus, any future redevelopment of the area would be subject to provisions of the City’s existing adopted plans and zoning, as well as provisions of State law. Since redevelopment of the Project area is encouraged in the City’s General Plan and B/SOL Area Plan to provide future development and housing, it is likely that some number of mixedused commercial-residential projects would be proposed at some point in the future, although the type and timing of such projects are not known at this time. Based on City staff estimates, approximately 1,050 residential units could be developed under existing land use designations and zoning, and a reduction in existing commercial square footage could be expected with future redevelopment in the DPE area. Thus, future redevelopment under the No Project Alternative could result in potentially around 260 fewer residential units than could potentially be developed under the Project, excluding the option of any Density Bonus units added to future projects. The No Project Alternative could result in development that uses a State or Local Density Bonus to exceed development standards for height, FAR, residential density, stepback requirements, and any other standards restricting the potential development envelope of a project within the limits established by the State Density Bonus Law or local policy.
Construction of a new arena would not be specifically supported in the absence of the Project, but could be proposed in the future, which would require General Plan, LCP and zone district amendments.
2. Analysis of No Project Alternative’s Ability to Reduce the Significant Unavoidable Project Impact
Table 17-1 of the DSEIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives. The No Project Alternative would not have substantially different impacts than the Project because the No Project Alternative allows for substantial redevelopment of the project area over time, including projects that utilize a density bonus. While development of residential units could be somewhat lower under the No Project Alternative, the impacts related to redevelopment of the project area identified in this SEIR could occur at some time in the future depending on the redevelopment proposal.
Future redevelopment of properties could still result in the demolition of some or all of the five structures listed in the City’s Historic Building Survey and seven residential structures and 15 commercial structures that are over or near 50 years in age in the project area. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic
23.46 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 23 Statement of Overriding Considerations resource cannot be precluded, potential impacts to historical resources could remain significant and unavoidable under the No Project alternative.
3. Feasibility of No Project Alternative
The No Project alternative would not meet all of the Project objectives. The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because this alternative would not meet or would not fully meet the basic Project objectives related to improving mobility and connectivity, creating new public amenities, providing for additional housing (including below market rate housing), and future development with a mix of uses, and promoting economic growth related to a new arena. For all of the foregoing reasons and any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and declines to adopt it.
ALTERNATIVE 1 (Reduced Project)
1. Description
Alternative 1 would maintain the existing General Plan and zoning designations in the project area. The General Plan and LCP designations on Blocks B and D would remain High Density Residential (30.1 – 55 DUs/acre), and Block H would remain Medium Density Residential (20.1 – 30 DUs/acre) (instead of being designated Regional Visitor Commercial like the remainder of the project area as proposed) (see Figure 3-11 in the DSEIR). Zoning designations in the project area would remain CBD-E Subdistrict Lower Pacific Avenue, R-H Multiple Residence – High Density, R-M Multiple Residence – Medium Density, and R-T (C) Beach Commercial (instead of being designated CBD Central Business District as proposed) (see Figure 3-12 in the DSEIR).
Development intensity in the Regional Visitor Commercial designation is governed by a floor area ratio (FAR) of
3.5. Changing the General Plan designations would have resulted in an estimated residential development capacity of 1,310 units exclusive of any density bonus, and up to 1,800 units assuming some sites pursue density bonus projects increasing development capacity by 50% or more. Under Alternative 1, an estimated 1,050 units could be built exclusive of any density bonus, representing a reduction of about 260 residential units in the base case (20% less than proposed Project). Because commercial development is not permitted in the High and Medium Density Residential designations, this alternative assumes a future buildout of up to 60,000 sf of groundfloor retail for a net decrease of 16,700 sf, similar to the Project.
Building heights on Blocks B, D and H would be governed by existing zoning. The R-H Multiple Residence – High Density (Blocks B and D) and R-M Multiple Residence – Medium Density (Block H) designations allow a maximum building height of 48 and 35 feet, respectively
(exclusive of density bonus). Development standards associated with building stepbacks (tapering) would be the same as the Project, as would the requirement to prepare visual renderings for all future development and
23.47 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 24 Statement of Overriding Considerations redevelopment proposals, since those standards from the new plan would apply to the sites even if their existing General Plan and Zoning designations do not change. Alternative 1 could result in development that uses a State or Local Density Bonus to exceed development standards for height, FAR, residential density, stepback requirements, and any other standards restricting the potential development envelope of a project within the limits established by the State Density Bonus Law or local policy.
2. Analysis of Alternative 1’s Ability to Reduce the Significant Unavoidable Project Impact Table 17-1 of the DSEIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the identified significant unavoidable impact CUL-1 related to historical resources would remain unchanged. Future development under Alternative 1 could still entail the demolition of some or all of the five structures listed in the City’s Historic Building Survey and seven residential structures and 15 commercial structures that are over or near 50 years in age in the project area. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource cannot be precluded, potential indirect impacts to historical resources under Alternative 1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
The identified significant impact AQ/GHG-3 related to exposure to sensitive receptors would be slightly reduced.
The identified significant impacts BIO-3 and CUL-3 would remain unchanged. No new significant impacts would occur under this alternative. Other identified less-than-significant impacts would remain the same as the Project or would be slightly reduced in magnitude due to the reduction in the number of housing units.
3. Feasibility of Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would not meet all of the Project objectives. Alternative 1 would generally meet some of the Project objectives by providing future development with a mix of uses, improving mobility and connectivity, and promoting economic and responsible growth. However, due to a reduction of housing units, Alternative 1 would only partially meet the Project objectives regarding supporting goals of the Housing Element, facilitating the development of new housing focused in the downtown area, and encouraging a mix of housing types and affordability levels, which are critical to the City. Every additional unit is particularly important in the downtown, because the downtown is the most sustainable place to grow in the region when considering the concentration of jobs, housing, transit, goods, services, and entertainment and the reduction in vehicle miles travelled due to that concentration, meaning greater numbers of units in this region support climate change goals related to greenhouse gas emissions reduction relative to the emissions for development elsewhere in the region. The active modes of mobility in this area promote personal health and reduce household transportation costs, increasing the relative affordability for households, both of which are goals for the City. Additional residents in
23.48 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 25 Statement of Overriding Considerations the downtown also support the downtown business, event, and social ecosystem. A thriving downtown supports key economic development, cultural, and social goals for the City, and reducing the number of residential units runs contrary to many of these goals. Therefore, for all of these reasons, and any of them individually, Alternative 1 is rejected as infeasible because this alternative would not meet or would not fully meet these basic Project objectives and would be less consistent with broad City goals.
ALTERNATIVE 2 (Restricted Building Heights on Blocks B & D)
1. Description
Alternative 2 would restrict the building heights on Blocks B and D to a maximum of 70 feet (exclusive of density bonus). This height limit would be consistent with parcels fronting the San Lorenzo River north of Laurel Street in the Downtown Plan area (see Figure 3-15 in the DSEIR). The maximum building heights on Blocks A and C would remain at 85 feet, consistent with the Project and existing building heights north of Laurel Street. All other design requirements, including building stepbacks, would be the same as the Project.
Alternative 2 would reduce the maximum allowable building heights by 15 feet on Blocks B and D as compared to the Project but would not affect the amount of building area and would not change the number of residential units, as defined by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Limit, that could be constructed on site. The FAR is a ratio between total site area and building floor area that regulates the total amount of square footage that can be built on a site. Height and FAR work together to dictate the volume and dimensions of a building, and in this case, by changing the height limit for these sites, this alternative removes an allowance for slightly more variation in height on a property, but does not impact the total amount of square footage that could be built, excluding consideration of any Density Bonus. Alternative 2 could result in development that uses a State or Local Density Bonus to exceed development standards for height, FAR, residential density, stepback requirements, and any other standards restricting the potential development envelope of a project within the limits established by the State Density Bonus Law or local policy.
2. Analysis of Alternative 2’s Ability to Reduce the Significant Unavoidable Project Impact Table 17-1 of the DSEIR provides a comparison of impacts between the Project and alternatives. Under this alternative, the identified significant unavoidable impact CUL-1 related to historical resources would remain unchanged. Future development could still entail the demolition of some or all of the five structures listed in the City’s Historic Building Survey and seven residential structures and 15 commercial structures that are over or near 50 years in age in the project area. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource cannot be precluded, the Project’s indirect impact to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2.
23.49 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 26 Statement of Overriding Considerations The identified significant impact AQ/GHG-3 related to exposure to sensitive receptors would be similar to the Project. The identified significant impacts BIO-3 and CUL-3 would remain unchanged. No new significant impacts would occur under this alternative. Other identified less-than-significant impacts would remain the same as the Project.
3. Feasibility of Alternative 2
Under Alternative 3, the maximum building heights on Blocks B and D would be restricted to 70 feet (exclusive of density bonus), but would not affect the amount of building area and would not change the number of residential units that could be constructed on site. This alternative was determined in the DSEIR to meet all Project objectives. However, this alternative could result in less varied architecture, particularly as it relates to flatter rooflines but also as it relates to less building articulation, as compared to the Project. Thus, it does not meet the project objective to “Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land uses and development” as well as the Project does. Additionally, many of the goals and policies in the Community Design Chapter of the General Plan call for high quality and attractive design, including but not limited to at major gateways. Blocks B and D are highly visible as one travels into the downtown, and buildings on those sites will make key first impressions on travelers as they enter the gateway into the downtown. Having additional height in which to provide the square footage allowed in the 3.5 FAR allows for more varied architecture and site design and greater building articulation, since the allowable building area can be organized into a larger building envelope, allowing for larger building recesses, additional building tapering or stepbacks, or varied heights for the top floors. This opportunity for architectural articulation, particularly on the rooflines of buildings, will not only be visible at the gateway entering downtown but also from a distance.
As such, the higher height allowance of the Project is more desirable than the lower one in Alternative 2, as it provides greater potential for high-quality architecture and improved aesthetics with the same capacity for units. Thus, Alternative 2 does not meet the project objectives and various City goals related to high quality architectural and site design as well as the Project does. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, and any of them individually, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the Santa Cruz Downtown Plan Expansion will result in a significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. (See section VII, supra.) As determined above, however, there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would fully mitigate or substantially lessen the impact. Despite this effect, the City Council, in
23.50 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 27 Statement of Overriding Considerations accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the Project because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce render the significant effects acceptable.
Any one of these reasons, on its own, is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its determination that each remaining individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents included in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV, above. 1) The State of California has adopted AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) and SB375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008) with specific emphasis on promoting transit-oriented development and to link land use planning development decisions with transportation. The goal of these measures is to reduce vehicle miles traveled and thereby reduce GHG emissions through better land use planning. The Project represents sound land use planning principles with direct connections being made between increasing density for needed housing in the City and existing nearby transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and commercial uses. The Project aligns with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy Implementation Project that focuses on infill housing, transportation strategies and measures, and economic development. The Project will directly implement many General Plan policies and actions, such as those that call for the City to amend the Downtown Recovery Plan and the Beach and South of Laurel Plan to encourage and allow additional public and commercial uses along Lower Pacific Avenue and Front Street (LU3.5.1); revitalize the RiverFront area (ED 1.1.6); enhance Downtown as a welcoming and inviting destination for residents, visitors, and businesses (ED5.5.1); create a distinctive and active pedestrian environment downtown (ED5.5.4); require continuity of active ground-level uses (retail, restaurant, cultural, etc.) along Pacific Avenue (ED5.5.6); reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development (M1.1); increase land use efficiency and the walkability of activity centers (M1.5.1); enhance the pedestrian orientation of the Downtown Central Business District (M4.1.6); encourage land use changes that reduce automobile use (Policy LU4.2); and encourage mixed-use development downtown and along the City’s primary transportation corridors (LU4.1.1, LU4.1.3). The plan also encourages the assembly of small parcels along transportation corridors (CD3.3) through the anticipated consolidation of parcels and construction of residential units with ground floor commercial uses. The project site is within two blocks of the Santa Cruz Metro Center, and is within walking and biking distance to a variety of goods, services, employment, and recreational opportunities. The Project uses and location directly support and would not conflict with local, regional and state plans to reduce GHG emissions, and the analyses in the DSEIR found that the Project is consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan.
23.51 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 28 Statement of Overriding Considerations 2) As set forth in Government Code section 65580, the City has a responsibility to facilitate the development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Similarly, CEQA recognizes the importance of balancing the prevention of environmental damage with the provision of a “decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000(g).) The Project supports the City’s long-range plan for meeting regional housing needs, during the present and future housing cycles, while balancing environmental, economic, and fiscal factors and community goals. The Project consists of a series of amendments to the City’s Downtown Plan by extending the boundary of the existing Downtown Plan to incorporate the South of Laurel Area into the Downtown Plan boundary, to incorporate development standards and design guidelines for the project area and add other policies and standards to the Downtown Plan that will facilitate future redevelopment of the project area. The Project is consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the City’s Housing Element that seek to facilitate housing production that meets the present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz and provide affordable housing. As part of the 6th Cycle Region Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Sites Inventory (see Appendix G of the City’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element), the project area was identified as a key area to accommodate future housing. The Project would further support the City’s ability to meet minimum housing targets for the current RHNA cycle, but equally important, the increased residential capacity will support the City’s ability to meet future RHNA cycle targets. The presence of the arena is expected to create greater investment interest in new residential development, as those residents will have easy access to the array of social and cultural events held there. The Project also is consistent with Housing Element Policy 1.2 to concentrate most new housing in the central core, along major commercial corridors, and on major opportunity sites consistent with the Land Use Element. 3) The mix of uses supported by the Project promotes a wide array of economic, social, cultural, and fiscal goals of the City. General Plan Policy ED5.5 calls for the City to “Promote Downtown as the primary local and regional retail, entertainment, and cultural center.” The Project directly supports this objective, along with many other related objectives that call for a vibrant downtown, through new investments in commercial and residential uses, as well as infrastructure improvements that will support active transportation and public gathering. The housing will attract additional residents who will shop in stores, eat in restaurants, support service businesses, and create greater visibility for social and cultural events in the downtown, contributing to the economic, social, and cultural ecosystem downtown and increasing sales tax. Attendees of, participants in, and employees of events at the new arena will create similar benefits, and the arena’s events will also directly add to the social and cultural amenities in downtown. The regional draw of regular event attendees will result in downtown sales that may otherwise occur in other municipalities. The additional spending from attendees, as well as the admissions tax placed on ticket sales, support the City’s fiscal stability goals. The new arena is consistent with General Plan Objective CC2.1.2, which calls for the City to “provide leadership in the development of a performing arts center in the downtown area,” and it supports an array of other City goals as well, such as those outlined in this and other parts of this statement of overriding considerations (such as General Plan Policies ED5.5, M1.5.1, M4.1.6, LU3.5.1, and ED1.1.6), General Plan Policy CC3.9 (sustain long-term fiscal stability), and the Council-adopted 2023 – 2028 Citywide Strategic Plan Focus Area of Fiscal Sustainability and Transparency.
23.52 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 29 Statement of Overriding Considerations
4) While the CEQA evaluation process for projects has been established to identify adverse impacts to the physical environment, it is only one criterion for a jurisdiction to consider when evaluating the merits of a project. The CEQA process does not identify positive effects on the environment, and therefore, is limited in its application when evaluating the full range of changes resulting from land use decisions at a local level. The Project would result in many positive environmental impacts including: the creation of transit-oriented development in the downtown, which will directly lead to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and fewer GHG emissions per capita than development located further away from transit opportunities and increased opportunities for much-needed housing near the City’s job centers. The Project would result in redevelopment in an area of the City that is designated for that purpose. The active modes of mobility in this area promote personal health and reduce household transportation costs, increasing the relative affordability for households, both of which are goals for the City. Additional residents in the downtown also support the downtown business, event, and social ecosystem. A thriving downtown supports key economic development, cultural, and social goals for the City, and increasing the number of residential units in the downtown supports many of these goals. This combination of positive impacts is one reason that the City finds the benefits outweigh the identified unavoidable environmental impact in the SEIR.
X.
CONCLUSION
As explained earlier, the City Council has balanced these benefits and considerations against the significant unavoidable environmental effect of the Project. The City Council hereby concludes that this impact is outweighed by these benefits, among others. After balancing the environmental costs against the Project’s benefits, the City concludes that the benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable environmental impact. The City believes that the Project’s benefits outlined above override the significant unavoidable environmental costs associated with the Project.
23.53 City of Santa Cruz CEQA Findings of Fact and
General Plan 2030 Page 30 Statement of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT B
DOWNTOWN PLAN EXPANSION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Downtown Plan Expansion project has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA – Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097). A master copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the office of the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department and shall be available for viewing upon request.
23.54 Downtown Plan Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Monitoring / Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirements
Verification
of
Compliance
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Mitigation Measure AQ/GHG-3.1: Construction
Equipment Exhaust Control
All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment
greater than 75 horsepower shall be zero-emissions or
equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Tier 4 compliant engines. Alternatively, CARB Tier 2 or Tier 3 compliant engines can be used if CARB Level 3
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled
equipment. An exemption from these requirements may
be granted by the City of Santa Cruz when equipment
with the required tier is not reasonably available and
when corresponding reductions in diesel particulate
matter are achieved from other construction equipment
on the project. An exemption may only be granted if
total estimated project generated construction
emissions will not exceed applicable Monterey Bay Air
Resources District (MBARD) risk thresholds as verified
using industry-standard emission estimation
methodologies.
Include measure
as a Project
Condition of
Approval for all
future
development
projects in the
South of Laurel
District of the
Downtown Plan.
Implementation
actions are
specified in
measure.
City Planning and
Community
Development
Department staff is
responsible for
including measure as
Condition of Approval
as part of future
development
applications, consistent
with the most current
CARB regulations.
As part of
future
environmental
and project
review for
submitted
development
applications.
Future
Applicants to
submit
evidence of
compliance to
Planning and
Community
Development
Department.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Preconstruction Nesting
Survey
Require that a pre-construction nesting survey be
conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist if construction activities, including grading, excavation, and tree
removal, adjacent to the San Lorenzo River is scheduled to begin between February 1 and August 31 to
determine if nesting birds are in the vicinity of the
construction sites. The survey shall be conducted no
more than seven days before the start of any
construction activities on the site (including tree
Include measure
as a Project
Condition of
Approval for all
future
development
projects in the
South of Laurel
District of the
Downtown Plan.
Future Applicants are
responsible for hiring a
qualified wildlife
biologist to conduct the
pre-construction nesting
survey and submitting
to City.
City Planning and
Community
Development
Department staff are
As part of
future
environmental
and project
review for
submitted
development
applications.
Future
Applicants to
submit
evidence of
compliance to
Planning and
Community
Development
Department.
23.55 Downtown Plan Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Monitoring / Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirements
Verification
of
Compliance
removal, clearing, and excavation). If nesting raptors or other nesting species protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and/or California Fish and Game Code
(§3503) are found, construction may need to be delayed
until late-August or after the wildlife biologist has
determined the nest is no longer in use or unless a
suitable construction buffer zone can be identified by
the biologist, taking into account typical buffers
recommended by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. (Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Management
Plan Standard 12).
Implementation
actions are
specified in
measure.
responsible for including
measure as Condition of
Approval and reviewing
survey results.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL 1.1: Historic Resources
Assessment and Project-Level Mitigation
Require preparation of an historic resources evaluation for any development proposal containing a structure or
structures 50 years old or older and that are not
identified as historic resources in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. If the structure(s) may potentially meet the criteria for listing as an historic resource, and
proposed development would have the potential to
impact the historic significance of the structure(s), the development applicant shall provide an historic
assessment of the structure(s) prepared by a qualified
historic consultant. If it is determined by the City
Planning and Community Development Department
based upon the historic assessment that a development
would impact a structure that is eligible as an historic resource under CEQA definitions, the City shall consider measures that would enable the project to avoid direct
or indirect impacts to the building or structure, including designs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the building or structure can be preserved, but remodeling, Implementation
actions are
specified in
measure.
Future Applicants are
responsible for hiring a
qualified architectural
historian to conduct an
historic resources
evaluation for any
building or structure 50
years in age or older
that are not identified as
historic resources in the
Santa Cruz Historic
Building Survey.
City Planning and
Community
Development
Department staff are
responsible for
reviewing evaluation.
As part of
future
environmental
and project
review for
submitted
development
applications.
Future
Applicants to
submit
evidence of
compliance to
Planning and
Community
Development
Department.
23.56 Downtown Plan Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Monitoring / Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirements
Verification
of
Compliance
renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
Mitigation Measure CUL 1.2: Resource Documentation
If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved
and/or demolished, the City shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the
building and associated landscape and setting.
Documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record/history of the
building to the standards of the Historic American
Building Survey or Historic American Engineering
Record, including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available.
The record shall be prepared in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and filed with the
Office of Historic Preservation. The record shall be
accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This
information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history
collection as appropriate.
Include measure
as a Project
Condition of
Approval for
future
development
projects in the
South of Laurel
District of the
Downtown Plan
where a
significant
impact to a
historical
resource has
been identified.
Implementation
actions are
specified in
measure.
Future Applicants are
responsible for hiring a
qualified architectural
historian to document
the historic structure
and associated
landscape setting.
City Planning and
Community
Development
Department staff are
responsible for including
measure as Condition of
Approval.
As part of
future
environmental
and project
review for
submitted
development
applications.
Future
Applicants to
submit
evidence of
compliance to
Planning and
Community
Development
Department.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1: Cultural Sensitivity
Training and Tribal Monitoring
Require Native American construction monitoring of
future development projects within the project area to
include cultural sensitivity training for construction
workers and tribal monitoring during ground disturbing
construction.
Include measure
as a Project
Condition of
Approval for all
future
development
projects in the
South of Laurel
District of the
Downtown Plan.
Future Applicants are
responsible for:
Hiring a qualified
cultural resource
specialist to provide
training and monitoring
during ground
disturbing construction.
Hiring a qualified
archaeologist for
Prior to
excavation for
training, and
during ground
disturbance
activities for
monitoring.
Future
Applicants to
submit
evidence of
training and
monitoring
compliance to
Planning and
Community
23.57 Downtown Plan Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Monitoring / Reporting
Responsibility
Timing
Requirements
Reporting
Requirements
Verification
of
Compliance
Implementation
actions are
specified in
measure.
monitoring during
excavation.
Including monitoring
requirements in
construction
specifications in building
plans.
City Planning and
Community
Development
Department staff are
responsible for including
measure as Condition of
Approval.
Development
Department.
23.58 RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN 2030 BY MAKING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4 –
LAND USE, INCLUDING THE MAP OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
WHEREAS, the City adopted the General Plan 2030 by Resolution No. NS-28, 527 on June 26, 2012; and
WHEREAS, in December 2020 the City Council selected the boundary of the area to be studied for potential expansion of the Downtown Plan and directed staff to pursue funding to support a project to expand the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the work to consider the expansion of the Downtown Plan has included multiple community meetings, surveys, and focus groups as well as public hearings with both the City Council and the City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the text and maps in the 2030 General Plan are required in order to implement the expansion of the Downtown Plan boundary as currently proposed; and WHEREAS, at its April 17, 2025 meeting, the City Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the 2030 General Plan and found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and any adopted area or specific plan as proposed to be amended; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the 2030 General Plan have been analyzed as part of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project to expand the boundary of the Downtown Plan; and
WHEREAS, at its April 17, 2025 meeting the City Planning Commission passed a motion that recommended the City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed amendments, including Land Use Designation amendments, to the 2030 General Plan.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 13, 2025, and now finds:
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the adopted 2030 General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. The proposed amendments are consistent with other elements of the General Plan including the Circulation Element, the Housing Element, the Environmental Quality Element, and the Economic Development Element.
The public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and any adopted area or specific plan as proposed to be amended.
23.59 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendments have been assessed and have been determined to not to be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
4. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed amendments were evaluated as part of the project for which and Environmental Impact Report was prepared and has been certified by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, that it hereby adopts the amendment to the text of the Land Use Chapter and to the Map of Land Use Designations, as shown with strikeout of text to be deleted and underline of text to be added below and as in the Exhibit showing Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Maps and the associated List of Parcels for Redesignation.
RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC), 0.25 to 3.5 5.0 FAR. Applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts. Areas designated RVC include:
Downtown Santa Cruz, 0.25 to 5.0 FAR. Emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues. The Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area and includes a map showing FAR limitations by neighborhood. South of Laurel. Emphasizes mixed-use and residential development along with visitorserving and neighborhood commercial uses to connect the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.
Beach Area, 0.25 to 3.5 FAR. Emphasizes visitor-serving commercial uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and amusement parks, as well as residential and mixed-use development in the Beach Area neighborhoods. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.
For most areas designated RVC, the minimum and maximum development intensity is specified in the Downtown Recovery Plan or the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. In areas that are designated RVC but are not addressed in an Area Plan, the minimum FAR is 0.25 and the maximum is 1.75.
23.60 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2025, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED:______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
23.61 General Plan Text Amendments, strikeout and underline Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC), 0.25 to 3.5 5.0 FAR. Applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts. Areas designated RVC include:
• Downtown Santa Cruz, 0.25 to 5.0 FAR. Emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues. The Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area and includes a map showing FAR limitations by neighborhood. • South of Laurel. Emphasizes mixed-use and residential development along with visitorserving and neighborhood commercial uses to connect the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.
• Beach Area, 0.25 to 3.5 FAR. Emphasizes visitor-serving commercial uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, and amusement parks, as well as residential and mixed-use development in the Beach Area neighborhoods. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.
For most areas designated RVC, the minimum and maximum development intensity is specified in the Downtown Recovery Plan or the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. In areas that are designated RVC but are not addressed in an Area Plan, the minimum FAR is 0.25 and the maximum is 1.75.
23.62 23.63
FRONT ST
PACIFIC AV
3RD ST
2ND ST
CENTER ST
MAIN ST
CLIFF ST
CEDAR ST
1ST ST
LAUREL ST
SPRUCE ST
MAPLE ST
BIRCH LN
YOUNGER WY
WEST CLIFF DR
SYCAMORE ST
BARSON ST
SAN LORENZO BL
BEACH ST
DRIFT WY
RIVERSIDE AV
TRINITY ST
WAVE LN
WESTBROOK ST
WASHINGTON ST
VILLA MAR VISTA
LAUREL ST
Downtown Expansion
Area
2030 General Plan
Very Low Density
Residential (.1-1 DU/
Acre)
Mixed-Use Visitor
Commercial (MXVC), 1.0
to 2.75 FAR, 0 to 55
DU/AC
Mixed-Use High Density
(MXHD), 1.0 to 2.75
FAR, 10 to 55 DU/AC
Mixed-Use Medium
Density (MXMD), 0.75
to 1.75 FAR, 10 to 30
DU/AC
Low Density Residential
(1.1-10 DU/acre)
Low Medium Density
Residential (10.1-20
DU/acre)
Medium Density
Residential (20.1-30
DU/acre)
High Density Residential
(30.1-55 DU/acre)
Neighborhood
Commercial
Office
Community Commercial
Regional Visitor
Commercial
Industrial
Community Facilities
U.C.S.C. Development
Coastal Dependent
Coastal Recreation
Agriculture / Grazing
Parks
Parks/Community
Facilities
Natural Areas
0 125 250 500 Feet
Existing General Plan/Local Coastal Program
Land Use Designations
Downtown Plan Area
23.64 FRONT ST
PACIFIC AV
3RD ST
2ND ST
CENTER ST
MAIN ST
CLIFF ST
CEDAR ST
LAUREL ST
1ST ST
SPRUCE ST
MAPLE ST
BIRCH LN
BEACH ST
YOUNGER WY
WEST CLIFF DR
BARSON ST
SYCAMORE ST
DRIFT WY
SAN LORENZO BL
TRINITY ST
WAVE LN
WESTBROOK ST
VILLA MAR VISTA
WASHINGTON ST
LAUREL ST
Downtown Expansion
Area
Proposed General
Plan
Agriculture / Grazing
Coastal Dependent
Community Facilities
Community Commercial
Coastal Recreation
High Density Residential
(30.1-55 DU/acre)
Industrial
Low Density Residential
(1.1-10 DU/acre)
Low Medium Density
Residential (10.1-20
DU/acre)
Medium Density
Residential (20.1-30
DU/acre)
Mixed-Use High Density
(MXHD), 1.0 to 2.75
FAR, 10 to 55 DU/AC
Mixed-Use Medium
Density (MXMD), 0.75
to 1.75 FAR, 10 to 30
DU/AC
Mixed-Use Visitor
Commercial (MXVC), 1.0
to 2.75 FAR, 0 to 55
DU/AC
Natural Areas
Neighborhood
Commercial
Office
Parks
Parks/Community
Facilities
Regional Visitor
Commercial
U.C.S.C. Development
Very Low Density
Residential (.1-1 DU/
Acre)
0 125 250 500 Feet
Proposed General Plan/Local Coastal Program
Land Use Designations
Downtown Plan Area
23.65 List of Parcels Proposed for Redesignation in the General Plan Parcel
Number Street Address
Existing
General Plan
Proposed
General Plan
007-023-27 140 CENTER ST M RVC
007-032-01 220 FRONT ST H RVC
007-033-01 140 FRONT ST H RVC
007-033-02 203 LAUREL ST H RVC
007-033-03
203 LAUREL STREET
EXT 10 M RVC
007-033-04 126 FRONT ST M RVC
General Plan and LCP Land Use Designation abbreviations:
M: Residential Medium Density
H: Residential High Density
RVC: Regional Visitor Commercial
23.66 RESOLUTION NO. NS-_______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ADJUST AND
CLARIFY TEXT RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN
WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan, a Specific Plan, governs development of property within its boundaries in conjunction with applicable General Plan, Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Municipal Code requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan is part of the LCP Implementation Plan and therefore the proposal to expand the boundaries of the Downtown Plan constitutes an amendment to the LCP Implementation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project to expand the boundary of the Downtown Plan is consistent with the LCP and directly implements many LCP policies including: Policy EQ 2.3, EQ 4.6, EQ 5.3, CD 1.1, CD 3.4, CD 3.6, CD 3.7, CD 5.3, and L 5.3; and WHEREAS, amendments to the text and maps in the LCP Land Use Plan are required in order to implement the expansion of the Downtown Plan boundary as currently proposed; and WHEREAS, at its April 17, 2025 meeting, the City Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the LCP Land Use Plan and found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and any adopted area or specific plan as proposed to be amended; and
WHEREAS, at its April 17, 2025 meeting the City Planning Commission passed a motion that recommended the City Council approve the proposed additions and modifications to the LCP as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments and additions to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code have been analyzed as part of an Environmental Impact Report on the project to expand the boundary of the Downtown Plan.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 13, 2025, and now finds:
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the LCP and any implementation programs that may be affected. The proposed amendments are consistent with other policies of the LCP including Community Design, Land Use, and Circulation policies.
23.67 RESOLUTION NO. NS2
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendments have been assessed and have been determined to not to be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
4. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed amendments were evaluated as part of the project for which and Environmental Impact Report was prepared and has been certified by the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that with respect to the environmental review of the amendment to terminology that there is no substantial evidence that the amendment will have a significant effect upon the environment; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz, that it hereby adopts the amendment to the text of the LCP and to the Land Use Map, as shown with strikeout of text to be deleted and underline of text to be added below and as in the Exhibit showing Existing and Proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Maps.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: _____________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
23.68 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Text Amendments, strikeout and underline*
*(The amendments to the Beach/South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan are also amendments to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan are amendments to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan.)
Proposed amendments are shown in underline and strikeout. Text in green indicates changes added to the proposal since the publication of the Draft EIR.
Land Use
LU 1.1 Infill and intensify land uses consistent with existing neighborhood or commercial district patterns in developed areas currently served by municipal services. Prioritize development within the Downtown Plan boundary, where coastal resource concerns are more limited, to support visitors, businesses, and residents and to contribute to achieving housing targets established in the City’s Housing Element. Projects within the Downtown Plan boundary may utilize either State or City Density Bonus to achieve the increased density, height, and FAR needed to meet City goals related to housing, economic development, and connectivity with the San Lorenzo River. Within the Downtown Plan boundary seek to enhance and maximize public access opportunities and connections between the City’s downtown, the Riverwalk, and the beach/coast, while ensuring development protects coastal resources including water quality and public access to the river. (See policy L 2.1 and policies under L 2.6.3) Table L-11 — General Plan and LCP Land Use Designations General Plan
Land Use Designation
Residential
Density
(Dwelling Units
per Acre)
Employment
Density
Employees (E)
per Acre) 3
Allowable
Zoning
Districts 2
RESIDENTIAL
Very-Low-Density Residential Up to 1 du/acre 0 R-S-1A, R-S-5A, R-S-2A, R-S-10A
Low-Density Residential 1.1 - 10 0 R-1-5
R-1-7
23.69 R-1-10
Low-Medium-Density Residential 10.1 - 20 0 R-L
Medium-Density Residential 20.1 - 30 0 R-M
R-T(A) (B) (D)
High-Density Residential 30.1 - 55 0 R-H
R-T(A) (B) (D)
COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE
Neighborhood Commercial 0 - 30 Up to 30 E/Acre C-N
Community Commercial 0 - 30 Up to 60 E/Acre
FAR <= 2
C-C
Regional/Visitor Commercial4 0 - 30 Up to 80 E/Acre C-B CB-D
R-T(C)
Office4 0 - 30 Up to 60 E/Acre P-A
INDUSTRIAL
General Industrial 0 - 30 Up to 60 E/Acre I-G
Coastal-Dependent 0 Up to 20 E/Acre C-D
COMMUNITY FACILITIES4 0 Up to 80 E/Acre P-F
UCSC Varies Varies UCSC
OPEN SPACE
Parks 0 0 P-K
Coastal Recreation 0 0 OF-R, P-K
Agriculture/Grazing 1 DU/20 acres EA
Natural Areas 0 0 F-P
P-K
NA-O
1 The unit densities indicated in the chart above are based upon developable area, which excludes land having environmental constraints.
2 Coastal Zone (CZ-O), Flood Plain (FP-O), Shoreline Protection (SP-O), and Historic (H-O) Overlay Zones are potentially applicable to any land use designation and the High-Density Residential Overlay Zone (HD-O) may be applied to Community Commercial, Regional/Tourist Commercial and Central Business District Land Uses. 3 Employment Density Standards apply to the overall employment density maintained throughout the entire zoning district and are not site or project specific.
4 Note that development intensities for parcels within the City's downtown are governed by the standards of the Downtown Plan, a specific plan and part of the LCP Implementation Plan, together with the applicable zone district, rather than by the above standards.
23.70 Community Design
CD 2.2.1 Develop siting, scale, landscaping and other design guidelines to ensure development is compatible with protect visually sensitive areas and ensure that development is compatible with the character of responsive to the context of the site and the surrounding area, taking into account planned development and not just existing development. Areas to be protected include: open-space land uses, foothills, bluffs, scenic coastal areas, Beach Hill, Pogonip, Far West Side, Mission Hill, Moore Creek, DeLaveaga Park, and San Lorenzo River. (See policies CD 1.4, CD 3.5.4)
CD 3.5.4 Seek to Mmaintain visibility of the prominence of Beach and Mission hHills when development is proposed on or near it them. (See policies CD 2.2.1, ED 5.3.1 and CR
2.2.2)
23.71 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING
THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO EXPAND THE
BOUNDARY OF THE PLAN AND INCORPORATE NEW AND UPDATED DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Downtown Recovery Plan, a specific plan, by Resolution NS-20-084 on September 10, 1991, and adopted subsequent amendments to the plan in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2023 (including changing the name of the Plan to the Downtown Plan); and
WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to the Downtown Plan to expand the boundary of the Plan into the South of Laurel Area and incorporate new development standards and land use allowances in that area, and make various other updates and amendments to existing design and development standards; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan amendments will directly support numerous General Plan 2030 Land Use goals and policies including but not limited to: LU3.5.1 – Amend the Downtown Recovery Plan and the Beach and South of Laurel Plan to encourage and allow additional public and commercial uses along Lower Pacific Avenue and Front Street; ED 1.1.6 - Revitalize the RiverFront area; ED 5.5.1 - Enhance Downtown as a welcoming and inviting destination for residents, visitors, and businesses; ED 5.5.4 - Create a distinctive and active pedestrian environment downtown; ED 5.5.6 - Require continuity of active ground-level uses (retail, restaurant, cultural, etc.) along Pacific Avenue; M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development. M1.5.1 - Increase land use efficiency and the walkability of activity centers; M4.1.6 - Enhance the pedestrian orientation of the Downtown Central Business District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 17th, 2025 and found that the public necessity, and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered with the adoption of the Downtown Plan amendments; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designation set forth in the 2030 General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 13th, 2025 and now finds:
1. That the public necessity, the general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered with the amendments to the Downtown Plan and Local Coastal Program; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designation set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Downtown Plan specific plan, as amended.
2. The proposed Downtown Plan amendments are determined to be in the public interest.
23.72 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
3. The proposed Downtown Plan amendments are consistent and compatible with all elements of the adopted General Plan 2030 and associated implementation programs.
4. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the potential impacts of the proposed amendments have been assessed. Pursuant to the analysis contained in the Subsequent EIR to the Program EIR (certified by City Council by Resolution NS-29,324 on November 14, 2017) prepared by the City in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164: 1) the Project’s impacts have been fully analyzed, 2) Significant and unavoidable impacts to Historic Resources have been considered by the City, 3) a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted, and 4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been adopted.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that the referenced Downtown Plan amendments as shown in the two attachments to the Council packet: 1) the Downtown Plan Chapter 4 Amendments, Strikeout and Underline, with text to be added shown in underline and text to be deleted shown in strikeout, and 2) Proposed Downtown Plan Appendix 8 – South of Laurel Area are adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2025, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
23.73 City Council Public Hearing Draft Amendments to Downtown Plan Chapter 4 Proposed amendments are shown in underline and strikeout. Text in green indicates changes to the proposal since the publication of the Environmental Review Draft. Text in purple indicates changes to the proposal since the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
23.74 Development Standards and Design Guidelines